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.
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 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?
 |
| 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?
i think the two are inseparable. A planner can't produce good physical outcomes without sound methods or a guiding ideology. Similarly, methods and ideologies are not useful or effective if they do not produce physical outcomes. I guess striking a balance is indeed what it's all about.
ReplyDeleteAgree to Tim's points on a balance between the two, though historically certain theories focused on one apsect.
ReplyDelete