Planning theory aantekeningen
Hoorcollege 1
Hoorcollege 2
Hoorcollege 3
Crittique 1:Crituque of the way of planning
2 and 3: more of the of planning
Charles Lindblom (1); disjoint incrementalism
Disjoint; unconnected; more creatively steps that u follow; no very
logical way of planning
Limited rationality > is bounded rationality
What is good enough; when do u decide what its good enough for
everybody
The idea of planning is not anymore very technical with different
steps > but more intuition
Lindbloms essay; discusses two ways of planning
Two ways of formulating policy; Root method vs branch method
Root; start from the root whith collecting data and identifying the
problem > rational model; rebuild from the roots up; start with lots
of research; starting from scratch, looking at all different options.
Branch; planners chose between very limited possibilities; relies on
past experiences to predict; don’t have the time to do all that
research, don’t have enough knowledge, I don’t know what an
optimal path would look like > chose a path that already exists and
work from there. Doesn’t consider all the possible paths and goals.
Goals in the rational planning model must agree with before the start of
planning; Lindblom says it’s very difficult to agree on goals; most of the
time planners don’t agree and have different values.
What does it mean to agree on means and not on goals?
Incrementalism is something that we see more often in planning:
Buiksloterham; very small changes to what was already there. Don’t
make radical changes > it is projected in the planning and the
transformations of cities
,Advocacy planning (2 critique)
Not all the stakeholders are represented in the process > we need to
change that > otherwise planning is just promoting the privileged.
Pluralism in planning (we should have plural voices in the way we plan) >
we should not have one best plan but different plans that are competing to
each other.
Advocacy and pluralism in planning: west 99th and 98th street new York:
community of writers and artists. In 1949 chaotic old neighbourhoods got
rebuild > everybody had to move. New house where build by private
companies instead of the government. We can still see these ideas in
modern planning. Olympics; a lot of villages have been removed for the
Olympics. We need to think about the consequences.
Three main critiques
Unitary > pluralism (more voices)
Centrialized public planning agency > should be a true democratic
process; create different plans that compete to each other.
Planning should not focus to much on the fysical planning but more
on inclusive….
Quote from Davidoff
Bifurcation (tweesprong) of the public interest > there is no one
public interest; if we don’t break down the idea of plural interest,
people have different positions that can be calculated in models. If
we don’t have one interest, how do we deal with the different
interests. We really need to change the way of planning (inclusion)
Planning should not be technical anymore but it should be political; we
should be open to a democratic process that should start at the
neighbourhood level.
Planners should be this person that can include people that are
traditionally excluded from the planning process.
Inclusion: not the word inclusion as an empty box; most of the time it’s a
bit of participation. You really need to think about the type of people and
the type of knowledge.
Critique 3 the mediations of radical planning (friedman)
(learn all the names of planners for exam; these are names that u need to
know)
,Transformative theory: the relationship between theory and practice needs
a transformation which is progressive. The theory that must be used in
planning
Link between theory and practice
We see the connection very strongly with practise in the theory. the role of
the planner is a mediator between a theory and practice.
The janus faced role of the radical planner:
The planner is in a very specific position; their role is to connect
these practises. the planner hase specific knowledge in form of
transformative theories, he tries to connect transformative theories
to transformative practise
Oppositional planning: More bottom up
Two face because he looks at one direction: theory and the other
direction: practice. It needs to be involved in both. He needs to
connect both directions.
Theory provides a normative direction, but practise is a bit different
Radical planning needs to deal with the challenges: they are in the middle
of theory and practice. You can decide a very specific direction, but u have
to adapt and make compromises. Planners connect this aspect what is
very difficult to connect: theory and practice.
Three critiques = radical practice
Hoorcollege 4
Hoorcollege 5
Sustainability
Resources shouldn’t be used when the environment has capacity for
Meeting needs present without jeopardizing those of the future
Social inequalities shouldn’t perpetuated into future making
something more sustainable
Brundtland definition > influenced by pollution problems and oil crisis
Earthrise picture; important picture in sustainability; important moment in
the 60s
Earth overshoot day: fictional measurement: what we can use in a year is
only what we can grow in a year. They do this for each country; to see
their use. The Netherlands used all their sources for the year in April.
Is sustainability a useful concept for planners
Yes; if it happens elsewhere, we need to do it too
, Yes; space is a finite resource
Yes; to translate in concrete action
No; it’s too limiting
No; is it convenient? Its difficult
No; depends how u use it
We have the assumption that sustainability is good
Green cities, growing cities, just cities
First time sustainability and planning are put together
When planners plan, what goal should they serve?
Triangle: is it possible to balance these three things
Paper is analytical vs normative > theories how things are and
theories how things should be; in this paper we see both.
The planners triangle
We need to make cities providable > city for production,
consumption
Green flavour: city as a consumer of resources and producer of
waste
City as a place of conflict of the resources
Which do u give priority; can these all be combined or not?
He says these goals all exists at the same time but they conflict >
where we want to end up is the middle; we want to work towards it
but we can never achieve it > we still have to try.
Normative > because we should be working to it
Conflicts:
Property conflict
Economic growth and equity
Competing claims and uses of property
Each side resits each other but also needs each other; gentrifying
professionals vs people already living their > they don’t like each
other but they also need each other (residents need the facilities for
example)
Private interest and the public good; which do u serve?
