Downloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt/45Abstract
One of the distinctive characteristics of urban planning as a discipline is its responsibility to educate practitioners who have to ‘go out there and get things done’. The world of planning today is seen by scholarly literature as an exciting, but also a challenging, profession in reference to the political economic framework which is dominated by authoritarianism, neoliberalism, informality, crime, fragmentation, depoliticization, and populism (see Filion, 2011; Gunder, 2010; Kunzmann, 2016; Ponzini, 2016; Ruming, 2018; Tasan-Kok & Baeten, 2011; Thornley, 2018; Sager, 2009; Roy, 2015). Although the practitioner’s role is prone to high levels of political and economic pressures in this ‘dark’ impression, recent studies have shown that there is a tendency among planning practitioners to push boundaries (Forester, 2013; Tasan-Kok et al., 2016; Tasan-Kok & Oranje, 2017) and even to become activists (Sager, 2016). Furthermore, work with planning students shows that radical critical approaches in planning education may turn into mere cynicism when they do not offer an analysis of problems or offer tools for alternative and emancipatory ideas (Tunström, 2017). Keeping this viewpoint in mind, and the theme of the 2018 AESOP Congress in Gothenburg, Sweden, which was ‘Making Space for Hope’, I proposed to place ‘critical constructive thinking’ in planning research under the spotlight as a topic for discussion with PhD students and young scholars during the AESOP PhD workshop, which followed the same theme of ‘hope’. It provided an excellent platform to debate for planning researchers on how to remain critical while still being able to provide constructive solutions in a landscape of complex social, economic and political relations and power dynamics. These are, I believe, also fundamental characteristic of planning practitioners and should be highlighted in planning education.
Published
Issue
Section
References
Albrechts, L. (2017). Strategic planning as a catalyst for transformative practices. In B. Haselsberger (Ed.), Encounters in Planning Thought: 16 Autobiographical Essays from Key Thinkers in Spatial Planning (pp. 184-201). London: Routledge.
Bengs, C. (2005). Planning theory for the naive. European Journal of Spatial Development-Http://www.Nordregio.18 [online].
Campbell, H., & Fainstein, S. S. (2012). Justice, Urban Politics, and Policy. In P. John, K. Mossberger, & S.E. Clarke (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics (pp. 545-566). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, H., Tait, M., & Watkins, C. (2014). Is there space for better planning in a neoliberal world? Implications for planning practice and theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 34(1): 45-59.
Fainstein, S.S. (2000). New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review. 35(4): 451–478.
Filion, P. (2011). Toronto’s Tea Party: Right-wing populism and planning agendas. Planning Theory and Practice. 12(3): 464-469.
Flyvbjerg, B., & Richardson, T. (2002). Planning and Foucault: In search of the dark side of planning theory. In P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory (pp. 44–62). London: Routledge.
Forester, J. (2013). Planning in the face of conflict: The surprising possibilities of facilitative leadership. Chicago: APA Planners Press.
Gunder, M. (2010). Planning as the ideology of (neoliberal) space. Planning Theory. 9(4): 298–314.
Harris, N. (2002). Collaborative Planning – From Theoretical Foundations to PracticeForms. In P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory, (pp. 21-43). London: Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical Constructivism. New York: Peter Lang.
Kunzmann, K. R. (2016). Crisis and urban planning? A commentary. European Planning Studies. 24(7): 1313–1318.
Ozdemir, E., & Tasan-Kok, T. (2019). Planners’ role in accommodating disagreements of citizens – the case of Dutch urban planning. Urban Studies. 56(4): 741-759.
Ponzini, D. (2016). Introduction: crisis and renewal of contemporary urban planning. European Planning Studies. 24(7): 1237–1245.
Purcell, M. (2009). Resisting neoliberalization: communicative planning or counter-hegemonic movements? Planning Theory. 8(2): 140–165.
Raco, M. (2013). The New Contractualism, the Privatization of the Welfare State, and the Barriers to Open Source Planning. Planning Practice and Research. 28(1), 45–64.
Raco, M., Durrant, D., & Livingstone, N. (2018). Slow cities, urban politics and the temporalities of planning: Lessons from London. Environment and Planning C. 36(7): 1176–1194.
Roy, P. (2015). Collaborative planning–A neoliberal strategy? A study of the Atlanta BeltLine. Cities. 43: 59–68.
Ruming, K. (2018). Post‐political planning and community opposition: asserting and challenging consensus in planning urban regeneration in Newcastle, New South Wales. Geographical Research. 56(2): 181–195.
Sager, T. (2009). Planners’ role: Torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities. European Planning Studies. 17(1): 65–84.
Sager, T. (2016). Activist planning: a response to the woes of neo-liberalism? European Planning Studies. 24(7): 1262–1280.
Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies. 42(11): 1991–2006.
Tasan-Kok, T., & Baeten, G. (Eds.) (2011). Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning: Cities, policies, and politics (Vol. 102). Switzerland: Springer.
Tasan-Kok, T., Bertolini, L., Oliveira e Costa, S., Lothan, H., Carvalho, H., Desmet, M., … Ahmad, P. (2016). ‘Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee’: giving voice to planning practitioners. Planning Theory & Practice. 17(4): 621–651.
Tasan-Kok, T., & Oranje, M. (Eds.) (2017). From planning student to urban planner: Young practitioners’ reflections on contemporary ethical challenges. New York: Routledge.
Thornley, A. (2018). Urban planning under Thatcherism: the challenge of the market. London: Routledge.
Tunstrm, M. (2017). A Spider in the Web or a Puppet on a String? Swedish Planning Students’ Reflections on their Future Professional Role Moa Tunstrm. In T. Tasan-Kok & M. Oranje (Eds.), From Student to Urban Planner (pp. 73–87). New York: Routledge.
Weinberg, D. (2008). The philosophical foundations of constructionist research. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of Constructionist Research (pp. 13–39). New York: Guilford Press.
