“Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning”
Paul Davidoff, 1965
•
Argument is based around three main ideas that Davidoff considers outdated andineffective aspects of planning: 1) unitary planning, 2) the traditional planningcommission, and 3) too much focus on physical aspects of urban areas
•
Author argues against these aspects, and offers an alternative to each problem: 1) pluralism in planning 2) a true democratic process of planning, and 3)a moreinclusionary view of the scope of planning field
•
General sense that controversy, tension, opposing viewpoints are natural andhealthy to the planning process. These tensions should not be avoided; rather theyare a means for true democratic decision-making.1)
Unitary vs. Plural Planning
a.Unitary Plan – one agency prepares a comprehensive plan with little or nooutside input, and without researching viable alternatives b.Plural Plan – Exploring and discussing multiple options for each proposed plan, hearing from different interest groups, giving all groups a voicewhether they have had traditional ‘power’ within a community or not.c.Davidoff’s encouragement of tension and contentious discussion is criticalto plural planning.d.Three benefits to utilizing plural planning as opposed to unitary planning:i.It better informs the public of alternative choicesii.Forces public agency to compete with other organizations preparing plans, thereby increasing the quality of the work generated by the public sector iii.Gives outside organizations a chance to take their work to the nextlevel – not just protesting government’s plans, but creating their own alternatives.2)
Planner as Advocate
(brings this point up in the middle of his 3 argumentsagainst traditional planning)After stating that the correct
process
for planning is pluralism, Davidoff arguesthat the correct
role
of the planner is one of an advocate.a.Social values and justice must be integrated into planning. Planning canno longer be just a technical field; the act of recommending plans andactions to the city is in itself infusing technical worker with ideas of socialand economic justices. This shouldn’t be fought or discouraged. b.Compares the role of advocacy planning to that of a lawyer. Eachgroup/idea is entitled to fair representation and deserves a voice. Takesthis comparison a step further and suggests that an advocacy plan would
UPP 500Group Presentations: Reading Outline
be similar to a legal brief, in that it not only argues for its own ideas, butargues against the alternative plans created by other agenciesc.Beneficial to community as under-represented groups (such as low-incomeresidents) will have a professional to speak for them; also beneficial to planners as they can select to work with organizations/firms that holdvalues and interests similar to their own.
3)The public planning agency vs. democratic planning process
a.Three groups should be involved with a democratic, public planning process:i.Political parties. Ideal situation would be if both parties in thelegislative and executive branches would form their own plans,these plans would be discussed and appraised, and the planningagency would carry out its activities based on constituent demands.However, Davidoff admits this is a lofty ideal that would bedifficult to realize.ii.Special interest groups. Chambers of commerce, labor-rightsorganizations, civil rights, environmental issues. Again, Davidoff mentions this is also difficult, as many organizations are reluctantto disagree with city plans, as it decreasing their ability for funding, supportiii.Ad-hoc protest organizations. Eg., neighborhood associationsdeveloping alternative plans that better suit their community. b.Antithesis of the democratic process he describes is the public planningagencyi.Originated in the conservative reform movement in the early1900s.ii.Main problem is that they have no true constituency. Not thatconnected to the public, and commission members are quick tocome to a group consensus rather than discuss individual opinions,disagreements. Therefore, when the public has complaints aboutactivities in their neighborhood, they don’t know who specificallyto speak with
4)Inclusive Definition of the Scope of Planning
a.Davidoff’s third element that he argues should be changed is the focus ononly physical space of a community. b.The purpose of buildings is to serve people. Their functional use is of primary concern. Spaces and structures only take on true meaning whenexamining them in relation to social and economic conditions.c.Example – Urban renewal…article written during a time whengovernment practiced ‘physical determinism’…argued that if the buildingswere changed, the social problems would change accordingly. Obviously,Davidoff contends that this thinking should be reversed.d.Three ways that planning’s scope can be broadened to include more that physical aspects:
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
“Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning” Paul Davidoff, 1965 (summary)
Summary of the influential first article about advocacy planning by Paul Davidoff
Argument is based around three main ideas that Davidoff considers outdated and ineffective aspects of planning: 1) unitary planning, 2) the traditional planning commission,… (More)
Argument is based around three main ideas that Davidoff considers outdated and ineffective aspects of planning: 1) unitary planning, 2) the traditional planning commission,… (More)
881
Reads
2
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
