Is planning an art and/or science?

[bud]

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. :r:

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

As a matter of Art, Planners need to keep in mind some of the principles of art; two of which are:

1. Limitations are the artists’ best friends, e.g., fixed city limits.

2. As in every perfect work of Architecture a true proportion will be found to reign between all the members which compose it, ..every assemblage of forms should be arranged on certain definite proportions; the whole and each particular member should be a multiple of some simple unit. Proposition 9 e.g., the surveyors six mile square township (created by architect Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the 1st or 2nd Congress) or a municipal unit of four townships which is about 100,000 acres; that would easily accommodate a city equal to the population of NYC. But remember in the principles of economics that the optimum size city is about 100,000; anything more is a luxury which we cannot always afford which is one reason big cities are bankrupt.

To pursue the question of where planning fits. City Planners are Architects in fact but I think we need to understand the difference is between building planners and city planners - building planners have a monopoly on the word, now; cooperation depends on understanding our proper role in the planning process - this is confused because it is identical, that is to coordinate the work of other professionals in the process of building cities. The conflict is from a lack of education and training on both sides. Let us examine what that is - that can be easily discerned by analysis. Architects have design skills by virtue of education and training in building design which also includes planning skills. Planners have planning skills but much greater knowledge of other professionals involved in the building of cities

Could I reply to this thread now?

Please. :)

People do not want European Cities in America; they want American Cities designed for our system of government to engender freedom and independence. European cities were designed for the Feudal System which is contrary to the Principles of American Democracy and our Republican form of government. Feudalism is the exact opposite of Federalism. The European mindset of Planning in Academia satisfies only overly ambitious if not corrupt politicians. I think the only solution is for the Planning Profession to repent – to issue a public apology and move on to a better way such as Wright and I, via KYMAK have proposed, if may say so.

[rdaman]

I see it as other. I guess I have a hard time seeing anything that is run by a political process as art. And as far as science is concerned, there is no scientific method used in planning because once again, the political winds change how things are done.

[The One]

City Planners are Architects in fact

I hope not, otherwise, under Arizona State law, I'd have to be a registered Architect to do what I'm doing now.....

People do not want European Cities in America; they want American Cities designed for our system of government to engender freedom and independence. European cities were designed for the Feudal System which is contrary to the Principles of American Democracy and our Republican form of government. Feudalism is the exact opposite of Federalism.

Maybe, but you know they had that density thing down .....even if it was mostly to keep the people safe from barbarian hordes and within easy reach of the king, just in case they got "problematic"

[jaws]

People do not want European Cities in America; they want American Cities designed for our system of government to engender freedom and independence. European cities were designed for the Feudal System which is contrary to the Principles of American Democracy and our Republican form of government. Feudalism is the exact opposite of Federalism. The European mindset of Planning in Academia satisfies only overly ambitious if not corrupt politicians. I think the only solution is for the Planning Profession to repent – to issue a public apology and move on to a better way such as Wright and I, via KYMAK have proposed, if may say so.

European cities were not designed. They were grown.

When cities started being designed, they failed.

I see it as other. I guess I have a hard time seeing anything that is run by a political process as art. And as far as science is concerned, there is no scientific method used in planning because once again, the political winds change how things are done.

Politics is an art as well.

[H]

European cities were not designed. They were grown.

When cities started being designed, they failed.

Haussman's "modern" Paris?

[jaws]

Haussman's "modern" Paris?

An adaptive transformation of the grown form.

A designed city would be Barcelona or Radiant City.

[rdaman]

An adaptive transformation of the grown form.

A designed city would be Barcelona or Radiant City.

Or Radiator Springs. All designed around Route 66 with a good mixture of retail. Although the junkyard was a little too centralized for my liking.

Can you tell that I have a 3 year-old?? LOL

[H]

An adaptive transformation of the grown form.

A designed city would be Barcelona or Radiant City.

I am not sure I share your def of "designed", Haussman's design changed downtown Paris pretty drastically and completely, as the "grown" form had "failed" (dark, dank, congested, etc..) and after the "transformation of the grown form" it was basically a different city after that point, the Paris we know today, the Paris people 'love', the Paris people seem to want to copy, but either way, wherever the line may be between “adaptive transformation” and “designed,” I did not realize Barcelona was considered to be a "failed" city, why is it considered to be such?

[craines]

Not a art. Not a science. Just a process or program that follows certain steps that will acheive certain results. One could get a bit abstract with that though and construe the results as the 'Piece'.

Art should challange and provoke.................planning should accomodate and nurture.

I guess it, planning, is more like "Mom"

[jaws]

I am not sure I share your def of "designed", Haussman's design changed downtown Paris pretty drastically and completely, as the "grown" form had "failed" (dark, dank, congested, etc..) and after the "transformation of the grown form" it was basically a different city after that point, the Paris we know today, the Paris people 'love', the Paris people seem to want to copy, but either way, wherever the line may be between “adaptive transformation” and “designed,” I did not realize Barcelona was considered to be a "failed" city, why is it considered to be such?

