This week, our topic in Urban planning was the "Ladder of
Participation". It is a simplified category of different degrees and
levels of public participation, which are (from low participation to
high participation) Manipulation, Therapy, Informing, Consultation,
Placation, Partnership, Delegated power and Citizen control.
What is public participation and how should citizens participate and in what form? This question have been bother me ever since I get out that debate in seminar. With increasing demand for social equality and environmental protection from the local communities while also address the needs of development, what action should government take to protect the interests of its people.We have discussed many short comes of public participation such as "unprofessionalism", some citizens has no informantion nor experience in the related field, their opinions may not be feasible, and their participation may slow down the planning process. Some scholar also suggest that it could lead to various stakeholders busy at building consensus with each other and forget or ignore the role and the goal of planning. Populism is another form of issue, the popular things might not always be the good thing for people. And democracy is often used as an excuse for the majorities to force their ideas to the minority such as the American blacks. Therefore, a wrong approach in public participate can be more problematic. Giving an extreme example here: Cuba, is at least from a liberalist perspective, a less democratic nation with lesser public participation in planning and decision making. However, it is the only nation in the world which met the WWF's definition of sustainable development; having an ecological footprint of less than 1.8 hectares per capita and a Human Development Index of over 0.8 for 2007. And it has a 99.8% literacy rate, an infant death rate lower than many developed countries, and an average life expectancy of 77.64.
There are also examples of planning without public participation of all stakeholders, where most likely to lead to discontent of the public and disadvantage the disadvantaged groups even further. Some governments like the one in Portugal provide their citizens a tokenism of participation through "Informing" and "Consultation", while in China, participation often only offered in the final stage of planning like the final drafting and auditing. They often priorities economic development over environmental protection. Is this case, clearly public intervention is required. Doctor Hu has shown us some success examples of public participation in planning where people took action on themselves to change the community.
So, sometimes less "democratic" process creates better outcome and sometimes it doesn't. When should public participate? How and in what form should we participate? I hope I can keep this discussion open and hear more ideas from everyone.
Due to the words limit, I had to leave a lot of thing out. But please join the discussion, tell me what do you think. What is your answer to those questions. I have also found some interesting articles on the topic, feel free to take a look:
Participatory Democracy and the Governance of Urban Planning in Portugal
http://www.susdiv.org/uploadfiles/ED2009-057.pdf
Rethinking Community Participation in Urban Planning: The Role of Disadvantaged Groups In Sydney Metropolitan Strategy
http://www.anzrsai.org/system/files/f1/f54/o306//ProcMahjabeen_and_others.pdf
Planning Sustainable Cities Unhabitat Practices and Prespectives
http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=3008&alt=1
Planning and Rationalization of Public Participation in China’s Environmental Management
http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/mse/article/download/j.mse.1913035X20110501.005/1387
Wednesday, 19 September 2012
Friday, 7 September 2012
Frank Lloyd Wright, the greatest suburban designer
Frank Lloyd Wright
Born: 8 June 1867 died: 9 April 1959
An American architect, interior designer, writer and educator.
Unlike his rivalry in modernist planning such as Le Corbusier who promotes internationally style of high urban concentration of planning, Frank Lloyd Wright promotes organic style of architecture. He believes organic suburban planning is a way to allow individuals to enjoy maximum freedom, to great a harmonious relationships between the architecture and the environment. Like he always said :“A free America... means just this: individual freedom for all, rich or poor, or else this system of government we call democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the machine and make him like it.” So Frank Lloyd Wright went away from traditional thinking of planning and proposed what he called “Quadruple Block Plan.” This design strayed from traditional suburban lot layouts and set houses on small square blocks of four equal-sized lots surrounded on all sides by roads instead of straight rows of houses on parallel streets. The houses were set toward the centre of the block so that each maximised the yard space and included private space in the centre. This also allowed for far more interesting views from each house.
Frank Lloyd Wright also pursuit the same philosophy in buildings internal fixtures, including furniture, carpets, windows, doors, tables and chairs, light fittings and decorative elements. He was one of the first architects to design and supply custom-made, purpose-built furniture and fittings that functioned as integrated parts of the whole design, and he often returned to earlier commissions to redesign internal fittings.
