Conflicted Planning

The Reading: Planning in the Face of Conflict by John Forester

Continuing with the current theme of social planning, this week’s reading form John Forester informs the ideas about the inevitability of conflict within professional planning. Forester was a pioneering theorist behind participatory planning and planning activism. It is no doubt that these ideas run into conflict as the planner assumes many different roles not specifically related to planning. However, Forester explains, as have Paul Davidoff and Sherry Arnstein, that for planners to exist outside the studio, their interactions with the public and developers will lead to discussions, activism and eventually conflict.

The reading primarily examines land-use conflicts. These range from issues surrounding zoning, which often determines the scale of developments, as well as subdivisions and special permits. Often the planner can get caught in the crossfire; working for the developer while attempting to represent the needs of the people. It seems like a big game of tug-o-war with the planner as the rope. Within these conflicts, Forester says it is common for the planner to assume to role of the mediator or negotiator. They must reach a mutual understanding between developers and residents which achieves the minimum objectives of all interested parties, including municipal governments. Sometimes there is not always an even compromise, and Forester makes the astute observation that a municipal government may approve a project whereby the economic benefits outweigh community concern. 

This is where language becomes important. While planners, developers and government representatives may speak the same professional language, it might all seem like jargon when discussed at a community consultation night. Again, Foresters links this with tension and conflict, as planners can estimate the problems developers or government might have with a project, but every resident might have a different issue which needs to be discussed individually. Tim and Jian made an interesting point in their presentation that the rules regarding consultations are often pretty loose and can differ from state to state. I looked on the ACTPLA website to find out their requirements, some of which are statutory (legally binding), while others seems to be done purely out of consideration. The following have statutory consultation requirements:

·         Some development applications

o   Residential developments higher than three storeys and more than 50 units

o   A building with a total floor space of more than 7000 square metres

o   A building or structure intended to be higher than 25 metres

o   Applications to change concessional leases into leases that are not concessional leases.

·         Environmental Impact Statements

·         Territory Plan variations including Structure and Concept Plans for future urban areas

·         Road openings and closings.

Richard then posed a question to the class regarding whether we had ever participated in any consultation events. I had intended to go to a meeting regarding the Light Rail debate last semester but I kept forgetting/never got around to going. However, as Richard stated, a lack of participation represents the failure of planners and the government to engage the community. While I would like to think I am engaged, it’s hard to say that’s actually true if I never participate in planning dialogue. Maybe I lack the motivation, or maybe it’s because I don’t think one opinion can have a large impact, but as I have mentioned in previous blogs, if I’m not voicing my opinion, who are government listening to? Who takes my place in community discussions and do they really represent me?

Who Plans a Community?

The Reading: A Ladder of Citizen Participation by Sherry R. Arnstein

This week we discussed citizen participation in planning. I think it links well with the previous week of planning advocacy and the ideas of social inclusion through advocacy. It’s also a visit back to the 1960s, which seems to be the decade for big ideas and new directions in planning.

So there are 8 rungs on the Ladder of Citizen Participation. In ascending order, they are manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. I think in the past there has been a fear of participation. Maybe government bodies didn’t want to hear public criticism, or maybe, as we discussed in the tutorial, there may have been a level of elitism which prevented community ideas from being considered as they did not come from a well informed and educated place. All these prejudices only serve to restrict holistic planning.

The rungs are relatively self explanatory, with manipulation and therapy relating to non-participation, informing, consultation and placation relating to tokenism, and partnership, delegated power and citizen control relating to citizen power. It is the advantages and disadvantages of social planning and citizen participation which are interesting to discuss, and this was done well with the group activity. My group represented the advantages of citizen power and we discussed the benefits ranging from collaborative planning and active citizenship to how the community should be responsible for civic decisions as they are the most qualified to represent themselves. 

