Urban planning community

Poll results: More art or more science?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Art

    26 56.52%
  • Science

    10 21.74%
  • Other (explain below)

    10 21.74%
+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 66

Thread: Is planning an art and/or science?

  1. #26
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally posted by acchhhoooo
    When I say academics, same standpoint, undergraduate or masters. PHD leaps and bounds ahead of the two aforementioned.
    Okay. But when I think academics, I think the field, not the class room... as the classroom is obviously 'make-believe' for the most part, unless you are doing a class project that will actually be used by someone. Now the Academy is research, research, analyze, publish. (the Acadamy being leaps and bounds over the aforementioned. )

    Quote Originally posted by acchhhoooo
    Look at the crap we studied about in school, the chicago plan, the grand master, the pimp daddy. Please, the components, the elements, implementation, data analaysis & collection, selection of alternative, formulation of goals & alternatives, problem identification, monitoring & feedback, IN A NUTSHELL, the decision making process. Something we are all taught to do in school but never properly shown (someone please doubt me on this point, it was my thesis) how to complete. So I blame and have hence burned all my planning textbooks as my show of dissapproval for this false artform.
    I am not sure where you went to school , but I value the education I recieved in the planning program. I learned how to work on group projects with deadlines, where we made plans... pretty much the same thing I did once I got out in the "real world".

    Though, I do admit, there was an unrealistic assumtion that once you got your MSP, you would be able the change the world.

    ...what was I supposed the doubt you on agian... becuase I doubt you BEYOTCH

    (not really)
    "Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill

  2. #27
    BANNED
    Registered
    Oct 2004
    Location
    downthestreet
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally posted by H
    Okay. But when I think academics, I think the field, not the class room... as the classroom is obviously 'make-believe' for the most part, unless you are doing a class project that will actually be used by someone. Now the Academy is research, research, analyze, publish. (the Acadamy being leaps and bounds over the aforementioned. )



    I am not sure where you went to school , but I value the education I recieved in the planning program. I learned how to work on group projects with deadlines, where we made plans... pretty much the same thing I did once I got out in the "real world".

    Though, I do admit, there was an unrealistic assumtion that once you got your MSP, you would be able the change the world.

    ...what was I supposed the doubt you on agian... becuase I doubt you BEYOTCH

    (not really)

    After lighting my incense, consulting the stones and giving proper thanks to my dubba idol, I concede to the fact I'm not sure what we are discussing anymore...like the majority of our conversations. And as a final "up yours" when was the last time you read a historically significant article (present and past) relevant to our profession which was actually written by..say...a PLANNER. AHA.

  3. #28
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally posted by acchhhoooo
    And as a final "up yours" when was the last time you read a historically significant article (present and past) relevant to our profession which was actually written by..say...a PLANNER. AHA.
    In what sense? Most articles in PLANNING (professional) and JAPA (academic) are by planners. There are other venues as well.

    ...so I guess the final "up yours" is... well.... "up YOURS"
    "Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill

  4. #29
    BANNED
    Registered
    Oct 2004
    Location
    downthestreet
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally posted by H
    In what sense? Most articles in PLANNING (professional) and JAPA (academic) are by planners. There are other venues as well.

    ...so I guess the final "up yours" is... well.... "up YOURS"

    I guess from an academic standpoint, i can't remember studying any...planners per se with the whole..historically significant aspect, but you are going to change all that..right? As far as professional, irrelevant to our conversation. I should have been an architect...i can do that in a summer right?

  5. #30
    Cyburbian Doitnow!!'s avatar
    Registered
    Dec 2003
    Location
    India
    Posts
    499
    The undergrad school I went to emphasised on land use planning( read land use map making).
    The post grad school I went into emphasised heavily on the socioeconomic aspects of planning and less map making.
    Both criticised each other and one always(inadvertantly) asked whether the other style was better.
    My standard answer was that both were incomplete. Each lacked what the other had.
    Its weighing all the options and coming up with a 'Balanced Plan' thats important.
    I cant agree with Lee Nellis more when he mentions the various aspects. It does make a lot of difference.

