Planning Prejudices

This week’s blog is inspired by Susan Fainstein's New Directions in Planning Theory. 

After Angus and Cherry's presentation Richard told us of Susan's bias towards the Just City model and this is why there was little critique of it, as opposed to the criticism of the Communicative Model and New Urbanism. This got me thinking as to what are my values that prevent me from exploring an issue to the fullest and do all planners have this problem?

I thought about my values that I bring to the table with me that influence my decision making. These included:

·        I grew up in a small fishing village. I guess the only thing that I really noticed was the lack of public transport. Anyone needing to go to the nearest town, 45mins away, could only take the school bus which took twice as long, and only ran on school days and to meet school timings. I personally highly value public transport. Everywhere I’ve lived I have chosen my home to be near public transport.

·        Growing up on the coast, where the river meets the sea, and surrounded by national park I value the access to quality open space but also recognise the need for a settlement to grow for economic prosperity.



The Village i grew up in.



·        In more recent times in my life investing in real estate has begun to influence my views on density and development. I question council’s sometimes obvious contradiction in policy and vision for their city or town. I also question development contribution fees. I don’t see councils increasing open space in already established areas, or how an increase in the number of residents will make grass grow any faster to increase park maintenance costs?

·        After a couple of trips overseas it is so easy to see where major infrastructure is failing our country. In Europe high speed rail connections are beginning to replace air routes due to time and the ability to work. The transformation of old city centres into pedestrian, cycle  and public transit friendly places shows that city centres don’t need to be over run by cars.



Amsterdam



Rome

These are just a few of my values, I wonder what are yours?

Planning Maturity

This weeks blog is inspired by Nigel Taylor's  Anglo-American Town Planning Theory since 1945: Three Significant Development but no Paradigm Shifts.

Since the end of the WWII there has been a maturing of the planning profession. From the architecture inspired of the early 1900s to distinct area with its own evolving theories and modes of practice. And as a true profession there were distinct differences in the way the practitioners believe that the job should be done emerging.

Le Cobusiers Modernist view of

'Towers in the Sky' surrounded by

parkland and freeways neglected the

needs of people.

 

Jane Jacobs Greenwich Village in NYC.

Jacobs' Post Modernist view of a world that

should be varied, diverse, a mixture of old

and new. Jacobs book 'The Life and Death of

Great American Cities' expands on all

these elements and is well worth the read.

 

One of the emerging schools of thought was that a planner was not only a person to make the city pretty but they also need to be able to follow a process of inclusion and research. The shift of planner’s role from creating the pretty to following a process brought legitimacy to the profession that wasn’t there in the early years. The other emerging thought was the way in which the city was designed. The post modernist view, of complexity being critical for a vibrant city, contradicted with the earlier modernist views of simplified order, promoted by the likes of Ebenezer Howard and Le Corbusier.

The shift from pretty to process, from modernism to post modernism shows that the planning profession is able to revolutionise their own planning theory and process.

Planning Theories: Improving Cities for People

This belated post is inspired by Richard T LeGates and Frederic Stouts' Modernism and Early Urban Planning.

Haarlem City Map 1550

Historically people settled together for trade, religion, services, and safety. This often occurred is strategic locations, with the convergence of numerous transport routes, and was the seat of administration and law enforcement.

The benefits of common settlement were accompanied by numerous issues such as poor sanitation, over crowding, poverty, crime, and poor health.

One of Riis'  famous
How the Other Half Lives
photographs.

The emergence of the industrial cities of the 18th and 19th centuries saw mass migration of rural people to the urban areas to work in the factories creating incredible deprivation and social polarisation.

In London the increase of port, factories and the importance of the financial district saw the population increase from 800,000 in 1800 to 1.8 million in 1840. Similarly in New York the population grew from just under 500,000 in 1860 to over 5 million by 1910.

These massive population increases saw urban issues, such as poor sanitation, over crowding, poverty, crime, and poor health, further exacerbated.

Queen Street Mall in Brisbane.

To combat these issues modern planners created a number of planning theories to combat what they saw as social ills.

Ultimately the early urban planning theories were about the creation of cities are for the people in them.

I think that is still the ultimate aim of planning today. The challenges and issues may have evolved, but the greatest driver is still about creating cities that have a positive influence on the people that live in them.