Born: 8 June 1867 died: 9 April 1959
An American architect, interior designer, writer and educator.
Unlike his rivalry in modernist planning such as Le Corbusier who promotes internationally style of high urban concentration of planning, Frank Lloyd Wright promotes organic style of architecture. He believes organic suburban planning is a way to allow individuals to enjoy maximum freedom, to great a harmonious relationships between the architecture and the environment. Like he always said :“A free America... means just this: individual freedom for all, rich or poor, or else this system of government we call democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the machine and make him like it.” So Frank Lloyd Wright went away from traditional thinking of planning and proposed what he called “Quadruple Block Plan.” This design strayed from traditional suburban lot layouts and set houses on small square blocks of four equal-sized lots surrounded on all sides by roads instead of straight rows of houses on parallel streets. The houses were set toward the centre of the block so that each maximised the yard space and included private space in the centre. This also allowed for far more interesting views from each house.
Picture : 1903 (Projects for Charles E. Roberts 1896 - 1903) by Frank Lloyd Wright
This first Quadruple block plan ever commissioned
Frank Lloyd Wright also pursuit the same philosophy in buildings internal fixtures, including furniture, carpets, windows, doors, tables and chairs, light fittings and decorative elements. He was one of the first architects to design and supply custom-made, purpose-built furniture and fittings that functioned as integrated parts of the whole design, and he often returned to earlier commissions to redesign internal fittings.
Friday, 24 August 2012
More recommended readings
Chicago on the Yangtze
Christin Larsonhttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/chicago_on_the_yangtze
City Planning
Chongqing Municipal Governmenthttp://en.cq.gov.cn/AboutChongqing/1923.htm
For some reason my blog is showing people when I was drafting
For some reason my blog is showing people when I was drafting.
This is so annoying!
I don't want to show people my draft. I want to show them the finished goods when it finished.
Does anyone know how to do that? This is my first time use blog, so I don't really know how to change the setting.
This is so annoying!
I don't want to show people my draft. I want to show them the finished goods when it finished.
Does anyone know how to do that? This is my first time use blog, so I don't really know how to change the setting.
Urban Planning Under Socialist Ideology
I wrote this post in response to Richard Klosterman's article "Arguments For and Against Planning". In his article, he has incorrectly took Marxists' view on urban planning in a liberalist country as Marxists' way of Urban planning. He argues that "Marxists' way of urban planning is to use the mean of revolution to destroy the entire capitalist system. All urban planning activities that tries to decrease the gap between rich and poor in a capitalist country are just trying to delay the revolution that bring real change in the society." There are two loopholes in his logic:
1: His claims are not the Marxist ideology itself but a historical policies that are used by the Marxists in the age of post industrial revolution when the workers' living standards at its lowest.
2: If Marxists believe that "Urban planning activities that tries to decrease the gap between rich and poor in a capitalist country are just trying to delay the revolution that bring real change in the society," then what about Urban Planning in a Socialist country? If Klosterman's claim is true, then there will be no need for urban planning in a Socialist country since they have already made the really changes in the society. But as all of you have aware that in present time, every Socialist country has its own urban planning institution.
So how do a socialist country plan its urban area? Here I will use my own country as an example to briefly explain:
In a Socialist country, it's governing ideology focuses on the equality of life. Government is responsible to keep the gap between rich and poor in an acceptable level and guarantee its citizen minimum standard of living. For every five years, during the Nation Congress, the central government will set the goal of national development for the next five years, and then the local authorities will implement it according to its local situation. The planning process emphasis "government organise, experts leading, multi-organisation cooperation, public paticipation and scientific decision making."
In 2005, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of China has drafted a concept of National Central City as a first stop in reforming urbanisation in China. This concept is formed under the ideological guide line to provide equality to the people, to deal with the inequality development in China.
National central cities are described as a group of cities in charge of leading, developing, performing tasks in political, economic, and cultural aspects for the surrounding region. My hometown, city of Chongqing as the biggest inland city, has also been chosen as one of the national central cities and as the stage ground to developing the south west region of China.
Because of intensive public participation in planning, the local authority have planned to develop Chongqing into a multi-center city, each center has its own industry, commercial, and living area. This way we can eliminated the unequal development within our city. The close the gap between the rich and poor, the government has also invested large amount of funding in low rent public housing and transportation, light rails and subways have been built to provide convenience for the lower income populations who can't afford to buy their own car. If you are in China, you will never have to worry about miss your bus. Because there will be a bus that you want in every five minutes.
