Planning for the worst

It is all well and good to explain and argue about what planning is setting out to achieve, and what it ought to be doing in terms of an all encompassing strategy to achieve best practice in the built environment. But for 99 percent of people planning has nothing at all to do with theory but with the very sights they see everyday. The length of time stuck in a traffic jam, whether or not they feel safe in their environs. Do the buildings make them happy, sad or indifferent? Looking back at some of the architecture from the 1960s, Brutalism is one of the most easily recognizable styles and arguably the most controversial. Many buildings of this style have managed to litter the urban form of many British cities following the clearances of bomb damaged city centres. The idea was formed by Le Corbusier ironically as an answer to a utopian society which comfortably supports its inhabitants in a pleasant surrounding, The whole idea itself that one person can in effect dictate what exactly a social utopia is, is surely inherently hypocritical. As much as I admire the works and thinking of Le Corbusier, the thought of living in a huge skyscraper town fills me with dread and I am thankful for the most part that the only people with the expertise to create such environments are the science fiction writers of comics and films such as Judge Dredd whereby the planet is covered by a series of mega cities. Alas chapter 16 of his bookthe city of tomorrow is where he attempts to justify funding for his grand schemes, this is where planning loses. Finance is a necessity, and institutions financing projects clearly want a say in what is to be built, planners cannot dictate to people what is to be built when they don’t hold the real keys to what gets built.

The huge problem of course is that planers and planning under modernist thought was that their utopias, whether it be garden cities or futuristic cities were planned on a clean slate, a slate whereby planning has overcome the greed and opportunism of the opposition, the irrational developers vying for land acquisition and use. By standing up to these planning has achieved the creation of an altruistic universe where personal wealth and consumerism may still exist but in much more watered down form and where humanity has come together, casting aside its differences and where anything can be achieved. Just look at star trek, humanity can only really evolve onto a higher plane and hope of interacting with and saving other species once it has learned to save itself. And herein lies the biggest criticism of modernist thought. It’s unrealistic.

In Liverpool itself the University hospital is a fine example of what has been left behind as a result of these ideals. Looking at this building in the dead of night from Prescott Street you may well be forgiven for thinking that you have just wandered into some form of post-apocalyptic landscape where visions of a dystopian future as set out in such films as Metropolis; where a cruel and unforgiving environment has been built to suppress the masses has evolved. As impressive as the building is, it is hardly becoming of a place where people go to recuperate. This is Brutalism; this is what capitalism has led to in a cheap way of constructing large buildings, but was it necessarily for the benefit of the social good? Nova Huta is one of only two specially built soviet show towns although there is a fascist equivalent in Eur, Roma. This estate is a Southern district of Krakow. There is no doubting that this town is ugly, built cheap the concrete high rises are far from welcoming. But the designs allow much open space and tellingly schools are placed so that most children in the district don’t have to cross one road to get there. This was a town that was planned and built for the well being of its inhabitants, capitalism couldn’t stop this one.

The Oregon experiment took place in 1973 on the back of huge unrest within Oregon University, Students regularly protested. It was felt that the actual buildings of the campus (inspired by Le Corbusier) didn’t help the feel of the community. The experiment aimed to set out a new planning thought whereby six principles are set down to create an organic order whereby the very people who live, work and are affected by an area are directly responsible for its design. This idea is a step further from the public participation that is so highly coveted at the moment. It can argued that the ugliness and uncaring of the architecture of the modernist approach is what led to the backlash of postmodernism. People wanted a say because they weren’t happy with what was being served up. You can’t create your own utopia and ask others to join you expecting them to be as thrilled as you are. Management theorist Locke showed us that to achieve the best results you need to treat people as individuals.

The RTPI states on its website that "It maintains the best of the past, whilst encouraging innovation in the design and development of future buildings and neighbourhoods to meet our future needs" By our, I assume the RTPI mean society as a whole. So why is then that the top ten percent of the population in Britain own half of all wealth while a third of families own no savings whatsoever, on a world wide scale it is far worse with two percent of the population owning half the wealth. Why are they also the 'royal' town plnning institute, hardly an advert for equality and community cohesion. When we look at this then we realise that no matter how planning has set out to achieve its goals of equilibrium, it has failed miserably, and continues to do so on an increasingly sliding scale. Sandercock opens the second chapter of her book Towards Cosmopolis, stating that professions as nations shape their members attitudes by rewriting history, exactly like the ministry of truth in Orwells book 1984 and much like school syllabuses tell us of the struggle against evil in world war 2 yet omit possibly the most successful ethnic cleansing operation to have ever taken place, by the British in Tasmania. Sandercock gives a good account of how planning has done the same thing, minorities cast aside and their voices not listened to. Unfortunately I will come back to the built environment and say that planning is guilty of these atrocities. I don’t believe it’s ever been there for the people as a whole but for those with the influence, the privileged few, who even with the best intentions cannot possibly build something for everyone.

Much has been lost and ground is conceded everyday. With every crap development that is allowed through a developer becomes richer, and another sub standard building dirties the skyline. The communitive action theorists are correct up to a point, no matter what the concept, thought or ideal was or is, it is not the perception of reality that is important but the actual reality. While applying for job recently, every planning job specifies that "you will be expected to work with developers to help them find appropriate sites" I understand that working with developers will be necessary at some point by why help them when their first priority is monetary profit? Why don’t the jobs specify liasing with communities or environmental groups? Maori society forbids the private ownership of land, asking the question; who has the right to take such a vital finite resource from others? Who claimed it in the first place as theirs? How? And how can they justify that? A quick look at the Times rich list shows many people who state property, development or land acquisition as their source of wealth. It’s no surprise.

‘The paradigm shift is here and the new wave seeks to escape from the strait jacket of a narrow instrumental reality’

The same idea of a society for people is jumping out at me through all planning mind sets and yet it is not being achieved. Communicative theorists see the basis of communicative operation revolving around discussion, deliberation and interaction. This isn’t a new idea, far from it. But why does it still fail?

‘Ultimately, planning theory oriented to conflict and to democratic compromise is likely to support more democratic planning practices and outcomes than an orientation to consensus’

It is this idea of consensus which comes in for some pretty heavy criticism, as it is felt that those with power make the decisions and not, as idealised, the majority decision. Look at major decisions in the UK for examples. Heathrow and Manchester runways were hugely opposed by hundreds of thousands of residents and environmental protesters. There is no doubt that the economic benefits are huge and will help the economy grow, but there it is. Power makes the decisions and money does equal power. When it comes down to it the Deputy Prime Minister has the final say, and this government as with any other, is all bought and paid for (by property developers in the most recent scandal). Public participation is supposedly key to planning, with local authorities expected to deal with all objections within 6 to 8 weeks. However the Government Office for the North West and the regional development agency are being downsized to make them ‘smaller yet stronger’.

These agencies are there to communicate with the public and facilitate participation yet are being cut back. This shows how high on the agenda communicative action really is. Healey attempts to answer such critique by saying that CAT is more focused on understanding complexity and diversity and that although power is a huge relation it needs to be fully understood before it can be applied to the theory. Power is also not a natural occurrence but has become natural through social acceptance and embedding. To change such a thing would be a real challenge. The best way forward according to Mouffe is to find ‘forms of power more compatible with democratic values’. It’s probably the best we can hope for until Captain Picard takes us all for a ride on the Enterprise and really opens people’s eyes.