Appropriate planning action

“Appropriate planning action cannot be prescribed from a position of value neutrality, for prescriptions are based on desired objectives” – Paul Davidoff

Paul Davidoff is calling for the planners to be advocates of their own values rather than maintaining himself as the neutral figure. The ability to advocate and work towards an effective planning policy allows for the involvement of other interest groups who hold their own values. This, then, allows for an effective urban democracy. Gabriella Carolini also calls attention to values. Within the inherent nature of planning is a power struggle in which different group will fight to maintain power of the process, but everyone can agree that time is better spent if they can use the different strengths of each group involved. By doing so requires all that is involved to “share a system of valuation.” Once those are in line, smart decisions can be made but that’s if the groups can do this.

Both Davidoff and Carolini encourage multiple voices to be involved in the planning. These groups, whether interest or OUPs, bring attention to the values they represent and also provide necessary data for the project. By engaging community members and OUPs, they are invested in the project and then develop a sense of ownership of the results of the project. Although I think it’s amazing to involve the community and allow them to fight for what they think is right, but at what point are there too many voices? Ideally, who will recognize that the interest groups and OUPs or other community organized groups are advocating for conflicting objectives that has no end?

Also, Carolini wrote about several issues with OUPs that can affect its success, one being time and being able to maintain interest within OUPs during the duration of the process as it does take a long time. This kind of goes back to last week’s Eagleby group and how they were able to involve the community and from an interest group, however, after 6 years, the group was disbanded due to employment opportunities. I thought this was a good example of what Carolini pointed out as both time and generation affecting the success of the OUP, but Wendy saw the group as successful because they were able to achieve their goal. In a way this kind of blurs the line between advocacy and participatory planning for me.

After reading these articles, I’m curious as to the process interest groups and OUPs go through. I feel that the contentious nature of the whole process involving various groups with different interests and the fact that the timeline is long implies that it i can be very difficult, but how does that play in to the overall timeline with deadlines from stakeholders or opportunities arising/passing or even money?