The Australian Planning System

The planning system of Australia is a patchwork of semi-independent frameworks each designed to operate at different levels of jurisdiction. These systems are very much dominated along state lines and each state provides its own department designed to deal with the states local issues. Such and organisation is very much a holdover from the colonial period of Australia when each colony operated completely autonomously and as is reflected even today through the difficulties faced when trying to plan on a national scale.

The claim could easily be made that Australia’s only truly national planning organisation is the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA), an industry body that is largely independent and self-regulating (PIA, 2012). Traditionally the federal government has regulated planning primarily through environmental legislation and a national heritage framework. Only recently has this began to change with the creation of a National Urban Policy released in 2011 (DIRD, 2011). In the absence of a strong national authority most planning has been pioneered at the local and state level in Australia. Each Australian State has a planning authority and cascading down from this are the local councils, shire and regional authorities often with overlapping jurisdictions. In addition to this are planning designations designed around projects or limited objectives such as the Broader Western Sydney Employment Area which provide further complications (NSWP&I, 2013).

The complicated and multi-level nature of Australian planning has often led to a lack of national direction in the past. Only in the past few years has this begun to change as the federal government attempts to take more control of planning issues. While this approach has provided the scope for unique solutions throughout the country to develop it has also hindered the development of a unified planning framework for the future. As this authority becomes more centralised we can expect to find a more structured, efficient system better able to cope with emerging challenges, but perhaps at the expense of innovation and adaptation in Australian planning.

References

Planning Institute of Australia, 2012, About Us, Accessed 10/3/2014, http://www.planning.org.au/aboutpia

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, 2011, National Urban Policy, Accessed 10/3/2014, http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/urbanpolicy/

New South Wales Department of Planning and Infrastructure, 2013, Broader Western Sydney Employment Area, Accessed 10/3/2014, http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/en-us/planningyourregion/broaderwesternsydneyemploymentarea-wsea.aspx

The Eixample of Ildefons Cerda

When discussing the great planners of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the same names and movements always make their appearances. Haussmann, Ebenezer Howard, Le Corbusier etc. But it is another planner that I feel is one of the most underappreciated; Ildefons Cerda. Cerda was a Catalonian civil engineer who wrote a number of works on planning theory in the mid-19^th century much of which was done in support of his magnum opus, the design of Barcelona’s Eixample the expansion to the medieval city designed to not just bring it into line with modern urban centres but to propel it forward as the beacon of urban planning throughout Spain and greater Europe.

The Eixample Plan for Barcelona, 1859

The Eixample (literally “extension” in Catalan) was a grand project designed to improve the quality of life of Barcelona residents, a mixed use development which Cerda hoped would accommodate rich and poor alike in a healthy modern district (Pallares-Barbera et all, 2011). Cerda was very careful in his planning, he disliked the whims which had driven many earlier plans, and sought to maximise sunshine, access to services, parks, sanitation and transport. His was a forward thinking plan that incorporated the latest technologies in sewage management and transportation while retaining the community spirit of the old city. While many have criticised Eixample for being too regimented and conformist the design of Eixample largely achieved its goals of improving living conditions for its residents. The primary flaw was that the district never became the mixed wealth community Cerda had hoped for. Then as today it was largely occupied by the wealthier classes of Barcelona.

Ultimately Cerda’s achievements in planning the Eixample are his greatest strength and his biggest weakness. Barcelona is an excellent example of planning in action, Cerda nursed the design from beginning to end, and while not every feature of the plan was constructed, it still remains his vision for a planned city. However Cerda remains almost unknown in the world at large, his works were not widely disseminated and outside of the planning community and Barcelona itself you'd be hard pressed to find someone who recognises his name and that has limited the impact he might otherwise have had (Aibar and Bijker, 1997).

