Does planning need the plan?

 Michael Neuma (American Planning Association)

 Journal of the American Planning Association;
Spring 1998; 64, 2; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 208

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

This article is kind of general
discussion about planning and how planning need plans and it changed during times.

From modern city planning’s started
in the mid-nineteenth century. After World War II the plan’s stopped. There were
many powerful critiques to Plans and planning. According to facts, practice and
theory shifted from plan to process. Urban planners focused on theories, and
after a while they discovered about how planning need plan during times.

 This article compares plan-based and
nonplan-based planning by looking at both practice and theory in historical and
transatlantic perspective and explores the new claims put forward for the plan,
by comparing plan-based and non-plan-based planning, looking at both practice
and theory in historical perspective.

During sometimes use plan in
planning declined because The attack on the idea of comprehensive planning and
its main instrument, the plan, was part of the general attack on instrumental
rationality in the social sciences and professions. Critiques were also
launched on several fronts against the main tools of the plan zoning and land
use regulation.

After that time planner decided
to Reviving the plan, In some cases, the plan has proved to be an effective
instrument of urban policy and a spark for urban change. It still serves its
traditional functions of guiding urban facilities and setting parameters for
zoning and other legal controls on real property. It is serving newer purposes
as well. Physical plans put forth graphic images of the future that can rally
stakeholders to act. Citizens and interest groups like to back a plan that lets
them “see” what they will get. Politicians like to back a consensus
plan that deals with thorny issues they often find too risky to tackle
themselves.

In this article we can find The
context of planning in different basins, such as housing and roads or in
another view national or local or etc, for example As World War II erupted,
national planning efforts around the world took a turn at churning out materiel
for their armies and navies. As soldiers and sailors returned home after the
war, the priorities of national planning and programs continued to supersede
those of local planning, as they had during the war and the depression before
it. Service men and women and their baby boom offspring needed homes and
schools.

As planning became segmented into
sub disciplines, work on housing, transportation, urban design, land use,
environment, community development, and economic development became separated,
in offices and curricula around the country. Planning and public policy
suffered a “sectoralization” (Wildavsky 1979).

Plans Chart Collective Hope.
Plans help connect people to places by bringing people together to shape a
common destiny for their places and themselves. In so doing, plans link past,
present, and future into a willed history. A plan is a history, the story of a
place. In addition, as territorial animals, humans need to control their home
place for their survival and well-being. The plan ought to be the principal
means of asserting control, since it is the only territorially based means that
deals with the unity of place. We need to better understand the connection of
people to place to plan, if we want plans to respond to the needs of residents
rather than to regulations

City planners bring cities to
life and life to cities, and have done so for centuries using plans. The recent
diversification of tools used by planners has enriched our profession. To be
most effective, and to be used with the soundest legal basis, they need to be
linked to a general plan. After all, the plan did give planning its name.

In my opinion We know from
experience that some plans have little effect. Worse, some backfire and cause
disasters. The critiques of plans are familiar: Plans become marginal when not
connected to power. Plans restrict development and impinge on the
“free” market. Plans are too general and future-oriented to deal with
daily concerns. Plans take too long to prepare, and by the time they are
adopted they have been overtaken by events. Plans attempt to accomplish too
much and end up doing little or nothing. These points have had a long history
of debate, and the debate has been revived.

As a result, the program should not stop along the planning path. The whole
way of rehabilitation or construction must always be alongside planning, and
sometimes even adapt.

 

 New aspects for me as the
first time reader of the article is Plans Use Images of Place to Portray
Collective Hopes. Pictures, metaphors, stories, designs, and maps paint images
in the mind’s eye. Kenneth Buldings showed that we change our mind about
something when we change our image of it . Images enhance a plan’s capacity to
change people’s minds, converting plans into political change agents. Using
images also enables planners to exploit powerful media networks. We live in a
popular culture where images reign and determine fortunes. The more we know
about the way all sorts of images work in plans and planning, the more we will
succeed

The main message of the article is “Plans
can be used to set agendas and resolve conflicts, because they are ideal
“single texts” that the participants in plan-making rely on to make
decision.”

 

Categories: Articles

x

Hi!
I'm Garrett!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out