2011 Yamaneko

final reflection

I too enjoyed our group discussions this semester.  We had a great range of personalities, backgrounds, and ideas.  I enjoyed Bruce's last two lectures because I love to hear people lecture about topics they are really passionate about. They can present these topics well and I get a lot out of it as opposed to a regular lecture.  After these classes, I am disappointed about UCD's lack of instruction on the collaborative planning process and hope they change that soon.

Good luck to everyone finishing up the semester.

Final Class Reflection

I enjoyed the final class for many reasons.  First of all it was the final class of my graduate experience!  But more importantly, the entire week and this class in particular allowed me to reflect on my experience and anticipate what lies ahead.  Even the final has been a pleasure to write as it has allowed me to connect the dots and lay out some of the challenges that I will face in the very near future. 

When all is said and done, I believe we are very fortunate to be in theplanning profession.  We are innovators, visionaries,  and cconsensus-builders who help to achieve positive change for the public good.  If you ask me, planning is a very noble profession (when done "right").  Paramount to our studies this semester were the four planning traditions.  I believe that none are irrelevent in todays society and a successful planner is one who can incorporate each of these into his or her professional practice where it is merrited. 

It's been a tremendous pleasure getting to know members of my blog group.  They all are tremondous people with great character and deserve nothing but the best.  Best of luck to you all in your future efforts and I look forward to the day that our paths cross again. Cheers!

Planning: More than Meets the Eye

The thing I took away from this last class - other than the final is actually going to take a lot more time than I had allotted for it, because it just takes a while to write 3000 words - and from the course more broadly is that planning emcompasses much more than I ever realized. For someone like me, who (apparently) really didn't have a clear picture of all the things planners do before I started this program, it's been a realization slow in coming and I wish there would have been some way to learn about it earlier in the semester because it would have provided useful context for the planning traditions and modes we studied. I'm jealous of Trevor and his experience-informed understanding of how the things we studied in class applied and interacted with real world planning issues. 

I enjoyed Bruce's talk on collaborative planning networks. In fact, these last two classes have been among my favorites because it's clear that Bruce is very knowledgeable and passionate about the subjects. And I enjoyed our final blog group discussion. As usual. Although the blogging sometimes seemed like a burden that didn't pay sufficient dividends, I always enjoyed our discussions. I don't think a better mix of personalities and experiences could have been created intentionally, and I'm glad we all counted off whatever number it was during that first class. I hope I have many more chances to chat with you all.

Good luck with finals!

12/7 Reflection on Last Class

Though the timelines have been difficult to always meet in readings and blogging, group Yamaneko has been a great class discussion group.  Everyone seems interested and each week certain different group members have input to contribute to discussions.   This class was no different, as blog leader it was difficult to capture the variety of ideas and takeaways we discussed.  I think Trevor's input to the class that though sometimes the theory seems intangible, it is nice to have it a guide to the direction you should be heading.  

One thing I found in this week's blog discussion was that the students not actively involved in the planning field were somewhat unsure exactly what planning today looks like.  I would like to have read some more current articles on what planning theory may be.  Perhaps we are in a reactionary stage in which we are simply scrambling to fix existing problems rather than make sweeping changes or pose as field visionaries.  

Good luck to everyone in your final essays.  

Last class reflection

Finals are always a hectic time, but I've always enjoyed our group discussion. Yamaneko is definitely the best blog ever, and I'm going to miss you guys. Our group always seems to have relevant professional and personal experience that they could relate to the group. This week I think we struggled with translating planning theory into real world circumstances. I think what makes this difficult is lack of universal jargon that can make resilience theory communicable to other professionals and the general public. However, it is no doubt important to take these academic models in consideration at this point in our development. 

Good luck on finals!

Reflection on last class

This class was good to tie it all together.  I was hoping the readings and topics talked about in class would be as good as they were last week, but I still thought it was a nice way to wrap up the semester.  I hadn't really thought about how different this class is from methods, a lot of how planners SHOULD do things, that might get pushed back to more seemingly important things, like economics.  I've learned a lot in this class and hope it they are not things that people don't really care about in the professional field of planning. 

Just City v. Communicative Action Models: The Final Discussion

I haven't attended my public meeting yet, so this is all still academic to me (deeply, self-satifyingly academic in Fainstein's case). I've located two that I could attend with my busy schedule, but both were cancelled for lack of agenda. Now I've got one lined up for Tuesday in Arvada, and I've confirmed that there are items on the agenda. Maybe it's a good thing that I waited until the last minute, because now my memo can be influenced by these readings. 

Fainstein's critique of the communicative mode of planning recalls (for me, because I'm programmed to see historical roots in everything) James Madison's argument in the Tenth Federalist Paper about putting checks on the tyranny of the majority through a federal system. "Communicative theorists avoid dealing with the classic topic of what to do when the processes produce unjust results" and, moreover, is susceptible to abuse by NIMBYs, she charges. She also suggestions that communicative practices too often stop short of action, and so their plans remain paper plans. Although these two critiques attack communicative theory from both sides (it leads to unjust outcomes! it produces no acted-upon outcomes!), they both resonate with me. She also does a pretty good job of cynically marginalizing New Urbanism as a superficial approach that "paints a physical picture of a desireable city" but "its easy elision of physical form with social condidtions" is "more ideology than theory." 

