Is planning an art and/or science?

[H]

All the time I hear talk that planning is both an art and a science (and I buy into that), but there is debate onto which side weighs in heavier.

Thoughts?

[Lee Nellis]

The fundamental planning skills are teaching and facilitation - not exactly either art or science. If I had not been able to choose "other." however, I would have picked art. Planners must certainly be able to understand and effectively use scientific data, but we are not scientists.

[chukky]

Planning is about the way people interact with their surrounds. This is niether reasonable, nor rational.

Planning is thus an art. If it were a science, a cookie cutter approach would work.

Science is "one size fits all". Science is not about experimentation. Would you really want a surgeon who said, half way through your open heart surgery, "Hey, this is dull. Lets see what happens if I cut THIS instead."

If planning were a science, one solution would fit all people. The open heart surgeon can perfom the operation on any human, becuase we all have the same parts in the same places. However, different people/groups of people relate to their surroundings in different ways. Thats why the 'non zoning' of a village high in the Himalayas would cause havoc in Buffalo, and standard subdivision of most outer suburbs would look a little ridiculous in the centre of Manhattan.

[Joe Iliff]

Planning is definately a science, and not an art.

There are processes, assumptions, rational methods employed, conclusions reached, and a regular re-examination of past assumptions, methods, and conclusions.

There are qualifications to be a planner, certification tests, ethical standards, and documentable and quantifiable results. There are objective criteria by which to evaluate planning actions, and planning actions that do not meet certain criteria (such as a law or constitution) are not valid.

All these things are part of a science, not an art.

In response to Chukky, science isn't just about "one size fits all". Lots of sciences, like economics and history, have a wide range of assumptions, conclusions, results, beliefs, and opinions held and used by different practicioners. Debates rage constantly between both physical and social scientists about the nature of the universe or humanity, or both. What unites them is a common approach to what they do, not that they all agree on a single conclusion.

Now, none of the above is to say that artistic abilities are not important to being a good or successful planner. Much of what lots of planners actually do is artistic, and key to their success. In selecting planners (citizen or professional) to perform certain tasks, I would consider artistic ability. But, strictly speaking, you could be a planner and perform very little of what would be considered art. Achieving certain objectives in the real world might be forever beyond your abilities, but you could still be a planner by most definitions.

I'll use politics or political science as an example. Political science is a science, and if you don't follow a scientific method, you won't get acceptable results. But, a successful politician or good public policy are often the result of artistic use of scientific conclusions, rather than the product of a scientific process iteself.

[Coragus]

Planning is an art that uses scientific tools.

GIS is a scientific tool. So are statistics and demographics, and the equations that we use to forecast growth and expenditures. However, you can do this stuff very well and still be a poor planner.

How can you quantify public emotion which so often (and too often) drives public policy? How can you scientifically examine how well a planner moderates a public meeting that turns hostile? How scientific is it when you recommend against a zoning change because it doesn't "feel" right based on its surroundings? This is not science, this is art, and done correctly, it's beautiful.

[Cardinal]

I think there is close relation to my questioning of whether planning is more facilitation or regulation. I chose art.

[The One]

Its a state of mind....duuude.....

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

[pete-rock]

Planning is definately a science, and not an art.

There are processes, assumptions, rational methods employed, conclusions reached, and a regular re-examination of past assumptions, methods, and conclusions.

There are qualifications to be a planner, certification tests, ethical standards, and documentable and quantifiable results. There are objective criteria by which to evaluate planning actions, and planning actions that do not meet certain criteria (such as a law or constitution) are not valid.

All these things are part of a science, not an art.

I'd respectfully disagree and say, as Coragus did, that planning is an art that uses scientific tools.

If planning were indeed a science, like math or physics, planners would be bound by a set of universal planning theories that would be applied in all planning cases, at least until someone disproves an existing theory or successfully proves a new one.

So much of planning is facilitation and consensus-building, using facts to state a position or policy -- not theory.

EDIT: Objectivity and science are not the same thing. Objectivity exists in the arts, and subjectivity exists in science.

Ultimately I think planning is one of the humanities, like geography, economics, history, philosophy.

[k3ith]

Planning is an art that uses scientific tools. . .

. . . you can do this stuff very well and still be a poor planner.

I couldn't have said it better myself. From an urban designer's viewpoint, you have to use scientific tools to gather information such as water flow calculations, topography, soils reports, etc; but the actual design of the development is largely a creative process that could end up being either horrible, mediocre, or terrific depending on whose hands the information is in.

[Masswich]

I think its a 'soft science' like medicine or biology, where there are a lot of scientific methods and tools used but there is always some educated guesswork as part of it.

[Flying Monkeys]

I like believing that planning is a state of mind (thanks to The One). But it comes back to your bent and/or training. Are you a straight-up-technocrat (modeler, analyst)? Then planning is probably a science for you. Are you a consensus builder, a professional community visioning consultant, etc? Then planning is probably and art. If you’re a little bit of all, then it is a state of mind. What state is your mind in? (mine is 'dazed and confused' or Florida depending on the hour)

[mendelman]

Ditto what Coragus said.

Definitely more art than science, way more.

[jaws]

On this point town planning has the most in common with its brother architecture. Science can tell you how to make a building. Any engineer can slap together some glass and metal and have a building. The same engineer can slap together streets and sewers and power lines and have a town (and they often did). That engineer, however, has no insight on what specific arrangement of glass and metal or of streets will have the most satisfactory result for people. Town planning, just like architecture, is a business refined into an art. It is not art in the purest sense because it must ultimately fulfill a definite purpose, satisfaction of the needs of its clients, and all artistic concerns are subordinate to this purpose. But without artistic considerations the client will not be fully satisfied.

[Zoning Goddess]

I've got a B.A. in Geography, and so far, Planning is more opinion than concrete standards, so I'm going with Art.

