>having gone through a formal urban planning education, i've been
>enjoying this little debate. for whatever it's worth fall on the
>side of nathan and woj simply because it sounds like they have an
>appreciation for the actual muck and inevitable dealmaking and
>tradeoffs involved in planning.
Hmmm, I thought ED was a way around dealmaking and tradeoffs - a way to use executive power as a meat ax, to quote Moses.
>as nathan said, there's virtual unanimity among latter day planners
>that mid 20th century urban renewal was a land grab that destroyed
>communities and screwed up cities. i'd call it tragic, but i think
>it often bordered on criminal. we should however be mindful that
>those actions took place within a context where cities were emptying
>because of suburbanization and white flight. while there was
>certainly a strong element of racism by the growth coalitions that
>led the efforts to reshape the cities, they were in effect working
>against the tide of industry and upwardly mobile residents tripping
>over themselves to get to the suburbs.
It didn't hurt that the planners were building highways to aid their flight.
>most left leaning planners also readily admit that the profession is
>a handmaiden of capital and that land use decisions are often the
>product of powerful forces. if anything, a moderately effective
>planning regime will help restrain some of those forces even as it
>facilitates them.
That's a little too dialectical for me on a sleepy afternoon. How can it restrain and facilitate at once, even as it's a handmaiden of capital?
Doug