References

Ildefons Cerda i Sunyar, 1859, Enlargement map of Barcelona, Wikimedia Commons, Accessed 25th February 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ensanche_-_eixample_-_Barcelona.jpg

Pallares-Barbera, M., Duch J., and Badia A., 2011, Cerda and Barcelona: The need for a new city and service provision, Accessed 25^th February 2014, P. 5, file:///C:/Users/Daniel/Downloads/CEEOL%20Article.PDF

Aibar E., and Bijker W., 1997, Constructing a City: The Cerda Plan for the Extension of Barcelona, Accessed 25^th February 2014, http://sth.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3.short

Canberra and the Urban Social Process

Daniel Ryan, Sarad Chalise and Tim Mahoney

26/11/2012

Canberra can be defined as a city of compromise, designed by an idealist, built by pragmatics and declared out-dated before the paint had finished drying. Now, in the 21^st century, Australian planners are once again looking to the past for inspiration for Canberra’s future. Not all planning theory can be applied to Canberra, the city has never suffered overcrowding, pollution or lack of purpose, but perhaps it has lacked in identity. What follows is a treatise on Canberra’s relation to seminal planning theories throughout the last century. The gestation of the city as a place people can be healthy and free through to the impact of technology and social revolution before talking about Canberra’s future in the world. Canberra is a young city and with a strong foundational understanding of its origins and development the planners of tomorrow can shape it into not just a capitol we can be proud of but a truly global city serving as an inspiration to others around the world.

Urban Planning is a technical and political process concerned with the control of the use of land and design of the urban environment which includes the development of settlements, communities, sanitation, transportation, infrastructure etc. In the developed countries of Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, urban planning process and architecture have gone through various paradigm shifts in the last 200 years. Firstly there were the industrialized cities of the 19^th century, where development was largely controlled by businesses and elites. But in the early stage of the 20^th century, the movement began to provide for citizens, especially factory workers, with healthier environments through various proposals. In the mid-20^th century, the citizen participation movement started to enable people to participate in planning, to enable power holders to educate participants and also allow citizens to have their say in decision making as well as implement citizen controls on planning process (Arnstein, 1969).

There are many planning theories and processes which have influenced at various stages of planning history, but the Americanisation of Australian planning is one of the most important theories to influence urban planning theory in Australia. America has been central to the 20^th century world sweeping process in the exercise of profound economic, military, ideological diplomatic, bureaucratic and cultural power. Even though Australia is a British colony, they have been adapting American ideas for more than a century, reflecting close connections, economically, politically and culturally. American planning has touched across broader aspects of the built environment, especially architectural design and the auto mobilization of everyday life in Australia (Freestone, 2004).

Since the arrival of the American fleet in Sydney harbour in 1908, the importance of American- Australian political-military alliance has been profound. For all their commonality as new settler societies, Australia and America have crafted quite distinct national discourses, the former aware of its peripheral place in the world and later far more certain and confident of its centrality as a world power (Spillman, 1997). American ideas have been demonstrably assimilated into Australian Planning theory, ideology and practice over an extended period. One of the examples is improvement in physical form and public infrastructure and beautification of the city of Sydney and its suburbs in 1909. The recent example was designing of modern city of Canberra by American architecture.

Canberra is the capital city of Australia. It is Australian’s largest inland city and the eight largest city overall. The site of Canberra was selected for the location of the nation’s capital in 1908 and since then it is a laboratory of 20th and 21st century planning and urban design. The site for building Canberra city was selected by American architectures Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahoney Griffin. The city was heavily influenced by the garden city movement and incorporates significant areas of natural vegetation. Since the original city beautiful design, Canberra’s planning and design has been progressively updated, building on past plans with whatever the current practice was at the time (Australian Capital Territory, 2011). Canberra urban design is similar to the United States capital city Washington DC, one of the most apparent reasons is Canberra was designed by an American architect. The evident of similarity between Washington DC and Canberra are featured broad streets and avenues radiating out from rectangles, providing room for open space and landscaping.

The urban areas of Canberra are organized into hierarchy of districts, town centres, group centres, local suburbs as well as other industrial areas and villages. The Canberra central district is substantially based on Walter Burley Griffins designs. Within the central area of the city near Lake Burley Griffin, major roads follow a wheel and spoke- pattern rather than a grid. The development of different suburbs has helped to develop the different communities. Though the Canberra has influenced by Americanisation of Australian planning, it is also influenced by modernism and early planning because of friendly and peaceful environment in Canberra created by garden city and city beautiful movement.

There have been many substantial issues that have arisen from Richard LeGrates Modernism and Early Urban Planning theories. These largely focus around the modernism of planning and how early urban planning movements have evolved over the past two centuries through key works including the Garden City Movement, City Beautiful and Park's movement. All of these movements apply to planning practices in Canberra as aspects from each were used in crafting the nation's capital as a planned city, particularly the Garden City Movement and Park's movement.  These have resulted in Canberra becoming an interconnected location of large open areas and extensive implementation of outdoor recreation areas including parks and walks around Lake Ginninderra and Lake Burley Griffin.