[illinoisplanner]

My advisor said that almost everyone in Geog. gets the B.S. because it makes more sense to do so. However, I think planning is more of an art. It is a very visual job and involves creativity, style, and vision. However it has plenty of science aspects as well. It is both in many ways.

[Sleazy]

The issue isn’t whether planning itself is science or art. Planning is surely both. Both aspects are required to plan urban developments. It is the confinements of science that keep our communities orderly, and I’m not saying the row upon row of housing developments or the transportation grid pattern style of order. I mean order in a simpler context such as – just functioning at an acceptable level. Yet if all artistic sense is forgotten in planning we start to build places that lack culture. Sure we can add an institution that may bring culture to that area, but the area itself lacks its own identity. If we didn’t have one balancing out the other we would have strict expressionless order or meandering urban undergrowth. So either on their own can not produce great development, though they can create development.

This issue should, instead, be focused on whether you as a planner are more the “scientific” planner or more the “artist” planner. If that is the issue you’ll be able to tell a lot about your planning style. The scientific planners will focus their understanding (and therefore their rendering of planning) in a much more mechanistic setting. Because of this strong scientific/mechanistic view point you will express the need to have, as was stated above, the “documentable and quantifiable results” to guide your actions. This view point, to date, leaves little to no room for the issue of a value of life within the built environment of a building, a neighborhood, a community, town, region, etc. These are the subconscious but strong realizations one makes about such places. Whether you liked or disliked an area or felt welcomed, agitated, pressured things like that.

If you come from the “artist” side of the spectrum you will find it much easier to grasp and hopefully ever reproduce that myriad of tangled connections that a single building has with its surroundings. In knowing this you will be able to control how a building functions, to a large extent, then be able to build developments with life and vibrancy feelings of welcoming, comfort, - home. But this ability without the scientific view point will lack the order necessary to function properly.

I personally have chosen to steer my desires away from being a “city planner” as I see their position so engulfed in the scientific/mechanistic side that they have become city permiters and lack the freedom to create anything but places of nowhere. I am hoping that the private side of development will better suit my ambitions to strike a sort of balance between the two and create places with more meaning and value.

[The One]

I personally have chosen to steer my desires away from being a “city planner” as I see their position so engulfed in the scientific/mechanistic side that they have become city permiters and lack the freedom to create anything but places of nowhere. I am hoping that the private side of development will better suit my ambitions to strike a sort of balance between the two and create places with more meaning and value.

Its nice to see someone else has been jaded by the permit/process monkey stigma that often can be associated with public planning

[passdoubt]

It's a social science, like economics or geography.

[Doitnow!!]

"Planning is a Scientific Art".
Not being diplomatic here.
Since planning involves so much about people and institutions and systems ( which are so very structured but are finally occupied by humans), I think it has to be an art. Personally I am all about hardcore data, statistics, analysis, GIS, GIS layers/overlays but finally its the human aspect which palys an important part in all these( whether the plans fails or succeeds). And present day planning does involve so much of science in process as well as interpretation and intervention.

This sure must be a questions which haunts most planners at many times.
PS: I always laugh at your footnote 'The One'. Einstien must have been a really funny man.

[OfficialPlanner]

Planning as a science = homogeneous communities

Planning as art = heterogeneous communities

Just my two cents.

[Globe]

Planning is both an art and science.

[acchhhoooo]

tricky question, i think you should ask people who are easily classified as scientist and artist where we belong...i bet we end up homeless. Why planners feel akin to artist, my theory, too much academics. Here is my nickels worth, artist exist in every profession; plumbing, law, and grocery baggers. Any occupation requiring knowledge or skill could be considered an art. Now, what separates the planning artists from the monkies yielding post-its, the conscious use of skill and creative imagination to make a difference, now your original baby and useful. So all you monkies, put your post-its down and pick up that brush.

[H]

Why planners feel akin to artist, my theory, too much academics.

I disagree, if anything academics is pushing the science. It is much harder to publish a qualitative article than a quantitative one. In my experience, professional planning was much more like and art than academics, where the ‘community’ ‘well-being’ and ‘quality of life’ was the focus (an art based on a science). In academics, it is all about the regression line (a science based on an art).

[Lee Nellis]

Thinking about what I have done the last few days, I realized that I have used my knowledge of geomorphology, wetlands science, and landscape architecture a lot more than my knowledge of the social sciences. I do not think it is wise to place planning in that (or any one) box.

Indeed, I think the policy planning/social science emphasis that arose in planning in the '60's has undercut planners' effectiveness in many ways. I have said before in these threads, that the essential skills are teaching and facilitation: the process skills that are not well taught within the framework of any traditional academic disciplines.

But when you go beyond those into content, I think planners are more in need of basic site planning/design skills and at least as much in need of an understanding of landscape ecology as they are in need of the traditional social science skills.

[acchhhoooo]

I disagree, if anything academics is pushing the science. It is much harder to publish a qualitative article than a quantitative one. In my experience, professional planning was much more like and art than academics, where the ‘community’ ‘well-being’ and ‘quality of life’ was the focus (an art based on a science). In academics, it is all about the regression line (a science based on an art).

Quality of life issues are questions about what is desirable within a community, an easily defined process, how good a person is at it, now that is a different matter but still a simple process. Most planners will not be pursuing their PHD within this field, out of curiousity, what % of planners have their PHD? My assumption on most these questions are coming from the typical monkey standpoint and the practice. When I say academics, same standpoint, undergraduate or masters. PHD leaps and bounds ahead of the two aforementioned.

Planners think of themselves as artist because they feel as though they will be or are creating something...well creative. Specifically plans of some types. Isn't that what we are primarily known for? 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. Awww, school, the comfy bosom of school.