Blog #3 Ruixiang Xie
What the difference between the two majors, “urban affairs and planning” and “urban design”? Maybe we can find the answer from the Kristof Van Assche’s article by understanding the relationship between the planning and design. The two concepts “share a common ground in shaping and governing urban spaces” (Kristof Van Assche, 2016); We can think of design as part of planning, but obviously the concept of planning is broader—while the “spatial design” is more concerning with the “content” that showing how space should form, the “spatial design” is emphasizing the interaction between the varied actors, the multiple rules, and the human and nature. The design is completely technical and idealistic. Designers need to think about how to create the perfect solution, that best meets the needs of their customers. However, it is bound to attach importance to the process in planning, and sometimes it is more important than the result. Planners do not pursue the optimal solutions but the ways that can satisfy everyone. So now comes the question, how about the roles of designers and planners in the practices of urban planning?
From the perspective of authoritarian high modernism, an authoritarian state plays the role, as a good designer, an ideal planner, and the spokesman for the public interest. They believe in “continued linear progress, scientific and technical knowledge, the rational design of social order, the growing satisfaction of human needs, and increasing control over nature” (Scott, 2003). In short, high modernist principles advocate designing certain schemes to improve the human condition with the authority of scientific knowledge. As Scott mentioned, in the name of the citizen, the various high-modernist schemes have made a great contribution for the improvement of people’s life. Today, this idea is still dominant in some countries: for example, a typical authoritarian state, China. One of the core ideas of the Chinese Communist Party is “Three Represents”: represents advanced social productive force (stands for economic production), the progressive course of advanced culture (stands for cultural development), and the fundamental interests of the majority (stands for political consensus). What’s more, China’s Five-Year Plans (FYP) as a series of social and economic development initiatives are considered one of the key factors in China’s economic take-off and social reforms, as shown in the following image. The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), formerly State Planning Commission and State Development Planning Commission, is the most powerful agency that controls over the Chinese economy. However, NDRC is too powerful, and decentralization is necessary —that is the reason why the Chinese government takes FYP as “guideline” instead of “plan” after 2006.
Jacobs’s critique of high modernism has somehow explained why such a shift happened in China. With the completion of industrialization and the expansion of urban scale, the original planning can no longer satisfy the needs of the people. As Jacobs said, “it is futile to plan a city’s appearance or speculate on how to endow it with a pleasing appearance of order, without knowing what sort of innate, functioning order it has.” Cities are complex and diverse. We need the existence of “street eyes” to enhance the internal relations within the community, and residents should take the initiative to participate in urban planning to make their voice. For the Chinese residents who are living in the high-rise buildings, the lack of community values makes the society colder and colder. Jacobs noticed that the public rather than the professionals and the governments should play a better role in planning. That’s the point that I agree with the bottom of my heart: it’s not the designer and bureaucrat, but the citizen should be the real planner to make a better city, better life.
Reference
Jane, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New-York, NY: Vintage.
Scott, J. C. (2003). Authoritarian high modernism. Readings in Planning Theory, Fourth Edition, 75-93.
Van Assche, K., Beunen, R., Duineveld, M., & de Jong, H. (2016). Co-evolutions of planning and design: Risks and benefits of design perspectives in planning systems. Planning Theory, 12(2), 177-198.
Planning Theory and Practice 