    I have also come across consultants asked to make plans (who have had more of an artistic experience) coming up with very artistic maps which look great on paper, but run into very rough weather in even the initial stages of planning and implementation.

    To make more 'realistic plans' I think the functionality(i.e scientific reasoning) should take final prominence.
    "I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them".
    -Isaac Asimov

  6. #31
    Member
    Registered
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Western WA
    Posts
    15
    Art....no, wait....science, ummm...hold on a sec....Artience?!? Yep, that's it!! I obviously think it's both an art and science kinda like teaching.

  7. #32
    Member
    Registered
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Atlanta,Georgia
    Posts
    4

    Lets discuss

    We had this debate in our class and i would like to know your take on it.
    Is planning an art,science or a movement of policy?

  8. #33
    Cyburbian Tide's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Gig City
    Posts
    2,656
    All Three

  9. #34
    Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator NHPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 1996
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,609
    Quote Originally posted by Joakim
    We had this debate in our class and i would like to know your take on it.
    Is planning an art,science or a movement of policy?
    Moderator note:
    Threads merged.
    "Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund

  10. #35
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    441
    Definately a combination of the two... In some areas of Planning numbers and calculations are critical in others it more subjective and an art bringing together the wants of a community vs its needs.

  11. #36
    I think it is more of an art but unfortunately the clients and many of its practitioners treat it soley as a science. Hence traffic flow is more important than humanity itself.

  12. #37
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,751

    Is Planning an Art, Science, or something else?

    What is Science? Can we just break it down into social sciences and natural science? If so, is planning just a Social Science similar to Political Science or is it something completely different?

    What is art? Is it the design or creation of something from other things with the intent to evoke some sort of response? Is that where the heart of Planning resides?

    We as planners are responsible for the creation, maintaining, and modification of a physical environment to provide the highest and best uses for citizens while preserving and enhancing their health, safety, and general welfare within that given environment. Additionally, assuring that each specific environment works in harmony with it’s surrounding environment.

    We think of many physical sciences as facts and figures such as the molecular structure of pure water is always constant... or is it. As it was said in Men In Black, “Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew it was flat.... Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.”

    But then social sciences are always changing. Peoples thoughts, beliefs, actions, and opinions are always being modified based on everything around them.

    So where in this bizarre spectrum does Planning fall?
    Invest in the things today, that provide the returns tomorrow.

  13. #38
    Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator NHPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 1996
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,609
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    What is Science? Can we just break it down into social sciences and natural science? If so, is planning just a Social Science similar to Political Science or is it something completely different?

    What is art? Is it the design or creation of something from other things with the intent to evoke some sort of response? Is that where the heart of Planning resides?

    We as planners are responsible for the creation, maintaining, and modification of a physical environment to provide the highest and best uses for citizens while preserving and enhancing their health, safety, and general welfare within that given environment. Additionally, assuring that each specific environment works in harmony with it’s surrounding environment.

    We think of many physical sciences as facts and figures such as the molecular structure of pure water is always constant... or is it. As it was said in Men In Black, “Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew it was flat.... Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.”

    But then social sciences are always changing. Peoples thoughts, beliefs, actions, and opinions are always being modified based on everything around them.

    So where in this bizarre spectrum does Planning fall?
    Moderator note:
    Been here before. Threads merged.
    "Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund

  14. #39
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,751
    I am going to add onto the thought of what are the goals of planning and at what point to we know that we have achieved those goals?
    Invest in the things today, that provide the returns tomorrow.

  15. #40
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,623
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    I am going to add onto the thought of what are the goals of planning and at what point to we know that we have achieved those goals?
    Florida Statutes require each city and county to prepare an evaluation and appraisal report every seven years to assess the progress of implementing the comprehensive plan.

    From the state's web site: "The report evaluates how successful a community has been in addressing major community land use planning issues through implementation of its comprehensive plan. Based on this evaluation, the report suggests how the plan should be revised to better address community objectives, changing conditions and trends affecting the community, and changes in state requirements."

    We've completed ours and have received our sufficiency review from the state. We have three items to address further.

