Hi Terry,

I would gently disagree with you about urban planning. While the system is not perfect and there are many complaints, in my humble opinion, it is the most advanced system compared to other environmental design systems. Mechanical engineering might be more advanced and integrated, as well as a number of other areas. However, considering several types of artistic and environmental design, urban planning can be used as a paragon for its interdisciplinary, mechanisms of integration, and consideration for the social and human condition. 

Most of the problems in contemporary, modernist urban planning stem not from the nature of the discipline and practice itself, but from outside. There is disproportional and murderous pressure from political circles and special interest groups. Let's see one of the examples that you offer. Every urban planner knows that they have to start with the economic plan. It is actually the sociocultural design program, it is the equivalent of the architectural program at building scale. However, in the example you have provided the process is overturned, most probably under heavy outside pressure. Without excusing the shortcomings of the urban planning process, it is still the most developed within the modernist paradigm. I mean environmental design, aesthetic design, and a few other related areas.

Keep in mind that in urban initiatives we are talking about millions, hundreds of millions, and billions of dollars/Euros. People kill for such money. Can you imagine the pressure on urban planners and politicians? Even mighty politicians are under pressure from their sponsors. A carefully executed scheme with land improvements can bring millions of dollars. In most cases, a proposed solution serves the interests of a powerful interest group and hurts the competing interest group, while the general population simply dies because of that solution. (In this text, interest group is an euphemism for murky business groups.) It is not up to the planners to deal with this. The forces and power are beyond their reach. So much about politics in urban planning. That is one of the reasons I declined to go in that area despite of huge research grants and seemingly enriching experience. When we factor in all the pressures, it is a hell. No room for experts and expert opinion. Experts are needed only to find any kind of justification for what the urban czars want. 

Now, you might say that this is actually the core of the problem with improving the process. However, at this time, I am not thinking about shaking the world.

Best,

Lubomir

-----Original Message-----
From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 4:13 AM
To: Lubomir Savov Popov; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)

Hi Lubomir,

Good to hear from you. How you going? 
I can see what you are proposing and I go along with it as it's a practical
way of dealing with many of the issues. 

Urban planning is a really  terrible example though!
Failures in the ability of urban planning is the prime and most commonly
example of the failures of humans to be able to think beyond a couple of
feedback loops. Forrester first flagged the systemic problems with urban
design in the late 60s with his Urban Dynamics (a nice intro to his work is
at http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf ) and
suggested design solutions and processes that still appear new and fresh  50
years later. Meadows and Sterman pointed to similar problems and offered
similar solutions. From what I see here in Australia (which has good status
for state-of-art  Urban Planning) the problems of not addressing multiple
feedback loops in planning hasn't changed much in urban planning practice.
It's interesting to see, for example, planners zoning areas and then after
everything is built only then starting to plan how economic development is
going to happen. Here in Perth, Western Australia, there are several obvious
planning issues with multiple feedback loops that could be modeled to give
deep insights into identifying more successful planning designs. Even with
very simple dynamic modeling it's evident that improved design solutions and
outcomes would be very different from what has been developed via linear
feedbackless policies and planning strategies.

Warm regrds,
terry

Lubomir wrote:

Actually, the field of urban planning is much ahead in this process. They
have developed a system that is both based on specialization and has
mechanisms for integration. They still work and think in a modernist way,
but probably have reached the ceiling of modernist opportunities. Urban
planning has established practices of working on all stages or phases of the
project delivery process with the help of specialists, and at the same time
they use procedures for integrating both expert information and expert
skills in one large team that ultimately produces a design. I am not sure is
it holistic or quasi-holistic. It depends on the view point and our
interpretation of the nature of the Modern and the Postmodern. The
procedures are very simple: teamwork and mechanical coordination between
sub-teams. However, in the process of teamwork, everyone learns from the
others and develops integrative background.