Post 6

Downtown is for People

Jane Jacobs

I found the reading this week was very easy to read and straight to the point. I think the text this week is a great example of a good writing, in the sense that it is very easy to read and simplistic. Jacobs writing style allows her to get her point across without the pretentious wording and jargon of the industry which I felt was the reading last week of Susan Fainstein.

For me Jane Jacobs brought back the idea of planning to its simple form, to service the community. The way in which she draws upon her rationale was by simple observation. I think as a Planner it’s easy to forget with the ticking of boxes and the approval ratings when sometimes things just do not translate from paper to the real world. I think also we get caught up in the politics and red tape and forget once again what planners are really meant to be doing.... who do they service?

 I think because Jacobs did not come from a ‘planning background’ she was able to make the most logical judgments using common sense and not what people should use if when the planner implements this etc. I think her ideas of the street are mostly with smaller spaces attracting more people with acceptations e.g. Darling Harbour wide walk space-still attract masses of people.

Post 5

New Directions In Planning Theory

Susan Fainstein

This week the reading explored the ideas of the Communicative model, New Urbanism and a Just City. 

These three models are fantastic to theorise, but to what extent are they implemented?  In my understanding and I’m sure somewhat naivety I think Communicative Planning and New Urbanism are much easier to address than a Just City.

Although community consultation is not an easy thing to negotiate it is easy to gauge the result obtained from the communication that has taken place. In reference to New Urbanism it is a way of thinking which can also be easily gauged through the design orientation that is practiced. When looking at a Just City how do you really measure it? There is always going to be someone or a group of people that are underrepresented. I think it is a great concept and theory but I do not think it is a guide line which should be studied alone. This is not to say that a Just City and therefore Society are not important, but I do not think that it can just be set aside as an ideology and not integrated with other ideologies and thinking. When looking at a Just City in isolation it almost looks unachievable as a concept to be improved on. The flow-on effect from this is a build up of the problem which is then too great to be tackled. It is then just bypassed completely as it has become too hard and complex. When you think about it how many times has this happened in your community project? Was it achievable when the plan was simplistic?   

A question to think about!

Okay so maybe you have/haven't put much thought into this or even noticed?
Why do we walk, drive, or ride one way, but then take a different route back?

Post 4

The focus of study this week was Anglo-American Town Planning Theory since 1945: Three Significant Developments but no Paradigm Shifts- Nigel Taylor

The focal point for this week was to understand the ideological changes in planning post 1945. From this text I understood that planners looked at towns from just a physical/morphological view which then extends to a more broad perspective of towns in their physical, aesthetic and a focus on the interrelated activities in a state of constant change/flux.

The point that most interested me about this text was that most planning theorists have openly acknowledged the value-laden and political nature of planning. I find this idea creative in the sense that town planning gives the general public the opportunity to have an opinion and be valued for their judgment. In some industries the professional appears to know all, and the general populous are considered inferior because they are excluded from the process. In this regard, I have found planning to be the antithesis of this approach.

From this reading I got the impression that planning as we know it is constantly changing so why should a paradigm shift have taken place since 1945 as there have been multiple changes in planning over the past 90 years. I would be ignorant not to say that it will continue to change exponentially in the future. I think this is the radical nature of planning.

Post 3

Modernism was the focus for this week. I found a definite correlation between one concept of movement to the next. An example of this correlation is The Parks movement shifting towards the Garden City movement and then to the City Beautiful movement. Elements of the Parks City movement can be seen in the City Beautiful movement. The point is that it is much easier and in fact makes more sense to start off with an idea than to build from no idea at all. Once an idea is formed or a plan is established, this gives some sort of foundation to build and rebuild. We can see this follow-on effect over the movements and is still true today. Although we as planners may find multiple faults with many plans that have been established they have been planned based on a certain mind set, context, culture and knowledge available.

For me this week I thought it was important to recognise that past plans were innovative for the time and important for development and change in the future. Although innovation is great sometimes the best ideas are those with the most simplistic idea behind them. I think sometimes in our society we want to be better than the last, unique and have the best idea... and yes we do need new ideas but not lose the original/old ideas that have been working. If we look at ancient cities such as Rome, Greece and Egypt we can see still learn from their ideas and innovations even today in a modern context. It is important to research and understand planning as a profession but I don’t think we as students should solely focus on these aspects but also go back to the basics and study the natural and built environment like planners have in the past. Forming our own ideas and concepts of what we really think and not directly what planners in the profession think.