  16. #41
    Cyburbia Administrator Dan's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 1996
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    14,584
    Blog entries
    3
    Moderator note:
    Reopened the poll for a little bit.

  17. #42
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Someplace between yesterday and tomorrow.
    Posts
    12,751
    Quote Originally posted by RichmondJake View post
    Florida Statutes require each city and county to prepare an evaluation and appraisal report every seven years to assess the progress of implementing the comprehensive plan.

    From the state's web site: "The report evaluates how successful a community has been in addressing major community land use planning issues through implementation of its comprehensive plan. Based on this evaluation, the report suggests how the plan should be revised to better address community objectives, changing conditions and trends affecting the community, and changes in state requirements."

    We've completed ours and have received our sufficiency review from the state. We have three items to address further.
    So based on an established agenda of goals and objectives along with a review process to see if they are being accomplished, would you say that planning in Florida is a science?

    But then I guess that brings up a whole other philosophical concept of is Art a Science and is Science an Art?

    From that, what are the differences between science and art?
    Invest in the things today, that provide the returns tomorrow.

  18. #43
    Cyburbian gicarto's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Jeffstantinople
    Posts
    267
    Planning is the fusion of art and science. As I see it, the planner is the grand visionary of the project. In order for the project to work properly, the planner needs to coordinate with the art (architect) and the science (civil engineer).
    Trying to get my grubby hands on as much stimulus money as I can.:D

  19. #44
    Cyburbian Fat Cat's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Rockwood, MI
    Posts
    1,427

    Fat Cat

    I would think more of a science, we have to be up to date on local, state and federal laws as well as case law regarding land use, and zoning. Then we get into wetlands, water sheds, soils, knowledge of weather patterns, financing of projects, and budgeting for our department be it a private organization and you are a project manager or you work for a govenmental agency you still have to know how design a project cost and maintain the budget for that project, and if you are a department head, you have to provide a budget for the entire area, including utilities, equiment costs, mileage etc, just to mention a few of the things that we have to know to do our job as a planner. Lets not sell our selves short.

  20. #45
    Member
    Registered
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    23
    Art? Isn't that what we hire urban designers to do?

  21. #46
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally posted by keninottawa View post
    Art? Isn't that what we hire urban designers to do?
    I am a strong believer in the science aspect of the planning profession, but will also argue that the compatibility of land uses and public meeting consensus building is definitely and art.
    "Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill

  22. #47
    BANNED
    Registered
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama
    Posts
    194

    Deduction

    There have been ongoing efforts in the 20th Century to reduce Art and everything else to a science which is to say the "scientific method". The scientific method is inductive reasoning whereas Art is deductive reasoning; one is analytical while the other is intuitive but that does not make Art unreasonable or incredible or illogical. Every endeavor must be pursued using both Art and Science as in Politics and Medicine, and etc.

    Planning is a branch of Architecture which is both Art and Science relying on imagination or intuition as well as pure physics. So I vote “other”.

    " The planning profession has lost sight of the future and is abandoning its responsibility in the design of cities and oriented more toward social sciences and scientific method. Work of other professionals is not being properly coordinated. " Andrew M. Isserman, Dare to Plan, TOWN PLANNING REVIEW, 1985, 56,4:483-91. (JAPA Autumn 1990, p. 502). Compare James S. Russell, AIA, Architectural Record, June1989 p. 79
    BTW, the role of the architect is to coordinate the work of other professionals.
    Last edited by bud; 05 Dec 2006 at 3:09 PM. Reason: BTW

  23. #48
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally posted by bud View post
    Planning is a branch of Architecture
    I agree with much of what you say, except for the above snip. I see planning to be so much more than simply a branch of anything and rather a collage of much: architecture, public admin., economics, geography, etc... you get the picture. If anything, I believe architecture is a branch of planning, even though academically speaking architecture was a degree program well before planning (and probably also becuase I am a planner ). Regardless, planning is the "macro" view, which is more resembling of a tree than a branch, right?.
    Last edited by H; 06 Dec 2006 at 1:29 AM.
    "Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill

  24. #49
    BANNED
    Registered
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama
    Posts
    194

