process” with “the government process”. The wheel has turned too far for city
planning to continue as simply physical urban design, or as architecture applied to the scale of the city. The city plan is no lon- ger cast simply in terms of streetscapes and traffic arteries and grand vistas and beauti- ful compositions. The contemporary city plan, although it is still cast in terms of land-uses and physical development, is also concerned with the needs of people—fami- lies, young people and the aged; it is concerned with poverty and employment, with health and recreation, with present life-styles and aspirations for the future. It is in fact trying very hard to return to Plato’s notion, to be “concerned with the ordering of the city”, as he put it, and in the sense that he meant: [not] in terms of the architecture of the city, or the layout of its street system or its land uses, but rather in terms of how the government of the city might be ordered, so as to evoke, and to express, and to nourish, the best that was in the hearts and the minds of its citizens. Why then can it not succeed? Why do
most city plans fail, and why is city plan- ning regarded as merely the administration of land use control and development approval regulations? Why is the city plan- ner regarded in many quarters as merely an irrelevant and obstructive bureaucrat? The reasons are many and complex, but at the heart of it all is the fact that city plan- ning is trying to play the role of advisor on matters of policy to a government which is not really very much interested in matters of policy. City government is not really interested in long range planning, or in commitment to policies designed to achieve long-range goals. City government for the most part sees itself as an adminis- trative body rather than a policy-making body. It sees its role as that of housekeep- ing rather than governing. It is not surprising therefore, that it sees its staff simply as a housekeeping administration, and what use can it therefore have for advi- sors on matters of policy? Is there then no prospect of resolving
this dilemma? I think there is, within cer- tain limits. In the general context of our contemporary western society I can iden- tify three fundamental characteristics which present the most obdurate and for- midable contradictions to the planning principle. One of these is our belief in the
virtues of the free market and our commit- ment to the principle of private enterprise. The contradiction seems obvious: if the free play of market forces, together with the separate and often conflicting decisions of the private entrepreneurs is the best way to form the future, then the deliberate intervention of the civic government in the determination of the future is anomalous. The second is, I suppose, a corollary of the first, and it is our commitment to the pri- vate ownership of land. Again the dilemma seems clear: if the ownership of the land is to remain in private hands, and the deci- sions about how to develop that land are to be in the main, private decisions, how can civic government really perform the oner- ous task of “ordering the city”? And the
I suggest that city planning, in its essence, is nothing other than a special way of looking at and understanding urban problems.
third element in the dilemma is that of our loss of the sense of community, which is often referred to as the phenomenon of alienation in our society. Without a strong sense of mutual involvement and interest, and common set of values, and common aspirations, how can we arrive at a com- mon view of our future and the means of realizing it? I suggest that city planning, in its
essence, is nothing other than a special way of looking at and understanding urban problems. It is a synoptic or comprehensive point of view which seeks to understand the problems of the city, as far as possible in terms of their total implications and repercussions: physical, economic, social, political, and long term as well as immedi- ate. Clearly, no single person can master all of the disciplines which are required for a comprehensive understanding of the com- plexities of the contemporary metropolis. However, if the transportation engineer, and the social worker, and the economist and the other specialists had also been trained to see their particular problems
comprehensively, that is, as planners, then their advice to council would be based on a more rounded and long-term consideration of the issues, than it would have been with- out such training. The planner can never be comprehensive in [terms of] technical skills; but must be as comprehensive as possible in understanding the limitations of whatever [those] special skills may be, and of the consequences of [planning] advice when applied to urban problems. The planner must also understand, as far as possible, the consequences and implica- tions of the advice of other specialists in the making of government decisions and policies. Let me close by saying that although I
recognize the confusion which at present surrounds city planning, and the tenuous- ness of its present status, and the dubiousness of its professional character, I believe strongly in its validity as an impor- tant element in the management of urban growth, and in the contribution it can ulti- mately make to the salvaging and the refashioning of the city as an appropriate habitat for mankind. City planning is of course powerless to accomplish this alone. Profound changes must occur in our soci- ety before city planning can come in to its proper sphere. But society is constantly changing and one must work towards affecting such changes as will improve the quality of urban life. Perhaps in the not too distant future the changes will bring us to the position where city governments will see their central responsibility as the man- agement of the city’s affairs so as to evoke, express, and nourish the best that is in the hearts and minds of its people. When that happens, city government and city plan- ning will come together in their true relationship, as two aspects of the same function to achieve again “the ordering of the city” in the profoundest sense of Plato’s phrase. ■
DR. LEVIN served as the President of the Town Planning Institute of Canada in 1964–5, and the Director of the Planning Division of the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg from 1968-1972. He cur- rently resides in Winnipeg, and can be reached at:
earlalevin@yahoo.ca
27
p l an c ana da | summe r · étÉ 201 1
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56