Many of these modernism planning movements were as a result of the world’s industrial revolution and the effects it had on cities and large urban areas. This was a period of time when people were moving from rural areas to city living in order to give themselves better life opportunities through working in factories which quickly became the scene of extremely horrific health standards.  Urbanisation remains a key component of Canberra as a planned city today as increasing amounts of people seek inner city living, although instead of moving for employment movements are becoming increasingly based around better access to services such as health care professionals, social services, transport and recreation.

Modernism planning movements created a massive increase in factory workers leading to residential and urban areas becoming areas of disease and poverty stricken slums. It was these consequences that sparked early urban planners into action in attempts to drastically improve the image of cities and increase standards of living through the Garden and City Beautiful movements.

The key to the Garden City movement was to eliminate congestion and keep large areas of open country side accessible. In Ebenezer Howard’s original plan of the Garden City, it would consist of 6000 acres, with a township of 1000 acres surrounded by a greenbelt of 5000 acres, which would be able to support a total population of 32,000 (Howard, 1902). Designing a city that would draw people away from the dirty slums seen in the early 1900's of London would also include several municipal services and infrastructure, this included amenities, parks, public gardens and asylums.

The Garden City movement can be seen as one of the earliest attempts by planners to integrate aspects of sustainability into urban design. The Garden City movement revolved around a plan that had a view of integrating both urban and rural ideals with relatively small populations that would be surrounded by peaceful settings of farmland and countryside.

These large urban areas would be fully self-reliant, equipped with public recreation areas, streets and neighbourhoods lined with trees, healthcare facilities and of course parks. These large urban areas would also be interconnected to nearby cities through infrastructure such as rail and boats.

The City Beautiful and the ideals behind its planning are seen throughout Canberra today and are a fine example of past planning theories impact on modern planning. The designs were based on creating a sense of power and grandeur when buildings were being created. The designs used can be seen throughout Canberra's inner city buildings and are a classic example of planning ideas from the City Beautiful time frame.

Theories and plans such as the Garden City and City Beautiful movement have since been adopted into modernist planning, with Canberra being a good example of the movements spoken about previously. Although despite the evolution of cars it can be seen that Canberra is still able to maintain its position as a Garden City.

This is seen in particular through the suburbs of Belconnen, Bruce and Woden where examples of  public parks, walkways and houses are lined with trees that still greet people as they go about their day to day life. This then creates a peaceful atmosphere that allows people to enjoy the lifestyle of a largely populated urban area whilst still being placed in a rural setting.

Despite the friendly and peaceful atmosphere that the Garden City and City Beautiful movements create these also bring to light a number of issues in terms of Canberra as a planned city. Through the inevitable movements of technology and increased use of cars the values set in place are slowly being degraded and almost forgotten.

One of the issues faced by Canberra as a planned city is keeping large open public spaces whilst still maintaining areas for housing development and space for expansion of public services.  Although it is important to integrate urban and rural aspects in to the nation's capital, in order for sustainable planning into the future these views will need to be altered as the growing needs of an expanding population have to be met. Future planning and expansion may see the demise of current large open areas and parks to pave way for businesses and an increase in density of housing.

Many planning theorists have argued throughout the years that a planner has a responsibility to the people. A sort of review process, by which plans may be tried and tested, and those found wanting discarded. David Harvey argues that a planner is not simply a designer of the built environment, nor is he a tool for developers and politicians to wield in sculpting demographics, environment and industry. Rather, each planner must understand that a connection exists between all aspects of planning, that he/she has a responsibility to the residents and visitors to the urban space and enjoys a great deal of power in how individuals and collectives live their lives and such power must be tempered with care. Ultimately the planner controls who has access, who prospers and who is marginalised. Canberra is no exception, a city begging for the understanding brought forth from the idea that a city is not a location, not a collection of buildings, but an organism living, breathing and growing.

