As a lawyer and a planner, Davidoff promotes the idea of planners as advocates working on behalf of their client to advance a particular cause or goal. He argues for the importance of ‘plural plans’ that reflect diverse interests. This is in direct contrast to the traditional planning process in which professionals create a unitary plan or, if they devise alternatives, generate them through a single planning authority.
If each stakeholder group creates a plan for consideration, a richer dialogue and decision making process emerges. There is great value in promotion of tangible alternatives rather than protest against an existing proposal. All too often, groups mobilize against an action or idea, but without alternative solutions, positive transformations are slow to accrue, if at all. Proposing alternatives fosters healthier dialogue amongst participants.
Despite these potential benefits, I wonder about the adequacy of plural planning processes. Does it generate duplicate work? Is it creating inefficiencies in the process? While it levels the playing field to a certain extent (by allowing all groups to propose solutions), it still creates an “us and them” dichotomy where plans are created in silos, presented, debated and ultimately decided on. This separate process, I believe, exacerbates differential power structures.
Rather, a more successful process might exist where stakeholders can come together from the beginning to participate in an iterative process of question-framing, problem stating and solution building. It seems that Carolini advocates for this approach in her writing. She highlights the importance of governments and other institutions recognizing organizations of the urban poor (OUPs); that simple recognition brings them legitimacy. Additionally she argues that OUPs should be considered equal partners in decisions and identifying solutions. I am curious to know her thoughts on the Davidoff model of planning and whether she has a more nuanced view of effective advocacy efforts.
I am also interested in hearing more about Carolini’s discussion about the costs of community engagement. She cites growing evidence that community-led interventions with active participation can “reduce costs considerably and produce more sustainable outcomes.” This is in contrast to Sarkissian’s point that true engagement is costly and time-consuming. Is this a matter of scale and scope? Is engagement more expensive in the developed world? Or is the scope of what is produced different in the two contexts?
Finally, I hope to learn more about Carolini’s current work in Mozambique. She underscores the need for laypeople to be involved in data gathering and mapping of current infrastructure in order to build capacity and empower. She primarily cites emergence of environmental justice and strengthened community expectations as a result of this activity. But has she considered opportunities to also use this empowerment to “skill-up” residents, promote technical knowledge and build on individual assets?
Leave a Reply