    Unintended career

    Quote Originally posted by H View post
    I agree with much of what you say, except for the above snip. I see planning to be so much more than simply a branch of anything and rather a collage of much: architecture, public admin., economics, geography, etc... you get the picture. If anything, I believe architecture is a branch of planning, even though academically speaking architecture was a degree program well before planning (and probably also becuase I am a planner ;)). Regardless, planning is the "macro" view, which is more resembling of a tree than a branch, right?. :)
    I am well aware of what you say. I intended to be an architect until I discovered that we are professionally responsible as much for how cities are built as for the buildings as a matter of our prerogatives in site selection. I can not build anything with good conscience until that problem is solved - so I have concentrated on that which makes me a planner, for now rather than an architect.

    In the obituary for Frank Lloyd Wright, the APA Journal discussed his Broadacre City concept concluding that the final solution would be found by a creative Planner rather than an architect – they did not understand Wright; his concept would have worked if everyone, all architects and planners would have cooperated and accepted him as the Coordinator. As you can see from my Isserman quote previously that Planners are not properly coordinating the work of other professionals. That is what Architects are trained to do and have the right by law to do so in the construction of buildings but not in the construction of cities although the same principles would apply.

    Academically you will find a graduate school or department of Urban Planning in the College of Architecture. The reason I say it is a branch of Architecture is because the same principles apply to building buildings as to building cities. Originally, Architects and/or Civil Engineers did this. In the 20th Century due to the 19th Century Industrial Revolution and the advance of Science and Technology the rapid growth of cities encountered problems of helter-skelter haphazard growth; thus a new specialized branch of the art and science of building cities was created, namely City and Regional Planning which is now called Urban Planning. Architects and Urban Planners now compete with each other instead of cooperating. We should consider ways that would enable a cooperative approach. That is what my idea would do, I am sure just as well as if not better than Wright’s because it would implement both the principles and pattern of Broadacres City which is the quintessence of the art of planning having been derived by the genius of intuitive reasoning rather than by analysis – or as Wright would say, reasoning from generals to particulars rather that from particulars to generals. The human mind is not capable of creation by scientific analysis and it requires more than animal instinct since the animal mind does not have intelligence as humans do. Therefore Planning is principally an Art and we must reason accordingly if we are to ever solve the problem, which now seems to be only to intuitively recognize the solution when it is found and mutually and of necessity intuitively and with objective analysis agree to its implementation.


    Quote Originally posted by H View post
    Everyday something new happens to reconfirm my fears that the only people who care about “planning” are well, um, PLANNERS! I wish/hope/strive for this not to be the case, but…. Thoughts?
    Could I reply to this thread now?
    Last edited by bud; 06 Dec 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason: Objective approach

  25. #50
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally posted by bud View post
    Academically you will find a graduate school or department of Urban Planning in the College of Architecture.
    At some schools you still do, that is true. These are schools that have traditionally focused more on architecture (from what I understand as I have never been involved with a planning program in an arc. dept. In fact, the school I studied for my MSP at broke away from the arc. dept. in the nineties for ‘irreconcilable differences’) and in these cases I imagine the planning dept. may be an academic branch, sure. However, I think this is simply a matter of timing as planning degrees are "new" and universities need places to house the "new" planning depts. Often they are also placed in another dept., other than arc. At some schools planning is housed in geography or in social science in general as a stand alone dept. I think this is also because academically many colleges and university don’t know where planning fits. I think many planners feel the same way… which is the brunt of the question that started this poll and demonstrated by the result.

    BTW: I fully buy into your soap box stand for a cooperative approach.


    Quote Originally posted by bud View post
    Could I reply to this thread now?
    Please.
    Last edited by H; 07 Dec 2006 at 12:17 AM.
    "Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 13
    Last post: 22 Jul 2010, 6:43 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last post: 12 Mar 2010, 12:28 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last post: 31 Oct 2008, 7:16 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last post: 15 Aug 2007, 8:15 PM
  5. Science vs Religion
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 5
    Last post: 24 Apr 2006, 11:17 AM