However, after reading Dan’s post from last week (http://planningemporium.blogspot.com.au/) and hearing Richard talk about how it was mainly older people at community meetings he attended in Batemans Bay, it strikes me that maybe the community cannot represent itself. Or at least the people that are impassioned about planning meetings do not adequately represent the community. This has to have some effect on the final result, or maybe this is why people feel like their ideas aren’t valued; when the people who attend the meetings are disproportionate compared with the whole community. I certainly wouldn’t want people speaking on my behalf, so I better hope I’m actively involved in community decisions. But should planners take the initiative and get people involved? Shouldn’t they use their power to provide the basis for citizen participation; isn’t it their responsibility? I guess it comes down to citizen control to achieve citizen participation and power. Planners need to direct discussions and ensure appropriate community representation in forums and discussions, which in turn links to advocate planning from last week. More fundamentally, can a community handle the citizen power that is granted to them through complete participation? It seems the 60s had something going on after all...

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.

The Early Years of Planning

 The Reading: Modernism and Early Urban Planning – Richard LeGates and Frederic Stout

 Just a heads up, I got a bit carried away so it's kind of long this week. I will try and be good next week haha.

So this week’s reading gave an introduction of the early movements of organised urban planning. Unsurprisingly, the need for planning grew out of the rapid urbanisation resulting from the Industrial Revolution. For the first time in history, more people lived in urban places than in rural areas and cities were soon overcrowded, leading to widespread poverty, crime and poor health. In this sense, urban planning can be seen to have spawned from a social policy to address the poor living standards or urban populations.

The Parks Movement was a response to the crisis of industrial urbanism. The establishments of places like Victoria Park in London and Central Park in New York City provided much needed relief from the dense urbanisation. I think Canberrans can often take open space for granted due to our low density city. But for other people parks provide a refuge, and this was the intention of the Park Movement. Having lived overseas, I understand and appreciate the ability to go to a large green-space in the middle of a city. I think this is why large city parks in Europe and America especially are so highly valued, but also why Canberra green-space seems under-developed and at some times wasteful. When a resource such as a park is limited, people will work hard to preserve it.

This ties in well with the Garden City and City Beautiful movements. In extreme cases, they can be viewed as utopian ideals that rejected the modernisation the built environment. I think this is why the Garden City movement didn’t really take off, especially when you look at Ebenezer Howard’s original vision of publicly owned land and housing co-operatives. A middle class was starting to emerge and people were beginning to find it more affordable to own their own homes. They didn’t want to give this up for the sake of a planning experiment.

The Royal Exhibition Building, Melbourne (left) and Thomas Moran's painting of the World's Columbia Exposition (right)

  

The City Beautiful movement, however, attempted a more holistic approach to urban planning. It represented a marriage of artistic principles and spatial analysis to achieve a synthesised approach to planning that both functional and beautiful. The crowning glory of this movement was the World’s Columbian Exposition (Chicago World Fair) of 1893. Despite the massive construction works, only two of the two hundred buildings remain, albeit the most grandiose structures from the Fair. It is interesting to note that Chicago is also the birth of the skyscraper, with the ten storeys high Home Insurance Building constructed in 1885. Planners followed with the Chicago Plan in 1909 which was the first metropolitan plan of the 20^th Century. It is important to note that Walter Burley Griffin was from Chicago, and his original plans for Canberra are far more representative of the Columbian Exposition than the Canberra we have today. The influence was seen in the Melbourne International Exhibition of 1880, with similarities between the Royal Exhibition Building and the Palace of Fine Arts in Chicago, built thirteen years later.

Contrasting designs for Paris: Le Corbusier's proposal (left) and Haussmann's celebrated renovation (right)

The influence of modernism and minimalism were brought together through Progressivism and the City Efficient movement. The influence of science and rationalism was clear, which links to last week’s reading and the notion of science above art in the early 20^th Century. This links with La Corbusier and the International Style which reflected sleek, dominating structures. Thank god Paris didn’t adopt Le Corbusier’s plans to demolish the centre of Paris north of the Seine and replace is with bleak offices and apartments that went against all the organic principles of Haussmann’s mid 19^th Century renovation. It seems physical determinism represents the ego far more than is represents society. I think planners have now realised that the city can be a well functioning machine without a rigid structure and lack of aesthetics.