Do cities have limits?

After last weeks interesting Do Cities have Limits Conference at the University of Glasgow, I have been thinking about some of the connections the event brought together. 

Particularly evident, considering the event was hosted by the Engineering Department was the split between the more positivist view of cities (and their limits) and the more intepretivist vision I felt. 

Perhaps this hints at something more fundamental; the more design based, functional language spoken by architects and engineers v (not versus) the 'messier' social issues and focus  that planners and urban designers take? 

Thoughts?....

Sunny start....

The sun did shine on Leith today; hopefully a good sign for the start of the interview phase of my third sector organisations in planning research project. Leith itself appears to be full of tourists and well worth a visit. Although by no means fully implemented it does seem to offer more of a vision of what Glasgow's own waterfront regeneration could have looked like had the obstacles been overcome and the connections been made!

Competitive advantage for cities?

Proof of the writings of Glaeser, Florida et al?: http://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-flock-to-cities-with-top-talent-1460482766

Sustaining Engagement?

Community ‘engagement and empowerment’ are very hot contemporary topics for planning professionals, local governments and of course; local people. The vision is for a world where communities are placed at the forefront of the planning decision making process has come to light most recently through the provisions of the Localism Act in rUK and Community Empowerment Act in Scotland. The advent of these measures in popular politics has come in the wake of one of the worst world recessions and has consequently been articulated within a context where local authority budgets have been significantly atrophied. Questions are thus raised as to how the momentum of these reforms may be sustained.

The core concepts in the debate are not particularly novel. The notion of a communicative turn in planning theory was popularised by commentators such as John Forrester and Patsy Healey in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Early attempts at community engagement were a feature of the area renewal campaigns of the 1970’s in the UK as faith in the ability of the modernist and technocratic planning system of the immediate postwar years faded.

It was precisely through these campaigns, allied to what were at the time, comprehensively enabled and often politically heavyweight regional governments and development agencies, that a particular conception of engagement arose. This focused, on putting down roots within communities, connecting people into local government structures through measures such as setting up shop in the affected neighbourhoods and having a single ‘go to’ person within the authorities, able to take concerns between departments.

The era of state driven urban ‘renewal’ has long passed to be replaced with ‘community led regeneration’. Likewise, the focus of engagement has shifted toward the intensive event, as seen in the charrette, instead of the longer term prospect of these earlier measures. The seemingly intractable development problems within the City of Glasgow where I live and work shed much critical light on the achievements of redevelopment in creating sustainable new homes and jobs. However, if we focus on the processes of engagement within; can we see a positive direction in having the infrastructure for a continuous rather than an event based dialogue?

My voluntary work with communities highlights a great reserve of initiative and drive to bring about local change within planning and development issues. However, in an era of austerity and continued local government cutbacks, it must be recongised that communities cannot bring about these transformations on their own. Finding balance across these issues will be a key concern of my forthcoming research. While at first I imagined the project to be a very current one, I realise now that it will be necessary to learn from the past in placing current engagement practice within its historical context. 

Photo, “Design Charrette #FutureWall 37320” is copyright (c) 2014 Ted Eytan: https://www.flickr.com/photos/taedc/12456680724 and made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

HfG

In the first of what I hope will be a number of posts on lost heroes of planning and design, I look at the Hochschule für Gestaltung (HfG) established in the city of Ulm in the postwar years. The school was the brainchild of Inge Scholl, a member of the White Rose group, which attempted to deploy peaceful resistance to the Nazi party. As a result, Scholl’s brother and sister were arrested and murdered by the Gestapo in 1943.

Lasting until 1968, the school, during its short lifetime, consistently had to toe the line between the liberal conceptions of the US occupation and Marshall Plan and popular leftist politics in Germany of the time. As such, the design output, influenced at times by Walter Gropius, exemplified simplicity and functionality. The most visible output was undertaken in commission to large corporations including several iconic electronic devices for Braun in addition to the famous blue and yellow Lufthansa crane.

Regardless of the political maneuvering required to establish its legitimacy, located within a complex of international style buildings above the ruins of Ulm, the HfG must surely have been a bright beacon of modernity, civilization and philosophy after the darkness of the march of Fascism.      

This post after Pavitt, J., (2008). ‘Design and the Democratic Ideal’

In Crowley, D. & Pavitt, J. (eds.) (2008). Cold War Modern Design: 1945-1970.

London: V&A Publishing.

Photo, “HfGUlmbuilding.jpg” is copyright (c) 2007 modernist design: http://flickr.com/photos/9713498@N08/2055136477 and made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.