Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
AbstractThe planning profession is in a make-or-break situation. Its rapid success is the cause of its vulnerability. The professional associations tend to look backward for a definition of planning, while the profession's so-called ‘progressives’ acknowledge only a radical shift in the profession's concerns and techniques. In the meantime, specialists within the field carry on in splendid isolation, unconscious of the profession's peril. Fortunately, there is a middle way, whereby all factions are recognized as having a valuable input to make to the profession and the public good. To identify the factions within the profession, together with their inherent differences, necessitates going outside the planning profession to gain insights from professions whose concerns embrace social relationships, such as cultural historians, or to learn from individual idiosyncrasies. The article postulates a matrix of planners, containing four major types, (reformers, systemizers, administrators, synthesizers), each divided into four subgroups. The matrix does not develop a tightly-knit classification of individual planners, rather it is an heuristic device which provides insights into the basic differences in orientation within the profession, as a first step to overcoming the difficulties that ensue.
AbstractThe planning profession is in a make-or-break situation. Its rapid success is the cause of its vulnerability. The professional associations tend to look backward for a definition of planning, while the profession's so-called ‘progressives’ acknowledge only a radical shift in the profession's concerns and techniques. In the meantime, specialists within the field carry on in splendid isolation, unconscious of the profession's peril. Fortunately, there is a middle way, whereby all factions are recognized as having a valuable input to make to the profession and the public good. To identify the factions within the profession, together with their inherent differences, necessitates going outside the planning profession to gain insights from professions whose concerns embrace social relationships, such as cultural historians, or to learn from individual idiosyncrasies. The article postulates a matrix of planners, containing four major types, (reformers, systemizers, administrators, synthesizers), each divided into four subgroups. The matrix does not develop a tightly-knit classification of individual planners, rather it is an heuristic device which provides insights into the basic differences in orientation within the profession, as a first step to overcoming the difficulties that ensue.
Letters to the Editors: Planner vs. planner vs. planner[ddot]
Taylor & Francis Verlag | 1988
| TIBKAT | 1979,Dez. - 1984,Febr.
TIBKAT | 20.1982 -
TIBKAT | 6.1976 - 9.1979