Public Planning for Public Spaces

The Reading: Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning (1965) by Paul Davidoff

This week’s reading raises the important idea that planners are activists, or at least they can be if they choose to take on the responsibility. The creation of this concept is not surprising considering the context of the article; written in 1965 in the middle of the American Civil Rights Movement. However, this was a very important concept and revolutionised the development of planning theory. While it may seem second nature to include community discussion and involvement as the first step in a planning project, Davidoff’s ideas came from the sterile environment of traditional planning that lacked the connection to the communities for which they were planning. There becomes a distinct link between planning and social policy. 

The planner as advocate represents the social responsibility and power a planner holds to create equity within a community. Davidoff raises the important point that an advocate cannot be a neutral agent, stating “Appropriate planning action cannot be prescribed from a position of value neutrality, for prescriptions are based on desired objectives.” This is where pluralism becomes involved. A community is full of different opinions and desires, and in order to represent the needs of the community, planners must hold consultations. Davidoff claims that pluralism is the process, and the role of planner as advocate is how the process is achieved.

Davidoff finishes the reading with a comment on the state of planning education. He acknowledges the need to diversify planning education, as he notes many planning agents are “specialists in only one or more of the functions of city government.” The development of a planning education demands the coordination of several distinct functions, as planning advocates must have the technical skills to analyse planning problems, but also propose sufficient solutions which represent the social objectives of the community. 

Ultimately, this reading captures Davidoff’s legacy for Social Planning. He challenged planners to assess their moral obligations to society. He reacted to the modernist approach of planning seen from last week’s reading, focussed on the physicality of a city. As we saw from the TED clip we also watched, many cities still struggle with the practice of social planning. While the concepts are regularly studied and talked about, their lack of realisation presents an important challenge to contemporary planning.