The urban planning field has undergone substantive changes in both underlying theories and its practice since 1945. There are specific junctions in planning history at which planning thought may be considered to have undergone a paradigm shift. These ideas are explored in depth by Nigel Taylor’s ‘Urban Planning Theory since 1945’ (1998) book. To analyse the changes that have occurred in planning theory Taylor uses the work of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) work in ‘paradigm shifts’ as an evaluative mechanism. Kuhn’s work dispelled the notion that the development of scientific knowledge occurred gradually and in small increments. Instead Kuhn found there were certain fundamental ideas in all branches of science that held true for substantial periods of time. As a result of these existing for long periods of time they form the premise of peoples world view of reality to the extent that it was extremely difficult or impossible for people to conceive their realities as anything other than what they had already been taught. It is these engrained long term and broad spectrum world views that which Kuhn terms paradigms. Infrequently a revolutionary shift of thought reveals a whole new theoretical perspective, this is a considered a ‘Kuhnian paradigm shift’.
Taylor makes note of three changes in planning theory, summarised as:
Art to Science
Science to Policy
Modernist to Postmodernist
In the ‘art to transition’- occurring pre WWII and into the 1960’s- demonstrates the change from planning being considered as a exercise in the collective design of building and the surrounding spaces to a recognition that people populated places are dynamic spaces interrelated activities and are in a constant state of flux. Planning therefore broadened its outlook to include the often idiosyncratic systems of a place and analysed these systems using a rational approach that adopted a scientific process using quantitative data. In the ‘science to policy’ transition planners evolved from a technical capacity to be inclusive specialised skills that acknowledged the planning process is value laden and planners where not experts in dictating the needs of communities and places. Instead planners began to demonstrate their facilitative and mediation capacity where planners protected the overarching need of public interest will working with interest groups to create a solution that represented needs of all involved. The ‘modernist to postmodernist’ transition represents changes occurring across numerous societal fronts, however in planning it represents a change from purely artificial spaces that encompassed simplistic and functionalist values to focus on the broader perspective that encompassed the values of aesthetic from.
No comments:
Post a Comment