A city "design" is the final form of construction a city takes. Barcelona's square grid with octagonal blocks was obviously designed to remain that way. When the construction was started they had a specific image in mind of what the city would be, and that would be final. I did not say that it was a failure.

Haussmann's plans were not meant to create a final, ideal design for Paris. They only meant to solve circulation problems and improve the architectural quality of the city, using whatever path of least resistance was available.

The difference between a designed city and a grown city can be seen in Venice. When Romans fled to the lagoon to protect themselves from barbarians, they did not have a design for the city they were building. They did not think, well, if we plan it all out and keep at it, in 15 centuries this city will be the world's ultimate tourist trap. They did the most obvious thing they could do at the time, then kept doing the most obvious thing they could do until they became a model for what a beautiful city should be. Haussmann's idea was the same thing.

It had nothing to do with feudalism or the Second Empire or democracy or the Venetian Republic. They did not have any such ideals. They just did what felt right. The idea that you take an ideal, democracy or socialism or whatever, and shove it into architecture and city planning is a decidedly modern concept.

[hilldweller]

It had nothing to do with feudalism or the Second Empire or democracy or the Venetian Republic. They did not have any such ideals. They just did what felt right. The idea that you take an ideal, democracy or socialism or whatever, and shove it into architecture and city planning is a decidedly modern concept.

Good point. And why modernism was such a horrendous failure, no?

[jaws]

Good point. And why modernism was such a horrendous failure, no?

Modern art in general fails because it tries to be an expression of ideas instead of creating feeling.

Stole this from Christopher Alexander's The Nature of Order:

[H]

I did not say that it [Barcelona] was a failure.

?

A designed city would be Barcelona or Radiant City.

When cities started being designed, they failed.

Did I not add that up correctly? What did you mean then?

[bud]

I hope not, otherwise, under Arizona State law, I'd have to be a registered Architect to do what I'm doing now.....:-c


Maybe, but you know they had that density thing down;-) .....even if it was mostly to keep the people safe from barbarian hordes:-c and within easy reach of the king, just in case they got "problematic":r:

I would recommend registration of Urban Planners; what they do is as much if not more in the interest of public safety and the general welfare as what building designers do. I maintain that both are Architects since they are trained to coordinate the building process. That is both an Art and a Science. It would prevent others including Developers working with Mayor’s and County Commissioners from usurping the prerogatives of the Architect in Site Selection which could prevent disorderly, helter-skelter haphazard development.

With modern warfare (WMD) we would be safer in decentralized cities and the citizen could be King.

European cities were not designed. They were grown.

You might say they grew without much forethought or planning; that can be very wasteful of economic resources, don’t you think? What if buildings just grew without design or plan? Furthermore, consider diseased growth; as in nature there are parasites that grow like fleas on a dog or cancerous growth such as a fibrous tumor – notice on a map how most cities resemble that kind of pathological growth. It may be incomprehensible to the layman but there is an Art and a Science in Urban Design and Planning that can be learned although in practice a certain inborn perspicacity or acumen is necessary to great performance - that is a rare trait indeed. However, the education and training is necessary even to fully understand and appreciate the value of good design and planning, wouldn't you say? I should say so; Planning is a complex science as well as a fine art. A child can understand that.

[bud]

Geographers

Its a state of mind....duuude.....8-)

Planning is and should be part of the Social Sciences (Specifically Human Geography) the fact that we've taken it upon ourselves to become Monday morning architects or urban designers is besides the point, its all about the people:-| Graduate Schools are a good example of how planning is viewed. Some schools have the planning program under Geography departments, Social Sciences, Architecture, Urban and Public Affairs, Public Policy, Public Service and even Environmental Design/Studies.

My take:

Planning : Human Geography (Big Picture)
Economics, Environment, Architecture, Urban Design, Landscape
Architecture, Statistics, Transportation, Management, Demographics, GIS,
Risk, Social Aspects, Engineering are all complimentary tools:-D

Certainly you are correct in one respect; Geographers instantly recognize a good plan for orderly and systematic development on a macro or grand scale. Although development is the key word; that is what geographers seem be the experts in. Is that correct? However, architects are the coordinators of the building process and that is what the architects drawing is for. Imagining and drawing a good plan is entirely a matter of architecture and urban planning. The question is, how do we work together to implement a good plan? I would say the job of the Geographer would be one of directing in the total management process of planning, directing, coordinating, budgeting and accessing. It is not surprising that the process of planning and coordinating may be a little strange to the geographer however well they can see the value of the end product.Planning and coordinating is a matter of art to be sure and that should be done with an expert knowledge and understanding of the principles of building afforded by science and technology .


"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 are 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

[tsc]

According to NY Upstate it's an art.... which I agree. (logo for their Fall 07 conference)









Landscape Architecture wouldn't be considered a science.