In the broadest sense, there were two major groups present, urban planners and ecologists. The hope is that much will come out of the intersection of the two fields, and I think that will be the case, since cities and civilization have a lot in common with living organisms and systems thereof.
To name just one of those commonalities, both cities and ecosystems are phenomenally complex. Some of the discussion this morning was about integrating the two systems -- thinking of a city and its surroundings as an ecological system. Urban planners, of course, would take on the planning of not one but two complex systems. There was even mention of planned ecosystems.
It's fun to think about this happening. But one of the thoughts that kept creeping into my mind was how hard it is to plan for the behavior of a non-linear system like an ecosystem or a city (or both together) and to get it to do what you want it to do or what you think it "should" do.
An explanation of the title of the post is below.I also thought of another extremely complex, non-linear system: the world economy and the economic decision making of about 6 billion individuals. Last week I posted on the connection between ecologists and economists.
However, today's presentations have, besides other things, convinced me that we've got to connect all three. There was some discussion of economics this morning, but not a whole lot. The spectacular failure of central planning in one of the three fields would lead me to believe that it's pretty fruitless to pursue in the other two.
Maybe my analogy is bunk, or maybe just oversimplified. Even if it's true, I'm not saying that urban planners would be out of a job, just that they could benefit from the lesson of economics, as well as the ordered disorder of squatter cities.
Squatter cities are a post in their own right, which I plan to get to soon. (And yes, I realize that I have now promised two posts without following through after yesterday's pledge to prognosticate on the perks of New Urbanism.)
Comments
View as Flat
accel2 Posted 12:05 am
16 Jun 2005
...hard to pin down. If you aren't too familiar with the "profession", I would point out that, more than anything, it's a "big picture" amalgamation of various other professions. It's sort of a "meta profession". That is to say, your posts make it sound like you think urban planners only concern themselves with the built form of the city. Perhaps that's how the profession got its start, but these days there are as many focuses of planning as there are urban issues! Everything from economic development, transportation, land use, social and political organizing, urban design and architecture, environmental science, etc etc.
I think that's why whenever I say I am a "planner", people say, "what exactly does that involve?" In my graduate program, the students come from a wide variety of backgrounds with a wide variety of interests, and about the only thing we have in common (due to our program's progressive reputation) is a general progressiveness and greenness in our politics. Some folks are less interpersonal, and are into the "hard" side of planning -- transportation, engineering, economics. Some are more social creatures and are interested in working in the NGO sector doing grassroots organizing.
Anyway, I'm rambling. There were just a couple basic points I wanted to make, in response to your post:
"Urban planners" already include people interested in what you're talking about, as I've discussed
Many urban planners are economists and vice versa
Many urban planners are ecologists and vice versa
There was an influential school of thought in urban planning called "urban ecology": http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/26
Keep up the fascinating posts!
-Mike
Permalink
Andy Brett Posted 1:38 pm
16 Jun 2005
Your description of urban planning as a "meta profession" has only made me all the more interested in it (you know, for when I grow up). Just think: responsibility for not just three but several complex chaotic systems. Transportation is another great example I completely left out.
Permalink