-->
The Reading: “Practitioners and the Art of Planning”, Eugenie
Ladner Birch, 2001
This week’s reading focussed on the Art of Planning and to a
lesser extent its relationship with science. I was teamed with Alex and we
presented our thoughts on the reading to the class. It was a pretty dry history
of planning and the emergence of art as a key principle within the profession.
Science was also mentioned within the reading, and we asked everyone what they associated
with both art and science.
The answers were pretty simple; art makes people think of creativity,
galleries, emotion and self expression while science makes people think of
laboratories, test tubes and generally sterile environments.
Art vs Science (lol |
Birch described the art of planning within the context of
design, craft and presentation.
Design refers to the physicality of planning; the urban structure
and “arrangement of land and buildings to the creation of visions for ideal
communities” (p. 407). There are some liberties within this aspect of the art
of planning but it is generally more regimented than other aspects.
The craft aspect refers to the planning techniques. This is
probably the most scientific of three aspects and involves an “understanding of
legal, quantitative, social science [and] geographic” (p. 407) elements.
Ultimately it involves the academics behind the planning. Without this
background knowledge and education, a planner lacks the context of planning as
a profession.
Presentation is the final aspect in the art of planning. This
is the skill of the planner, not only artistic but administrative, judgement
and their ability to think critically. It is the presentation aspect that
represents the multi-disciplinary nature of planning. The nature of planning is
such that planners must play different roles within a single occupation.
Ultimately, planning can never be mutually exclusive. While
the traditionally artistic principles of imagination, aesthetics and social
inclusion are imperative to successful planning, it also relies on the
formulaic approach of science. There must be a method and an investigation.
Planners must know what is desired, by the community, by the financiers. Freedom
of expression is one thing, but without boundaries of science, even the best
plans might be completely inefficient and unsatisfactory. This is often why
utopias fail. Planning cannot succeed on ideology alone. To use a simile I referred
to in my presentation, a planner is like a dancer. While emotional expression
and theatrics make a great performance, there must be a foundation of technical
skill on which to base that creativity.
Source: http://www.nedlands.wa.gov.au/ |
Thus our knowledge of planning theory must inform our
decisions as future planners. Planners, like the urban planning profession,
must adapt to new challenges. Without an opportunity for self reflection there
is no time to learn from past mistakes.