Canberra is a city born of competition, built as the epitome of the Garden City and City Beautiful movements, raised amid the post-war boon of private transport and economic surplus, Canberra now finds itself a city racked by indecision. While debates move back and forth about Canberra’s future, the population and its needs continue to grow. While proposals are tabled and then shelved again, developers are continuing to build in an effort to meet demand. And as Canberra is treated as a playground or test bed for the ‘real’ cities of Sydney and Melbourne she becomes bloated by failed experiments and out-dated ideas. Instead of treated as an urban form Canberra is simply a place in the mould of the 1950’s with trends tacked on at the edges.

The concept of cities as processes is not a new one, David Harvey speaks about cities and the need to see them as more than boxes in which things happen, but rather that cities and processes define one another and the space/time around them, “…space and time do not exist outside of process: process defines space/time.”(Harvey, 1997). This Einsteinium idea, that all cities must be fluid, allows the urban space to be considered not just for our generation or for the one to follow, but as ever-evolving, ever-changing organisms that exist in the form most suited for the current iteration only to shed its skin ready to face the challenges of the future.

While these ideas have far reaching consequences for all aspects of a city how can we use this in the context of Canberra? Walter Burley Griffon, the planner considered by so many to be either a saint or sinner for his work cannot be ignored, but it is important to remember his work is in the past and we must not let it constrain our desire and imagination for Canberra’s future. Planners should never feel constrained by a sense of now, dates like 2020 or 2050 are meaningless numbers chosen more for their marketability rather than any real predictions of important events. The Canberra Plan is designed to “…guide the development of the Territory over the coming generation.”(ACTPLA, 2007) a goal that while worthy, is extremely short-sighted. The planner should instead begin to explore the idea that any plan must adapt according to the needs of the city and cease to focus on the current needs at the expense of the future. As areas like Weston Creek flounder the official line is to inject new life, usually through money, as though a city is a mould and people simply the filling. (Canberra Times, 2012) Any plan for Canberra should not just include maps of today, or even maps of tomorrow, but rather a four dimensional journey through the life of a living, evolving creature designed to adapt and thrive regardless of any challenges it may face. Instead of people being the stuffing, they must be treated as the life blood.

This treatment of Canberra as an organism rather than a place helps to eliminate another source of friction, the environmental one. While many argue for the improvement of our cities from an ecological perspective, any others tell of a need to limit the impact of mankind on the world, both suffer from a misunderstanding of what a city is. As stated by David Harvey “When does the built, constructed environment end and ‘the natural environment’ begin? Go and look in a field of wheat and say where nature begins and society ends. You can’t do it.” (Harvey, 1997) this attitude, while familiar, is incorrect. Canberra is not an imposition placed upon a virgin landscape, nor is it simply the temporary home of few people, rather it is, and must be treated as, an interconnected form that moves and changes through time. Whether or not you consider the city, and Canberra in particular, to be an invasive species or not, the urban form is here to stay and the world must evolve with it.

These ideas of Canberra are not intended to provoke revolution in the planning world, but rather to encourage the modern planner to question the status quo. Any method of constructing a plan becomes out-dated as soon as it is implemented but only through constant re-evaluation can the planners of the world be ready to face tomorrow. The only constant in planning seems to be the need to fix the issues created by the last generation’s well-meaning input into the field. Perhaps the problem is not one of new developments and problems, but rather the attitude planning has as being forever constrained by the now. Surely it is better to be criticised for being too ambitious rather than to be forever resigned to implementing temporary solutions.

 

References

Arnstein, S., 1969, A ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planner, P240-243

Australian Capital Territory, 2011, an Urban Design Protocol for Australian Citizens, viewed on 25^th November http://www.urbandesign.gov.au/downloads/files/AustralianCapitalTerritory_Urban_Design_Factsheet.pdf

Freestone, R., 2004, the Americanisation of Australian Planning, Journal of Australian Planning

Spillman, L., 1997, Nation and Commemoration: Creating Nation Identities in the United States and Australia, Cambridge University, Cambridge

Wendy, L. et all, 2006, Events that Shaped Australia, New Holland p106  

Howard, 1902, Garden Cities of Tomorrow, Viewed 21/11/2012, http://archive.org/details/gardencitiestom00howagoog

David Harvey, 1997, Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial Form, p. 234

ACTPLA, 2007, The Canberra Plan, Viewed 22/9/2012, http://apps.actpla.act.gov.au/spatialplan/1_future/1B_context/index.htm

