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.
