Seminar One: Arguments For and Against Planning

The reading Arguments for and Against Planning by Robert E. Klosterman with the following presentation conducted by Alex and James in seminar three presented four highly debated topics which have been controversial not only within the profession of planning but during the course of the 20th century. The arguments for and against planning in the fields of economics, Pluralism, Traditionalism and Marxism have sparked intense discussions in the academic world about the validity of planning.

The economic arguments in the reading presented quite startling approaches in which planning and reducing regulations was called upon to be abandoned in favour of private entrepreneurship and competition among market forces. It is sensible to believe that markets should in itself allow to flow within the framework of Laisser-Faire. I believe that government interference is required in an event of a recession or, worse, depression. Planners must understand the economic situations that reverberates around them so they can properly assess situations for example an increase to land values can affect constructions to new transportation systems a community may require. Economics play an integral part of a planner’s profession and planners must always be aware of the economic surroundings. Planning must remain as it is and never in the hands of entrepreneurial opportunists who undervalue the importance of this profession. 

The arguments brought forward by Pluralists, Traditionalists and Marxists all provide different views and alternatives for the profession of planning. However as planners we must understand that not all ideologies can fit into an ever-changing world. The arguments brought forward by the three ideologies reflect the need to recognize planning as a mean of serving the interests of societies but they differ when arguing the processes in which this must be done in. All arguments amongst the three ideological perspectives clearly state that planning must never be undermined in the modern era as it is required to represent the vast interests of an ever-changing society. I believe to an extent that government intervention should be relative in communities where it is needed most and not to a point where it is not required and can lead to heavy negative impacts. 

In conclusion, the reading sets an understanding that us planners must be aware of groups which potentially pose dangers to interests of communities. The reading was intriguing and very stimulating and does indeed set the standards for what planners need to know in order to succeed in the profession. 

Here are some of the photos taken from the second seminar in which we were split into groups and instructed to come up with ideas and areas in which planning contributes to or affects.