But, in the case of Fainstein's attack on communicative practice, I wonder if it is fair to judge this mode based only on it's potential abuses and limitations? Can anyone deny Inne's thesis that the established modes of public participation in our system are less-than-effective and have contributed to the rising cynicism about government? There are ideas to grab hold of in a theoretical construct that seeks to elevate the value of public input, even if that mode is not fully sufficient to carry the best plans into operation.

The "Just City" mode is attractive to me because it offers the best opportunity for planners to stand in the nexus of expert and facilitator, guiding the process and defining options with expertise while bringing those who stand to be impacted into the dialogue in meaningful capacities. But I'm not ready to be signed up for the Just City Militia just yet.

* * * 

Footnote: Fainstein's reliance on Marx shows a political tone-defness that strikes me as surprising after her sharp analyses of other modes of planning. Pitching your idea with quotes from Marx (regardless of their merit) is the best example I know of how out-of-touch academics can be political realities in America. It's the sort of self-sabatoging act that perpetuates another generation of academics and planners lamenting that the unwashing public (and, even more, politicians) won't listen to my good ideas.

 

12/7 Discussion

Throughout the semester I have attended several public meetings.  For this class I attended the FasTracks East Corridor meeting hosted by the RTD and DTP.  I was somewhat surprised in that the meeting had been advertised as both an "update" and a "workshop".  This led me to assume there would be some degree of public participation.  It turned out there was good participation in the form of questions by attendees.  It certainly wasn't a workshop.  My memo doesn't challenge Booher's arguments for the simple fact that the meeting was not part of a decision-making process; it was an update and opportunity for citizens to ask questions of the experts involved in the project.  Nor to my recommendations have anything to do with Feinstein's perspective.  My main recommendation in the memo was simply to advertise better/more clearly and to understand the audience better.

I've also been to several rural city council and development board meetings throughout the semester.  These were much more formal and displayed many of Booher's recommendations.  These proceedings always meet the requirements for open meeting laws, diligently posting agendas around the community and in local newspapers.  Robert's rules of order are strictly followed to avoid any procedural issues. There is an abundance of the participants' capacity to plan collaboratively.  These folks are elected to positions of leadership by their peers, volunteer on several boards each and are involved in many civic groups together; They work quite well with one another.

 

As a side note, thank you everyone for your kind words of encouragement last week.

Disobedience

This term I attended several different community meeting. By far the most interesting was the semi-formal General Assemble meeting hosted by Occupy Denver. These meeting are conducted twice a day regularly. They serve as an important time to communicate with members on movements and debates within the group.  I attended a late night meeting on Halloween the crowd was relatively docile following a very active weekend.  The Occupy Denver movement has been practicing civil disobedience in cities around the world, protesting the perceived social and economic inequality within the democratic system. The movement is strictly in line with Innes and Booher’s assertion that the current public participation policy in the United States is causing rampant anger and mistrust. The structure of the meeting I participated in, allowed everyone a chance to talk, in an orderly fashion. However, even in this type of environment, many people feel that what they have to say is more important than the next guys thoughts. Increasing participation within the movement has some obvious advantages. However it by no means solves all the issue regarding consensus building.  

If the movement is successful even on a small scale the policy making process in the United States, will become more collaborative, yet no one is entirely sure how to create a systematic approach to making this operational. In my view I think it makes sense to make government work at a small level, giving neighborhoods, police power to effect change with a particular community in mind. National and City governments are often at a crux, when they are unable to meet the diverse needs of their constituents.  

 

Final Blog Post! (unless we need to do a reflection)

What I was most surprised about at the planning meeting was how the planners and appointed policymakers balanced being very formal with being casual too.  They went by the book when introducing a new subject and calling out the time when they finished talking about it and moved on to the next subject.  But at the same time, they joking around and really enjoying themselves throughout the meeting.  It was a nice mix of being professional but not being uptight.  They had an enjoyable time but didn't digress and not get done what they needed to do. 

All the different aspects I observed in the meeting went along with the Innes and Booher readings.  Not at this particular meeting, but they had been having public participation for the last 6 months.  They just got done with many neighborhood meetings to discuss the vision they had for the city and they said that there had been a good turnout by neighborhood members at these meetings.  They sought out the public's opinions and suggestions throughout this visioning process, which is what was suggested in the two readings we did fo rhtis week.   There were not many community members at this meeting because it didn't really involve anything that required their input, but it would have been nice to see more people there who were interested and cared about what was going on.  

I think that Innes and Booher suggest a good approach to planning with public participation being a key factor in it.  It is essential, as we've learned all semester, to not leave groups out when planning, and the best way to do this is invite the public to give their participation throughout the process.  The best way to acheive a just city, which strives to create an equitable city while including diverse participation to gain a richer quality of life, is to include as much of the public as much as possible throughout the planning process.