The plan is also focuses on environmental friendly, a lots of heavy polluting factories has been forced to close done and the rests are no longer permitted to dump their wastes into the Yangtze River. Multiple green areas have been created within the city.
Every since the opening up policy, rural areas have always been the least benefited areas. People who lives in cities are generally rich than people who lives in rural areas. As a part of the policy of National central cities, Chongqing is on a expansion to urbanise the surrounding rural areas to improve the standard of living for people who lives in those places.
1: His claims are not the Marxist ideology itself but a historical policies that are used by the Marxists in the age of post industrial revolution when the workers' living standards at its lowest.
2: If Marxists believe that "Urban planning activities that tries to decrease the gap between rich and poor in a capitalist country are just trying to delay the revolution that bring real change in the society," then what about Urban Planning in a Socialist country? If Klosterman's claim is true, then there will be no need for urban planning in a Socialist country since they have already made the really changes in the society. But as all of you have aware that in present time, every Socialist country has its own urban planning institution.
So how do a socialist country plan its urban area? Here I will use my own country as an example to briefly explain:
In a Socialist country, it's governing ideology focuses on the equality of life. Government is responsible to keep the gap between rich and poor in an acceptable level and guarantee its citizen minimum standard of living. For every five years, during the Nation Congress, the central government will set the goal of national development for the next five years, and then the local authorities will implement it according to its local situation. The planning process emphasis "government organise, experts leading, multi-organisation cooperation, public paticipation and scientific decision making."
In 2005, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of China has drafted a concept of National Central City as a first stop in reforming urbanisation in China. This concept is formed under the ideological guide line to provide equality to the people, to deal with the inequality development in China.
GDP per capita in China, shows you the unequal development in the country
National central cities are described as a group of cities in charge of leading, developing, performing tasks in political, economic, and cultural aspects for the surrounding region. My hometown, city of Chongqing as the biggest inland city, has also been chosen as one of the national central cities and as the stage ground to developing the south west region of China.
Picture: national central cities of China
Because of intensive public participation in planning, the local authority have planned to develop Chongqing into a multi-center city, each center has its own industry, commercial, and living area. This way we can eliminated the unequal development within our city. The close the gap between the rich and poor, the government has also invested large amount of funding in low rent public housing and transportation, light rails and subways have been built to provide convenience for the lower income populations who can't afford to buy their own car. If you are in China, you will never have to worry about miss your bus. Because there will be a bus that you want in every five minutes.
The plan is also focuses on environmental friendly, a lots of heavy polluting factories has been forced to close done and the rests are no longer permitted to dump their wastes into the Yangtze River. Multiple green areas have been created within the city.
Picture: the author stands on the highest point of Chongqing looking dowe to the city
notice the gaps between buildings are filled with trees.
Every since the opening up policy, rural areas have always been the least benefited areas. People who lives in cities are generally rich than people who lives in rural areas. As a part of the policy of National central cities, Chongqing is on a expansion to urbanise the surrounding rural areas to improve the standard of living for people who lives in those places.
Picture: Farmers' kids enjoy their day become Urban citizens
This is my introduction to Socialist Urban Planning, hopefully now the readers would have a general understand of the topic. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
The Government's official plan for Chongqing:
In 2020:
Main Urban Area expand to 1188 square kilometers, Urban center expand to 561 square kilometers.
Population lives in Urban area reaches 22.8 million
High way, rail way coverage reaches 95%
Total Urbanisation rate reach 70%
Picture: Model of "Chongqing in 2020", made by Chongqing Urban Planning Bureau
There are some more readings that can provide you with much more details on the topic:
http://www.grm.cuhk.edu.hk/eng/people/ppl/files/XuJiang/12_Socialist_urban_planning_in_transition.pdf
http://www.grm.cuhk.edu.hk/eng/people/ppl/files/XuJiang/12_Socialist_urban_planning_in_transition.pdf
Blog update: Crucial information for my later posts
I will soon have my first post uploaded. Before that I want to apologizes for my poor English skill since it is my second language and my friend who use to help me with my English is away. If anyone who want to fix my post a little, you are certainly welcome.
