关键还是要改变它

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING
C. Legacy
{"title":"关键还是要改变它","authors":"C. Legacy","doi":"10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a 2011 Editorial for Planning Theory and Practice titled ‘The Point is to Change It’, Libby Porter treated readers to a passionate call to reveal planning’s politics. Evoking Marx, Porter argued that while “Planners act every day”, and “quite often change things as a consequence” these changes may come without direct and explicit engagement with the “political content” of planning. Going further, Porter contends that planners are “disturbingly unable to judge the politics of change’s outcomes” (p. 477) leading in many ways to planning “systematically evacuating itself of the political” (p. 479). Ten years on, and in these uncertain times, Porter’s call continues to resonate. In a recent editorial, Mark Scott (2020) posited how the pandemic is revealing the social and spatial unevenness of pre-Covid planning and Covid responses. Nearly 18 months on, the structural inequalities are deepening and the winners from the pandemic are in clearer view. Tech giants will likely prevail as our lives take on new digital forms, curated through the rise of virtual landscapes enabled by platform technology. Alongside big tech may be the large global infrastructure consortiums heeding calls from governments to stimulate local and regional economies. No doubt that jobs will be created in the construction of this infrastructure, as well as through the expansion of the gig economy. Low quality work will likely replace some of the jobs lost during the pandemic recession, a trend visible in the place I write from, Melbourne/Naarm, Australia, exacerbating casualisation already at historic levels across some sectors. Underpinning these structural forces, the uneven access to public and open space, quality public transport, care-based services, housing and well-designed neighbourhoods, will continue to raise questions about whether a pre-Covid normal is even worth returning (Scott, 2020, p. 344). Crisis periods like the one we are in can bring on sober reflections, as well as seed change. For planning, reflecting on what has been and what could be can invite new questions. In responding to Porter’s call, one could ask, what is the potential to transform planning to better engage with the politics of its content? (see Campbell, 2021). Efforts to answer this question will need to be prudent. Critically analysing what these times reveal about the political content of planning’s work could be underpinned by what this moment is demanding from us. For practitioners, theorists, researchers and educators alike, how we move forward will require a kind of hopeful intentionality that is perhaps more overtly political as it contends with past failings and present contexts. Crisis can spur such hopeful ruminations. For instance, Rebecca Solnit (2020) wrote about how the pandemic was revealing moments of hope at every turn; connections and solidarities forging within and across communities seeking to manage the immediate effects of Covid-19. Such moments of hope can be the precursor to something much larger. Perhaps even a transformation? Heather Campbell (2021) explored this question in her recent editorial highlighting how incredibly difficult transformation can be to achieve. From the “stifling paradigms” to the institutional arrangements designed to work against inter-professional and inter-disciplinary learning, Campbell (2021, p. 6) contends that addressing these challenges are the very “bread-and-butter” of the work required to seed future transformations. PLANNING THEORY & PRACTICE 2021, VOL. 22, NO. 4, 511–515 https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054","PeriodicalId":47693,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory & Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Point is Still to Change it\",\"authors\":\"C. Legacy\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a 2011 Editorial for Planning Theory and Practice titled ‘The Point is to Change It’, Libby Porter treated readers to a passionate call to reveal planning’s politics. Evoking Marx, Porter argued that while “Planners act every day”, and “quite often change things as a consequence” these changes may come without direct and explicit engagement with the “political content” of planning. Going further, Porter contends that planners are “disturbingly unable to judge the politics of change’s outcomes” (p. 477) leading in many ways to planning “systematically evacuating itself of the political” (p. 479). Ten years on, and in these uncertain times, Porter’s call continues to resonate. In a recent editorial, Mark Scott (2020) posited how the pandemic is revealing the social and spatial unevenness of pre-Covid planning and Covid responses. Nearly 18 months on, the structural inequalities are deepening and the winners from the pandemic are in clearer view. Tech giants will likely prevail as our lives take on new digital forms, curated through the rise of virtual landscapes enabled by platform technology. Alongside big tech may be the large global infrastructure consortiums heeding calls from governments to stimulate local and regional economies. No doubt that jobs will be created in the construction of this infrastructure, as well as through the expansion of the gig economy. Low quality work will likely replace some of the jobs lost during the pandemic recession, a trend visible in the place I write from, Melbourne/Naarm, Australia, exacerbating casualisation already at historic levels across some sectors. Underpinning these structural forces, the uneven access to public and open space, quality public transport, care-based services, housing and well-designed neighbourhoods, will continue to raise questions about whether a pre-Covid normal is even worth returning (Scott, 2020, p. 344). Crisis periods like the one we are in can bring on sober reflections, as well as seed change. For planning, reflecting on what has been and what could be can invite new questions. In responding to Porter’s call, one could ask, what is the potential to transform planning to better engage with the politics of its content? (see Campbell, 2021). Efforts to answer this question will need to be prudent. Critically analysing what these times reveal about the political content of planning’s work could be underpinned by what this moment is demanding from us. For practitioners, theorists, researchers and educators alike, how we move forward will require a kind of hopeful intentionality that is perhaps more overtly political as it contends with past failings and present contexts. Crisis can spur such hopeful ruminations. For instance, Rebecca Solnit (2020) wrote about how the pandemic was revealing moments of hope at every turn; connections and solidarities forging within and across communities seeking to manage the immediate effects of Covid-19. Such moments of hope can be the precursor to something much larger. Perhaps even a transformation? Heather Campbell (2021) explored this question in her recent editorial highlighting how incredibly difficult transformation can be to achieve. From the “stifling paradigms” to the institutional arrangements designed to work against inter-professional and inter-disciplinary learning, Campbell (2021, p. 6) contends that addressing these challenges are the very “bread-and-butter” of the work required to seed future transformations. PLANNING THEORY & PRACTICE 2021, VOL. 22, NO. 4, 511–515 https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054\",\"PeriodicalId\":47693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Planning Theory & Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Planning Theory & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054","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: 7

