Resistance and Response in Planning

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING
S. Fainstein, J. Forester, K. Lee, Tiara R. Na’puti, J. Agyeman, Nicholas Stewart, J. Novy, Aysin Dedekorkut Howes, Paul Burton, S. Norgaard, Nick R. Smith, Sharon Zukin, A. Lubinsky, M. Keith
{"title":"Resistance and Response in Planning","authors":"S. Fainstein, J. Forester, K. Lee, Tiara R. Na’puti, J. Agyeman, Nicholas Stewart, J. Novy, Aysin Dedekorkut Howes, Paul Burton, S. Norgaard, Nick R. Smith, Sharon Zukin, A. Lubinsky, M. Keith","doi":"10.1080/14649357.2023.2190681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The thoughtful contributions that follow are instructive in their similarities. They suggest that “ resistance ” is often just a simple synonym for “ opposition. ” In this broad “ pluralist ” sense of resistance, environmentalists resist highway advocates in California (Norgaard); preservation advocates resist affordable housing proponents in lower Manhattan (Zukin); supporters of sustainable design battle preservationists in Queensland (Dedekorkut and Burton) and Stuttgart (Novy). In New York (Lubinsky) and Rhode Island (Agyeman and Stewart) local leaders organize to resist legacies of racism, while in London (Keith) planners and politicians counter the power of capital. Planners fi nd themselves on all sides of these disputes, and activists, seeking to avoid appearing parochial, appeal to costs and bene fi ts, public welfare and interests, standing rights and regulations. In liberal democratic contexts, this is business as usual, but in two of our cases mobilized citizen resistance has faced largely unresponsive state power. In Guam (Guåhan) we see resistance to an imperial military presence (Lee and Na ’ puti); in Singapore resistance to unchallengeable state authority (Smith). Lubinsky ’ s case of New York City schools and Norgaard ’ s case of high-speed rail in California suggest that, in the U.S., plans without strong public support will fl ounder. In all the cases, we can wonder whether resistance to change is driven by racism or conspiracy theories, threatens a greater good, or re fl ects justi fi able distrust of oversold initiatives or governmental overreach. Generally the con fl icts discussed here involve what Aysin Dedekorkut Howes and Paul Burton describe as planners ’ “ perennial attempts to reconcile the possibility of localised harms (real or perceived) with bene fi ts to a wider group resulting from proposed development. ” Frank","PeriodicalId":47693,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory & Practice","volume":"24 1","pages":"245 - 283"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2023.2190681","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The thoughtful contributions that follow are instructive in their similarities. They suggest that “ resistance ” is often just a simple synonym for “ opposition. ” In this broad “ pluralist ” sense of resistance, environmentalists resist highway advocates in California (Norgaard); preservation advocates resist affordable housing proponents in lower Manhattan (Zukin); supporters of sustainable design battle preservationists in Queensland (Dedekorkut and Burton) and Stuttgart (Novy). In New York (Lubinsky) and Rhode Island (Agyeman and Stewart) local leaders organize to resist legacies of racism, while in London (Keith) planners and politicians counter the power of capital. Planners fi nd themselves on all sides of these disputes, and activists, seeking to avoid appearing parochial, appeal to costs and bene fi ts, public welfare and interests, standing rights and regulations. In liberal democratic contexts, this is business as usual, but in two of our cases mobilized citizen resistance has faced largely unresponsive state power. In Guam (Guåhan) we see resistance to an imperial military presence (Lee and Na ’ puti); in Singapore resistance to unchallengeable state authority (Smith). Lubinsky ’ s case of New York City schools and Norgaard ’ s case of high-speed rail in California suggest that, in the U.S., plans without strong public support will fl ounder. In all the cases, we can wonder whether resistance to change is driven by racism or conspiracy theories, threatens a greater good, or re fl ects justi fi able distrust of oversold initiatives or governmental overreach. Generally the con fl icts discussed here involve what Aysin Dedekorkut Howes and Paul Burton describe as planners ’ “ perennial attempts to reconcile the possibility of localised harms (real or perceived) with bene fi ts to a wider group resulting from proposed development. ” Frank
计划中的阻力和反应
接下来的深思熟虑的贡献在他们的相似之处是有益的。他们认为,“抵抗”通常只是“反对”的简单同义词。在这种广泛的“多元主义”抵抗意识中,环保主义者抵制加州的高速公路倡导者(诺加德);在曼哈顿下城,保护论者抵制经济适用房的支持者(Zukin);在昆士兰(Dedekorkut和Burton)和斯图加特(Novy),可持续设计的支持者与保护主义者展开了斗争。在纽约(鲁宾斯基)和罗德岛(阿吉曼和斯图尔特),当地领导人组织起来抵制种族主义的遗留问题,而在伦敦(基思),规划者和政治家们反对资本的权力。规划者发现自己站在这些争议的各个方面,而活动人士则试图避免显得狭隘,他们诉诸于成本和收益、公共福利和利益、常设权利和法规。在自由民主的背景下,这是司空见惯的事情,但在我们的两个案例中,动员起来的公民抵抗面对的是基本上毫无反应的国家权力。在关岛(gu汉),我们看到对帝国军事存在的抵制(李和纳普提);在新加坡对不可挑战的国家权威的抵抗(史密斯)。鲁宾斯基的纽约市学校案例和诺加德的加州高铁案例表明,在美国,没有强有力的公众支持的计划将会失败。在所有情况下,我们都想知道,对变革的抵制是由种族主义或阴谋论驱动的,是对更大利益的威胁,还是反映了对过度宣传的倡议或政府过度干预的合理不信任。一般来说,这里讨论的冲突涉及到Aysin Dedekorkut Howes和Paul Burton所描述的规划者“长期试图调和局部危害(真实的或感知的)与拟议开发所带来的更广泛群体的利益”。弗兰克
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Planning Theory & Practice provides an international focus for the development of theory and practice in spatial planning and a forum to promote the policy dimensions of space and place. Published four times a year in conjunction with the Royal Town Planning Institute, London, it publishes original articles and review papers from both academics and practitioners with the aim of encouraging more effective, two-way communication between theory and practice. The Editors invite robustly researched papers which raise issues at the leading edge of planning theory and practice, and welcome papers on controversial subjects. Contributors in the early stages of their academic careers are encouraged, as are rejoinders to items previously published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信