Art, Science and Planning

-->

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.