Suchergebnisse

We argue that antifragility is a valuable and contentful goal for planning. We present a possible definition and outline the tenets and essential properties of an antifragile planning and compare it with approaches of urban resilience. We further present an argument for the legitimacy of an antifragile planning, by exploring its possible conceptualisation in terms of the capability approach. Hence the recommendation to incorporate antifragility into planning practice and content.

PLANNING IS ANALYZED AS BEING 'MODERN SCIENCE' WHICH ATTEMPTS TO DEVELOP THE PROGNOSTIC & PLAN-ORIENTED CAPACITY OF SCIENCE & AS AN ENDEAVOR TO EFFECT THE DIRECTION OF INDUSTRIAL-TECHNICAL SOCIETIES. 'PLANNING THEORY' IS DEFINED AS THE DESCRIPTION OF A CONSIDERED PLANNING SYSTEM OR MODEL. THE PROBLEM OF PLANNING & DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN 2 SUBORDINATE CONSIDERATIONS: (1) INDIVIDUAL-COLLECTIVISM, & (2) CENTRALIZATION-DECENTRALIZATION. ANOTHER PROBLEM AREA CONCERNING PLANNING THEORY IS METHODOLOGICAL. A 3RD AREA CONCERNS THE NATURE OF CLASSICAL PLANNING THEORY. ALL 3 AREAS ARE CLOSELY INTERRELATED & ARE CONCERNED WITH DEMOCRATIC PLANNING. 3 SCHOOLS OF THEORETICAL PLANNING THOUGHT ARE DIFFERENTIATED: (A) THE RATIONALIST-TECHNOCRATIC, (B) THE NORMATIVE-TECHNOCRATIC, & (C) THE PARTICIPATORY. THE RATIONALIST-TECHNOCRATIC DIRECTION STILL DOMINATES PRACTICAL DISCUSSION ON PLANNING. THE NORMATIVE-TECHNOCRATIC DIRECTION IS A REACTION TO THE RATIONALIST-TECHNOCRATIC DIRECTION. THE RATIONALIST-TECHNOCRATIC MODELS OF PLANNING ARE BASED ON A SIMPLE DECISION-THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE & FUNCTIONAL RATIONALISM. NORMATIVE TECHNOCRATIC MODELS DEPART FROM THE RATIONALIST-TECHNOCRATIC MODELS, WHILE PARTICIPATORY MODELS RETURN TO THE CLASSICAL PLANNING CONTROVERSY & TO THE PROBLEMS OF DEMOCRACY. THE DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM REQUIRES COUNTERPLANS ALONG WITH USUAL PLANNING. 1 TABLE. B. MILLER.

"Critiques of traditional urban planning are numerous. The debate about direction within the profession and why urban planning seems to be in a state of despair continues. However, and as Milan J. Dluhy and Kan Chen note, the more critical issue is the future direction of planning, particularly interdisciplinary planning. In this regard, they note five principal areas of concern: planning is action research, planning is knowledge driven, planning is both process and technologically oriented, planning is interdisciplinary, and planning is adaptive to emerging concerns.Reviewing the literature and empirical studies on roles and attitudes, the editors note that planners seem committed to symbols and expressions of advocacy as well as traditional planning doctrine. This emphasizes rational planning and neutral policy roles for practitioners. Without a guiding theory to give a unified approach to practice, planners remain free to select the role most compatible with their personal background and training. This volume asserts that diversity need not be a drawback as long as careful analysis and open planning processes are used.This title will be an invaluable resource. Part I illustrates the critical dilemmas in planning, Part II focuses on planning skills and orientations, the third part focuses sharply on planning roles, while the final section answers a fundamental question: can interdisciplinary planning offer a more useful perspective than others on how to achieve more successful planning outcomes?"--Provided by publisher.

Theory and method -- Sustainable development -- Amenities and social organization -- Spatial mismatch -- Alternative planning models

With the global expansion of urbanization there is a need to ensure that cities develop in a way that allows all residents to benefit from urban life. This volume contains a collection of classic and more recent papers that provide insight into the problems encountered in urbanization and the ways in which planning has evolved to meet the resultant challenges. It is broad in its coverage, and its content includes both theoretical and applied contributions as well as looking at urban planning issues in the developing as well as the developed world

In this article, we analyse the evolution and transformation of Danish spatial planning from its tentative origins in a context of liberal politics, through its rise as a central feature of the welfare state project, to its more recent entrepreneurial forms in a context of neoliberalization. The article demonstrates how the current neoliberalization of Danish spatial planning discourses and practices must be understood in the context of previous discourses and practices sedimented as layers of meaning and materiality through time. In this way, the evolution and transformation of Danish spatial planning provides illustrative insights into the hybridity of 'actually existing neoliberalism(s)' in a context of state welfarism, and we propose 'palimpsest' as a metaphor that can help to underline that hybridised neoliberalizations are structured by discursive as well as material practices that are historical-geographical in character. ; In this article, we analyse the evolution and transformation of Danish spatial planning from its tentative origins in liberalist politics, through its rise as a central feature of the welfare state project, to its more recent entrepreneurial forms in a context of neoliberalisation. The article demonstrates how transformations of Danish spatial planning discourses and practices must be understood in context of previous discourses and practices sedimented as layers of meaning and materiality through time and over space. These layers do not completely overlay one another, but present a palimpsest saturated with contradictions as well as possibilities. We propose the notion of the 'planning palimpsest' as a helpful metaphor for drawing attention to the historical-geographical characteristics of planning discourses and practices.

Cover title. ; Shipping list no.: 98-0090-P. ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 93-100). ; Mode of access: Internet.