My topic will be about Urban Planning under Socialist Ideology, it's my reply to Richard Klosterman's article "Arguments For and Against Planning", try to fix his blind spot. But before that I want to briefly explain China's economic system. This way, it will be much easier for readers to understand the background of the issues addressed in my post and my recommended reading.
China has transformed it's pure planning economy into a Socialist Market Economy in later 70's of the last century. So what is the so called Socialist Market Economy? How it distinguish itself to other economy system such as western Market Economy?
To put it in the simplest form: Socialists believes private ownership of land is a way to legalise rubbery. Because people who has land, the bourgeois can use it to produce products and sale them to make money. While people who doesn't have land, the workers will have to hire themselves out to those who has land. So the workers will forever be bonded to bourgeois' and make money for them. This is inequality to the workers. But after decades of practice in pure planning economy, while the government can provide people with basic needs and equality, the economy was developing in a very slow speed. Nobody can get rich. Why? Because in pure planning economy, the market lacks competitions to encourage people to be innovated, to create better products to better suit people's need. There were little is any luxury goods for the people during planning economy period. That is why the standard of living in China was generally lower compare to the people in the west.
The Socialist Market Economy is the answer to solve that problem:
While ensure the public ownership of land and raw materials, the finished goods and service industries are opened to all form of ownership. Now, any citizen has the rights to rent a piece of land and then buy raw materials from the government to create products and sale them in the market. This way, different companies will always trying to differentiate their products to get ahead of others in intensive competition. In the same time, the government will use their power to direct the market and stabilise the market prices for various goods (since they control the land and raw materials) according to the need of the nation. One of the best example would be last year, the central government decide to stop mining rare earth materials and stop sell them to foreign countries to protect China's national interests. And since anyone can rent land, this way it provides citizen with better equality because nobody owns the land forever. It is similar to the land ownership in ACT Australia introduced by the labor party, but in a more aggressive manner. Because in ACT, the government doesn't control the raw materials. Plus in ACT, the period of time for the renting of land is 99 years, but in China it is set to 75 years.
My topic will be about Urban Planning under Socialist Ideology, it's my reply to Richard Klosterman's article "Arguments For and Against Planning", try to fix his blind spot. But before that I want to briefly explain China's economic system. This way, it will be much easier for readers to understand the background of the issues addressed in my post and my recommended reading.
China has transformed it's pure planning economy into a Socialist Market Economy in later 70's of the last century. So what is the so called Socialist Market Economy? How it distinguish itself to other economy system such as western Market Economy?
To put it in the simplest form: Socialists believes private ownership of land is a way to legalise rubbery. Because people who has land, the bourgeois can use it to produce products and sale them to make money. While people who doesn't have land, the workers will have to hire themselves out to those who has land. So the workers will forever be bonded to bourgeois' and make money for them. This is inequality to the workers. But after decades of practice in pure planning economy, while the government can provide people with basic needs and equality, the economy was developing in a very slow speed. Nobody can get rich. Why? Because in pure planning economy, the market lacks competitions to encourage people to be innovated, to create better products to better suit people's need. There were little is any luxury goods for the people during planning economy period. That is why the standard of living in China was generally lower compare to the people in the west.
The Socialist Market Economy is the answer to solve that problem:
While ensure the public ownership of land and raw materials, the finished goods and service industries are opened to all form of ownership. Now, any citizen has the rights to rent a piece of land and then buy raw materials from the government to create products and sale them in the market. This way, different companies will always trying to differentiate their products to get ahead of others in intensive competition. In the same time, the government will use their power to direct the market and stabilise the market prices for various goods (since they control the land and raw materials) according to the need of the nation. One of the best example would be last year, the central government decide to stop mining rare earth materials and stop sell them to foreign countries to protect China's national interests. And since anyone can rent land, this way it provides citizen with better equality because nobody owns the land forever. It is similar to the land ownership in ACT Australia introduced by the labor party, but in a more aggressive manner. Because in ACT, the government doesn't control the raw materials. Plus in ACT, the period of time for the renting of land is 99 years, but in China it is set to 75 years.
Monday, 13 August 2012
This site is currently under construction
OK, this is my first time starting a blog, let's have some fun together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)