Canberra Times, 2012, $45m for new pool, oval at Weston Creek, Viewed 22/9/2012, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/45m-for-new-pool-oval-at-weston-creek-20120926-26k3v.html

David Harvey, 1997, Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial Form, p. 236

Best Intentions

All planning is done in the face of conflict. Any idea a planner wants to implement will have its detractors, and any plan no matter its pros will be beset by problems. Planning in the face of this conflict and making the most of criticisms is a key skill for the planner. Despite the best intentions inevitably someone will lose out or be worse off under the new plan. Naturally these people will seek to change, hinder or oppose the plan using whatever means are available to them, and in our modern democratic society, there are lots of paths and techniques open to everyone. Faced with this, the planner may feel forced to adopt a strict dictatorial policy, acting as they see fit regardless of public opinion. When it seems that even the best ideas are shot down or die a slow death by committee, frustration is bound to set in and planners are only human. Despite this, it is imperative that the planner not give in to these temptations, but rather recognise the opportunities this process  provides. True community consultation may be slow and critical of change, but it provides an excellent chance to learn about alternate views and considerations that the planner has missed. Rigorous debate, critique and self-dissent lead to much stronger outcomes if you can weather the journey. After all a plan that cannot stand up to dissenting voices does not deserve to be to be implemented at all, and will only alienate the planner further from the very people they seek to serve.

It is important however to recognise the limitations of the people as an effective analyst of any plan. Much of the public has little knowledge of the hundreds of considerations and compromises poured into a design and even the best education program can only change that to an extent. Schoolteachers are not engineers, bus drivers usually lack a geochemistry degree and carpenters rarely spend their time learning about electrical infrastructure. They rely on the planner to act as an adviser, demonstrating what is feasible, just as the planner relies on engineers, geochemists and electricians. The planner in turn is expected to juggle this input with the desires of the community and the predicted desires, concerns and challenges of the future in order to create the ideal plan.

All of this input and critique creates huge challenges for the planner and can subject them to a lot of stress amid accusations of improper conduct. These forces may make the planner feel as though they bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Some might call attention to this system as being poorly designed, forcing so many responsibilities on one person.  Not everyone is cut out to be a planner, the planner as an artist requires skills in many different fields from debating to physics. Despite this I feel confidant that planners will continue to excel. The stakes are high, the challenges immense, but the resources available are up to the task and only through such adversity can true masterpieces be created, plans that will stand the test of time.

The Army of Progress

One of the difficulties planning has faced over it's history is the task of appeasement. Planning is a field that touches almost everyone in their day to day lives and as such can be very contentious. Because it is never possible to please everyone the question becomes do we support the majority, or do we impose what we think is the right course of action? Haussmann, the man who transformed Paris, is often idolized today as a visionary for his great plan, however in his time it was widely unpopular and essentially forced upon the citizens by their monarch Napoleon III. If history has vindicated his decision regarding Paris then can we as planners take a similar standpoint today, or are the days of "Great Plans" over, replaced by incremental improvements subject to the approval of the people.

Paul Davidoff was one of those who advocated for planners to take a populist approach. He felt that the masses where being overlooked by the planner, that industry and transportation took precedence over people. These ideas have merit, formulated during the sixties, it is easy to see the problems in the system of the time. But is that a perspective best left in the past, as a necessary, but transitory shake-up of the industry. Today the people are consulted more than ever about every detail of planning issues yet the majority only ever voice their opinions after the fact. Ultimately both methods will work, one city can be a riot of conflicting ideas and implementations and another a utopian uniformity and both can be great cities. The decision, therefore, rests very much upon the shoulders of the planner. Will they advocate for the populace, citing that the city is for the people of today and the planners purpose is to create as directed. Or will they act the part of the vilified but pragmatic, looking only at the future and the legacy of their plan long after the current generation have turned to dust.

I find myself leaning more towards the role of villain in theory, but more of a centrist approach in practice. The planner must plan for the future, that is their role. But since the future is so murky, and the great sweeps of human history so hard to predict, the people of today must be used as the foundation, the cornerstone of any plan. Only a plan with the broad support of the people will be implemented, and only a plan that caters for the future will be deemed relevant tomorrow. Planning is an ever evolving task, even the greatest, most visionary plan will eventually become outdated and discarded. The planner must accept that their work will be changed, modified and distorted by later generations of planners who consider it outdated and naive, but that doesn't mean that the future can be ignored or that we shouldn't aim as high as possible.

