From the reading this week I understood Planning to be equal in art and science. To truly understand planning it cannot be viewed with one perspective in mind and not the other.
In the last 90 years there have been vast changes in the industry from what is expected of Planners and what society expects from the Planning profession. This is due to the rapid rate at which technological advancements have been implemented into the industry. As the literature says Planning was not a straight degree it was mixed with Architecture or Landscape Architecture. I think this is a really important point to consider as it gives context as to how Planning originated and the ideologies at that time. I don’t think the planning profession was taken seriously in the past as it was newly forming in its most basic element. Planning started out as drawing and graphs. We see today that Planning has become a broad and specific profession. Today this industry cannot be ignored with pressing issues e.g. population growth and limited resources. I think that the government and society expects planners and the industry to clean up the mess of the past due to a lack of planning.
Planning has become a profession on its own separate from degrees such as Architecture and Design. Although this is true in theory I do believe that society does not recognise fully Planning as a profession in its own right.
You last paragraph remins me of this article on SMH on planners' role in Australia. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/planners-lack-power-and-government-leadership-20100505-uar2.html
ReplyDeleteRichard
Thanks for the link Richard, I found the article to be very interesting. In reading it, it has reminded me once again that Planning is very much politics as we have learnt. I guess Planning is there when it suits the Government and when it doesn't...
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting way to look at Planning as a profession. Before reading this, i actually couldnt recognised the difference between Architecture and Planning. I am interested to find out about the ideologies and origins of Planning as a profession.
ReplyDeleteNice one your article was great, really interesting. Second paragraph last sentence is spot one :)
ReplyDeleteand we still get the question "so, what is planning?"
ReplyDeleteA lot of planning can be politically hi-jacked due to the uneven power of narrow focus groups. I think you have to differentiate between long tern and short term planning too. You will have noticed during the election the amount of talk around how we have failed to plan for the long term because politicians especially, tend to plan as far as the next election without having well thought out plans. this may be becuase they lack vision/expertise which is why the groups involved in "planning" should be as broad based as possible - aimed at using all the talents and of the community. Have a look at GPT/Newcastle debacle for an example of how wrong planning can go when it has a narrow focus and when business has too much power which results in public interest and cultures and heritage being sacrificed in the interests of profits. So agree v much with both your statements - needs to incorporate art and science and should not be a political issue.
ReplyDeleteJust to give a context to my post about Newcastle/GPT - Newcastle is a city centre in decay despite it being the 2nd biggest regional centre in NSW. They have been urged to follow the example of towns like Edinborough(Scotland) who used a university to regenerate their previously industrial city they have also been urged to follow the example of London - where empty build tax is imposed so that landlords cannot just hang onto buildings in the hope of selling them for a huge profit while the town dies. The NSW Gov has been "planning" the rejuvenation of Newcastle for about the last 15 years with no vison or foresight or action!
ReplyDeleteKim you have made several fantastic points.
ReplyDeletePlanning is politics. I agree with you that planning should not be a political issue but in the context of our society today it is. This makes it hard from the perspective of a planner. Is any real change going to occur? How can you make it less political? These two questions have really got me thinking how to implement change to be the most efficient.
It is phenomenal that the public interest of the community is often overlooked by governments/ politicians as they search for a short term fix to secure that extra vote. We as the community vote for Governments at such a frequent rate, that they are unable to provide policies into the future easily. As a society we want things now.
On the other hand we see many plans promised, which never see the light of day again and sit on an office shelf. This serves no purpose but a waste of tax payer dollars (along with the time wastes in community consultation.) It is interesting the example of Newcastle like anything if nothing is done the problem is just going to get worse and cost more to fix in the future. Hopefully by then it will be another governments problem right?
Thank you Kim they were two brilliant and in depth comments.
There have been many valid comments made. There are some visionaries in the field who espouse a very different approach to urban renewal and the efficient housing of the marginalised. Of course, as they are quite radical, finding town/city councils to back their ideas is a challenge refer Jeb Brugman). Who will be prepared to experiment with these ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe ridiculous state of politics in Australia at the moment is not at all conducive to long term planning on this scale. I fear we are many years away from anything approaching an enlightened initiative.