Resource conflict
Polder rijnenburg > some say we need to focus on development
some say on other things
Hoorcollege 1
Hoorcollege 2
Hoorcollege 3
Crittique 1:Crituque of the way of planning
2 and 3: more of the of planning
Charles Lindblom (1); disjoint incrementalism
Disjoint; unconnected; more creatively steps that u follow; no very
logical way of planning
Limited rationality > is bounded rationality
What is good enough; when do u decide what its good enough for
everybody
The idea of planning is not anymore very technical with different
steps > but more intuition
Lindbloms essay; discusses two ways of planning
Two ways of formulating policy; Root method vs branch method
Root; start from the root whith collecting data and identifying the
problem > rational model; rebuild from the roots up; start with lots
of research; starting from scratch, looking at all different options.
Branch; planners chose between very limited possibilities; relies on
past experiences to predict; don’t have the time to do all that
research, don’t have enough knowledge, I don’t know what an
optimal path would look like > chose a path that already exists and
work from there. Doesn’t consider all the possible paths and goals.
Goals in the rational planning model must agree with before the start of
planning; Lindblom says it’s very difficult to agree on goals; most of the
time planners don’t agree and have different values.
What does it mean to agree on means and not on goals?
Incrementalism is something that we see more often in planning:
Buiksloterham; very small changes to what was already there. Don’t
make radical changes > it is projected in the planning and the
transformations of cities
,Advocacy planning (2 critique)
Not all the stakeholders are represented in the process > we need to
change that > otherwise planning is just promoting the privileged.
Pluralism in planning (we should have plural voices in the way we plan) >
we should not have one best plan but different plans that are competing to
each other.
Advocacy and pluralism in planning: west 99th and 98th street new York:
community of writers and artists. In 1949 chaotic old neighbourhoods got
rebuild > everybody had to move. New house where build by private
companies instead of the government. We can still see these ideas in
modern planning. Olympics; a lot of villages have been removed for the
Olympics. We need to think about the consequences.
Three main critiques
Unitary > pluralism (more voices)
Centrialized public planning agency > should be a true democratic
process; create different plans that compete to each other.
Planning should not focus to much on the fysical planning but more
on inclusive….
Quote from Davidoff
Bifurcation (tweesprong) of the public interest > there is no one
public interest; if we don’t break down the idea of plural interest,
people have different positions that can be calculated in models. If
we don’t have one interest, how do we deal with the different
interests. We really need to change the way of planning (inclusion)
Planning should not be technical anymore but it should be political; we
should be open to a democratic process that should start at the
neighbourhood level.
Planners should be this person that can include people that are
traditionally excluded from the planning process.
Inclusion: not the word inclusion as an empty box; most of the time it’s a
bit of participation. You really need to think about the type of people and
the type of knowledge.
Critique 3 the mediations of radical planning (friedman)
(learn all the names of planners for exam; these are names that u need to
know)
,Transformative theory: the relationship between theory and practice needs
a transformation which is progressive. The theory that must be used in
planning
Link between theory and practice
We see the connection very strongly with practise in the theory. the role of
the planner is a mediator between a theory and practice.
The janus faced role of the radical planner:
The planner is in a very specific position; their role is to connect
these practises. the planner hase specific knowledge in form of
transformative theories, he tries to connect transformative theories
to transformative practise
Oppositional planning: More bottom up
Two face because he looks at one direction: theory and the other
direction: practice. It needs to be involved in both. He needs to
connect both directions.
Theory provides a normative direction, but practise is a bit different
Radical planning needs to deal with the challenges: they are in the middle
of theory and practice. You can decide a very specific direction, but u have
to adapt and make compromises. Planners connect this aspect what is
very difficult to connect: theory and practice.
Three critiques = radical practice
Hoorcollege 4
Hoorcollege 5
Sustainability
Resources shouldn’t be used when the environment has capacity for
Meeting needs present without jeopardizing those of the future
Social inequalities shouldn’t perpetuated into future making
something more sustainable
Brundtland definition > influenced by pollution problems and oil crisis
Earthrise picture; important picture in sustainability; important moment in
the 60s
Earth overshoot day: fictional measurement: what we can use in a year is
only what we can grow in a year. They do this for each country; to see
their use. The Netherlands used all their sources for the year in April.
Is sustainability a useful concept for planners
Yes; if it happens elsewhere, we need to do it too
, Yes; space is a finite resource
Yes; to translate in concrete action
No; it’s too limiting
No; is it convenient? Its difficult
No; depends how u use it
We have the assumption that sustainability is good
Green cities, growing cities, just cities
First time sustainability and planning are put together
When planners plan, what goal should they serve?
Triangle: is it possible to balance these three things
Paper is analytical vs normative > theories how things are and
theories how things should be; in this paper we see both.
The planners triangle
We need to make cities providable > city for production,
consumption
Green flavour: city as a consumer of resources and producer of
waste
City as a place of conflict of the resources
Which do u give priority; can these all be combined or not?
He says these goals all exists at the same time but they conflict >
where we want to end up is the middle; we want to work towards it
but we can never achieve it > we still have to try.
Normative > because we should be working to it
Conflicts:
Property conflict
Economic growth and equity
Competing claims and uses of property
Each side resits each other but also needs each other; gentrifying
professionals vs people already living their > they don’t like each
other but they also need each other (residents need the facilities for
example)
Private interest and the public good; which do u serve?
Resource conflict
Polder rijnenburg > some say we need to focus on development
some say on other things
