Planning theory since 1945 : Week 5 Blog

This reading asked the questions whether there had been paradigm shifts within the plannning profession since 1945?  The definition of a paradigm shift was given by Thomas Kuhn as the funademental views or concepts of reality on a world scale that is revolutionary shifted or changed. An example of this would be that the world is flat, which is a paradigm and the paradigm shift would be that the world is round. Most paradigms once accepted last for centuries. Thus a paradigm shift is a fundamental shift in planning theory in this case. In my opinion, there has not been a full shift but rather a gradual evolution inwhich had added to an already dynamic profession but not totally shifted away from original theory. A theory in the text is a proved hypothesis.

Planner as a creative designer to scientific analyst and rational decision maker.'

Town planner started out as merely the physical designer of a town. It was considered arhietecture on a large scale ( whole town) rather then individual buidlings. Up until the 1960's and beyond most planners were trained as artictectects which meant that most towns had aethic conditions.Changes began due four reasons;

1) Physical view-> interelated activities in a cluster

2) Physical, social and economic activies

3) Live process rather then a blue print , black and white view of a plan

4)Conceptual changes-> skills and techniques appropriate to planning

Whilst the profession had turned rowards a planner as more of a rationalists, aethics planning is still incoporated within this model. Thus it had continued to incoporate more rationalism , but is not a paradigm shift. 

Tech expert to communicator;

A planner has the specialist knowledge and skills. These skills traditionaally about aethic appreciation and root judgements. Then there is more the shift towards identifiying and mediating between stake holders and faciliating rather then being the tech expert who comes up with a solution in an office. It becomes more of an open and democratic process. Influences come from poeple like Pauld Davidoff with his advocacy view and Habermas theory of communcicative action. Whilst there has been an alternative way of proceeding this is not a total paradigm shift as the planner still does have the specialist knoweledge.

Modernist and post modernist;

Post modernmists reverted back to aethic design, "bring back style" . This was instead of the modernists view of aethic minamlism and geometric buildings and functionalism. Modernists looked towards Jane Jacobs to show that the city is complex and dynamic rather then simple which was proposed by Howard and Le Corbusier. Therefore there was more advocacy for mixed used development. Post modernists tried to break the intelectual tradition of positive analysis of a city which dated back to enlightenment theory times. It tried to look towards what the city ought to be, normative analusis. It meant that there are no single conceptions and that an ideal post modernists city is multicultural.No paradigm shift as functionality and sustainability being just as important as the aethics of design.

All these concepts from the text were interesting to think about. Whilst I think that whilst there have been changes to the profession i think they have been more add ons and evolutionary rather then total  paradigm shifts. Tell me what you think ?

X