Downtown is for People

As the title suggests, this week’s reading by Jane Jacobs heavily emphasises the importance creating places for people. At the time the article was written, major redevelopment projects were taking place, and Jacobs believed they were destined to take the life out of cities rather than revive them.

One of my favourite cities in Australia has always been Melbourne, and after reading this week’s article it’s evident that part of the appeal of the city can be attributed not only to the fantastic shopping opportunities (although this definitely helps) but the fact that it displays many of the characteristics outlined by Jacobs for creating a successful Downtown area. Whilst walking along a main street in Melbourne, it’s not uncommon to come across a laneway filled with people in cafes or boutiques. This creates an element of surprise as well as variety between large automobile focused streets and narrow pedestrian focused streets- two of the criteria Jacobs mentions for appealing pedestrian streets.

Flinders Lane, Melbourne
Source: Puntill Apartment Hotels 2009

Jacobs also mentions the importance of having a focal point to act as a landmark and Federation Square is one such example. Although it may not be as awe inspiring as Time Square in New York, the post modernist architecture juxtaposed with the traditional Flinders Street Station and St Pauls Cathedral creates a unique atmosphere. The square also provides a meeting place in the city and is used for many major festivals and events.

Watching the cricket on the big screen in Federation Square
Source: An Insider's Guide to Melbourne 2011

Throughout the article Jacobs’ disapproval of the actions of planners at the time is apparent, and the validity of planning as a profession is questioned. However, I think the shift away from the view of planning as a purely physical exercise has resulted in much more people oriented planners that Jacob's would approve of. One example is Jan Gehl, a Danish Urban Design Consultant and Professor who is notorious for his work on creating enjoyable public spaces through focusing on the pedestrian. His view that "First life, then spaces, then buildings – the other way around never works" corresponds to Jacobs' ideas that it is the people not the buildings that make a city.

The following link is to an article that was posted on the Student Planners Page, that shows Jan Gehl enjoying the new deck chairs placed in Sydney Square- not only a fun idea, but also a way to create a vibrant and enjoyable public space for the people in the CBD . Perhaps similar initiatives could help liven up Canberra's CBD...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/lord-mayor-clover-moore-shuffles-the-deckchairs-to-create-an-oasis-in-the-city/story-e6freuzi-1226164331982 

New Directions in Planning Theory

The focus of planning and planning theory has shifted significantly over time, and this week’s reading by Susan Fainstein discusses three recent models of planning known as the ‘Communicative Model’, the ‘New Urbanism’ and the ‘Just City’. Each of these models emerged as a response to negative outcomes (externalities) associated with existing styles of thought.

The Communicative Model
This model sees the primary role of the planner as that of listening to the views of others and helping to reach consensus amongst stakeholders. The communicative model emerged as an alternative to the top-down approach associated with the view that planners are experts. One of the main shortcomings with this style of planning is that in order for no stakeholder group to dominate, those who are in positions that prevent them from participating in and having influence over the planning process (low socioeconomic status, level of education, etc) must be empowered- something easier said than done.  

The Communicative Model- method more important than outcome
Source: Newsvbytes 2010

New Urbanism
Unlike the Communicative model, New Urbanism focuses on the outcome rather than the planning method. The promotion of the planning outcomes, which emphasise a mixed-use philosophy and a strong sense of community, is a key component of this model. A major critisism of the movement is that the reliance on physical determinism renders it insufficient to address complex social and economic issues. However, the tangible nature of this planning model means that unlike the communicative model, the outcomes are clear and able to be implemented with ease.

New Urbanism- promotes a specific physical plan
Source: Bits of Knowledge for Change 2011

The Just City This model of planning theory is outlined in Susan Fainstein's book entitled 'The Just City', so it's not surprising that there is little critisism of it in the article. The  Just City model is  described as a response to inequality generated by capitalism, and promotes the idea of empowering the public and the pursuit of equity. Whilst this sounds ideal, the way in which this relates to planning at a practical level is not outlined.

The Just City- an ideology
Source: Dig a List 2010

The idea of the communicative model is  appealing, however the discrepencies between ideas and implementation presents a problem. Whilst the actual planning content of New Urbanism may not be ideal, the method of promoting a particular idea has been successful and there are many supporters of the movement, making the implementation possible. So the question is raised, should planning focus primarily on methods and promoting ideologies, or should it focus on promoting specific physical outcomes? How do we find a balance between the two?