Having juxtaposed expert design vs. more bottom-up development last week – and heard Fullilove’s injunction to consider “Who’s progress?” - this week we explore the politics of planning. Our case for this session is planning in Curitiba, Brazil, which, as Lubow notes, is famous for planning-driven quality of life and for being a example of urban environmental sustainability. Paired with that case for this session is one of the most widely read, taught, cited, and debated political analyses ever written of city planning—Altshuler’s critique of comprehensive rational planning. In the course, you first saw the argument of which Altshuler’s is a part in the Klosterman discussion about pluralism, the idea that planning is about resolving conflicts among distinct interests in cities and society.
The Lubow article is lively and sometimes inspiring, the Altshuler article a bit dense. But make no mistake: His analysis of how planning actually worked in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul in the late 1950s raised questions planners still confront on a daily basis. This is the definition of a classic, and the blog question below will help you focus your reading of that classic on the ideas that are most important for our purposes. Lubow writes, initially as a compliment, that Curitiba gives one a sense of what cities might be like if governed by planners rather than politicians. He includes compelling examples of the rational planning the city did, particularly under planner-mayor Jaime Lerner, to green itself, enhance public transportation, and more. But later he notes, in the context of current problems the city faces, that “the progressive planning of Curitiba was not initiated by a democratic process” but rather by a dictatorship. And explaining why the 1970s and 80s model for planning and governing Curitiba has been transformed, he ends with the proposition that “Mayors need to be politicians, even in Curitiba.”
Altshuler’s article outlines a variety of mid-20th century criticisms of the comprehensive rational model. He considers planners’ claim to political legitimacy based on their ability to be “above politics,”and know the public interest independent of interest-group politics. This claim is central to what we discussed about modernism: Experts tell us what’s best, operating above politics. Related to this is their claim to possessing knowledge comprehensive enough to make wise comprehensive plans.
Your question is: Does Altshuler persuade you that planning will lack legitimacy if planners pursue their ideas independent of the push-and-pull of interest group politics? Does he also persuade you that the best planning can hope for is “middle-range” plans that win the support of interest groups and politicians? What do you take away from the Curitiba case to support your perspective? What about Scott's idea of "metis" - does this suggest any limits to the idea of planning as comprehensive rationality? In your answer, share any experiences, in your professional life or civic involvement, that have contributed to your understanding of the legitimacy and effectiveness of efforts like those in Curitaba.
p.s. Make sure you designate the correct categories when posting to your blog, it allows me to keep track and also permits you and your colleagues to sort the posts when you would like to read just one category.
The Althshuler article raises five primary themes concerning the nature of group politics that I think should be addressed, and they are: 1) Articulation of primary goals (referred to in the text as 'organizational expression'); 2) How to be objective; 3) Distortion; 4) Renewal, as a vested public interest; and, 5) Feasibility. I find that he illuminates them in his concern with a 'discovery by discussion' within the public interest spheres. It would be improbable for a group of people, while intimating shared goals by reaching objective criteria, both in discussion and in implemenetation and legislation through all life stages, to fore-go such a dynamic in favor of a simplification, or worse, a total abstraction of goals. I think the concept of articulation, as intended to mean a reaction between intended chains of signs, and their causal relationships in the built environment or social body--for example, telling poignant stories at a eulogy--are very important to "discover" clear visions and instruct people to build their own destiny. I think the combination of objectivity and distortion with this theme of articulation is the root of dialogue between subgroups or representative cultures within the public interest spheres. It is something that the French materialist philosophers elicited rather prolifically. The article does persuade me, because the mechanics are invariably sound.
His concept of "middle-range" plans is equivalent to saying "reach a common denominator." Different groups of people will work in algebra, or calcululs, or discrete functions, or imaginary numbers (ha!) and even irrationals, but there is always a way to reach 0, and it usually tells a few important things about functions involved in its equation. I do not think that one be so cynical as to consequently put all interest into disrepute, but as a "plateau" (to reference Gilles Deleuze) offers a 360 degree view, one must necessarily and reach it, if only fatally. (I am still unfamiliar with the etymology of Scott's 'metis,' so I will not even bother deducing a connection in this case).
I think that an "organizational expression," to borrow Altshuler's term, for Curitiba would have to reconcile the issues of 1) per-capita ownership, 2) infrastructural politics, 3) planners as replacing politicians, and 4) responsibility. Look at the loss of material good and exchange, public and private infrastructures and services, and the possibilities of economies and scale (notably agriculture), when comparing Curitiba to Rio de Janeiro. I think that FAVELAS are sort of "organizational expressions" that are trying to do this. When political agendas conflict with planning initiative, with respect to feasibility and public/private funding and equity, the middle-ground as proposed by Altshuler should look at, for example, squalor, trash and criminal acquisition for better uses of local failures and successes, instead of a generalization of a useful diagram of civic action.
Posted by: Matt | 09/10/2011 at 01:51 PM
Before reading the Goals of Comprehensive Planning by Alan Altshuler, I already had the opinion that planners needed to include constituent involvement in the process of compiling goals. The reading by Altshuler served to confirm my thinking that planners need to work closely with interest groups. Planners need to understand the nature of the political processes that could become involved within their given objectives.
Altshuler mentions that it is difficult to get the public to engage in the process of planning because it is a process. People who were able to engage in the continued discussion with planners were those that had jobs that required them to study and discuss civic affairs. Interest groups and political parties only became involved in the discussion when they felt that their goals were at risk.
Once the planner has an understanding of what might be the arguments for and against the proposal and who will be giving those arguments, they will have a better chance of designing a proposal that has a chance of success. Without winning the support of interest groups and politicians, a proposal has a greater chance of experiencing delays in conception and construction. Construction or design delays will result in added costs for the plan. While I do not believe that every interest group or politician needs to be on board with a proposed plan, the majority of opinion should be positive.
Although Lerner was able to successfully implement a design plan for the main downtown street of Curitiba without support from the business owners, the political climate was not of democracy. The reason the radical transformation of Curitiba was allowed to occur was due to the military dictatorship that ruled during that time. Lerner knew that if he acted quickly, he would be able to implement his strategies. He built first and reacted to comments later.
Posted by: Lisa Johnson | 09/12/2011 at 10:59 AM