Planned Aesthetics

Art versus science, the classic debate. On the one hand scientists, beholden to no one but logic and reason, who utilise facts and evidence to demonstrate the utility of their designs; and on the other artists, disciples of aesthetics, who believe that the human touch is essential in all human endeavours. So where do planners fit into this equation? Are we, as the early industry suggested, scientists devoted to improving the lot of the citizen, or are we, as the more recent trends promote, artists making our mark upon the city like some sort of ever-evolving canvass? 

Hard questions to be sure but like most things the answer tends to lie somewhere in the middle, a balance between the two. Certainly some planners can be said to lean toward one more than the other, plenty of designs have character and soul but lack well thought out amenities and transportation corridors. Rio de Janeiro springs to mind as a city that no one would deny invokes vivid ideas about Brazil, but few would suggest that the Favelas couldn't use a better planned infrastructure, something which the city of Rio struggles with right now. Finding cities that are well planned but lack a certain something of the human essence is more of a challenge, primarily because planned cities are much rarer. However it has been suggested that Canberra is an excellent example of this, a city with good infrastructure, plenty of green space and an aesthetically pleasing road map, but few people living there are overly attached to the city in any kind of spiritual sense as many are in London or New York.

So what then is required to achieve this symbiosis of art and science, to make a good city great? Art can be found in science after all, and science can be used as the basis for art. It was declared in the forward to the 1968 Green Book by Dennis O'Harrow "Planning strives hard to be a science but will always fundamentally remain an art... the personal skill of the planner, of the artist, remains paramount.". based on this approach planning becomes somewhat of an oddity, an art trying to be a science, few other fields of endeavour struggle to hide the artistic side of their profession, particularly when artists are held in such high esteem.

Ultimately I consider planning an art form, but one that because of the broad scope of its canvass requires science to achieve. A million great artists have the most amazing ideas, but without action, without will, they do not outlast their creator by even a moment. When dealing with cities, states and nations the planner must understand and incorporate science in all things. Physics, chemistry, psychology, mathematics and perhaps most importantly economics are all essential tools with which the planner imposes their vision upon the world. To be lacking in science harms peoples quality of life, their health, education and housing, but to be lacking as an artist hinders those same people from enjoying and embracing those lives in a way that perhaps the sciences struggle to quantify. 

The Knife's Edge

Planning as a profession is widely considered to be a recent phenomenon, at least in a professional sense. Something created in the nineteenth century in order to meet a growing dissatisfaction with urban development. In reality planning has existed ever since mankind gave up the nomadic lifestyle; and it could easily be argued that it is older still. Since the only alternative to planning is true anarchy, something championed by a very small minority, planning has become a de-facto, if unrecognised aspect of human development.

Klosterman speaks about the debate "For and Against Planning" in his article in the Town Planning Review from 1985. In reality rather than being a series of arguments about the necessity of planning it is rather a debate on the degree of official planning that should be incorporated into the nation-state, both publicly and privately. Planning has become the all-encompassing purview, dedicated to the lofty ideals of shaping the world around us as we see fit. Debates abound about the purpose of planning; is it to be dedicated to the environment, to industry or to the people, but in reality all planning takes this into account and more. No sphere of activity, no change in technology or demographics can be considered insignificant to the planner.

This is the greatest challenge to the modern planner, for the first time in history information from every field is available readily, and it is all relevant. But this deluge of data can rapidly overwhelm any attempt to act or prioritise. The planner becomes paralysed for fear of changing anything in way that may have negative repercussions; and you can never make everyone happy. Many people praise Haussmann's redevelopment of Paris, but his contemporaries hated it. It has taken almost 150 years to vindicate his designs, a time frame most planners aren't even considering.

The debate about the degree of planning desired in our everyday lives is likely to continue unabated for as long as there are people around to have it. Circumstances will vary, fashions in planning will come and go, and the populace will not doubt continue to have a love hate relationship with the field. In the end, however, planning must forever balance itself upon the knife's edge. With a stifled, sterile world in which all initiative is subject to regulation and over-sight upon the one side, and a chaotic mass of human detritus preventing any direction or control over the future upon the other.