摘要

在2011年出版的一本名为《规划理论与实践》的社论《关键是要改变它》中,利比·波特热情地呼吁读者揭示规划的政治。波特让人想起了马克思,他认为,虽然“规划者每天都在行动”,而且“经常因此改变事情”,但这些变化可能没有直接和明确地参与规划的“政治内容”。更进一步,波特认为规划者“令人不安地无法判断变革结果的政治性”(第477页),导致在许多方面规划“系统地从政治中撤离”(第479页)。十年过去了,在这个不确定的时代,波特的呼吁继续引起共鸣。马克·斯科特(Mark Scott,2020)在最近的一篇社论中提出,疫情如何揭示了新冠疫情前规划和新冠肺炎应对的社会和空间不均衡。近18个月过去了,结构性不平等正在加深,新冠疫情的赢家更加清晰。随着我们的生活呈现出新的数字形式,科技巨头可能会占上风,这是通过平台技术推动的虚拟景观的兴起来策划的。除了大型科技公司,大型全球基础设施财团可能会响应政府的呼吁,刺激地方和地区经济。毫无疑问,这一基础设施的建设以及零工经济的扩张将创造就业机会。低质量的工作可能会取代疫情衰退期间失去的一些工作岗位,这一趋势在我写这篇文章的地方——澳大利亚墨尔本/纳阿姆——是显而易见的,加剧了一些行业已经达到历史水平的临时工作。支撑这些结构性力量的是公共和开放空间、优质公共交通、护理服务、住房和精心设计的社区的不均衡准入,这将继续引发人们对新冠疫情前的正常状态是否值得回归的疑问(Scott,2020,第344页)。像我们所处的危机时期可以带来清醒的反思,也可以带来种子的改变。对于规划来说,反思已经发生的事情和可能发生的事情可能会引发新的问题。在回应波特的呼吁时,人们可能会问,改变规划以更好地参与其内容政治的潜力是什么?(见Campbell,2021)。回答这个问题的努力需要谨慎。批判性地分析这些时代对规划工作政治内容的揭示,可能会得到这一时刻对我们的要求的支持。对于从业者、理论家、研究人员和教育工作者来说,我们如何前进将需要一种充满希望的意向性,这种意向性可能更公开地具有政治性,因为它与过去的失败和当前的环境作斗争。危机可以激发这种充满希望的沉思。例如,Rebecca Solnit(2020)写道,疫情如何在每一个转折点都揭示了希望的时刻;在寻求管理新冠肺炎直接影响的社区内部和社区之间建立联系和团结。这样的希望时刻可能预示着更大的事情。甚至可能是一种转变?Heather Campbell(2021)在她最近的社论中探讨了这个问题,强调了实现转型是多么困难。从“令人窒息的范式”到旨在反对跨专业和跨学科学习的制度安排,Campbell(2021,第6页)认为,应对这些挑战正是播种未来变革所需工作的“面包和黄油”。规划理论与实践2021,第22卷,第4期,511–515https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Point is Still to Change it
In a 2011 Editorial for Planning Theory and Practice titled ‘The Point is to Change It’, Libby Porter treated readers to a passionate call to reveal planning’s politics. Evoking Marx, Porter argued that while “Planners act every day”, and “quite often change things as a consequence” these changes may come without direct and explicit engagement with the “political content” of planning. Going further, Porter contends that planners are “disturbingly unable to judge the politics of change’s outcomes” (p. 477) leading in many ways to planning “systematically evacuating itself of the political” (p. 479). Ten years on, and in these uncertain times, Porter’s call continues to resonate. In a recent editorial, Mark Scott (2020) posited how the pandemic is revealing the social and spatial unevenness of pre-Covid planning and Covid responses. Nearly 18 months on, the structural inequalities are deepening and the winners from the pandemic are in clearer view. Tech giants will likely prevail as our lives take on new digital forms, curated through the rise of virtual landscapes enabled by platform technology. Alongside big tech may be the large global infrastructure consortiums heeding calls from governments to stimulate local and regional economies. No doubt that jobs will be created in the construction of this infrastructure, as well as through the expansion of the gig economy. Low quality work will likely replace some of the jobs lost during the pandemic recession, a trend visible in the place I write from, Melbourne/Naarm, Australia, exacerbating casualisation already at historic levels across some sectors. Underpinning these structural forces, the uneven access to public and open space, quality public transport, care-based services, housing and well-designed neighbourhoods, will continue to raise questions about whether a pre-Covid normal is even worth returning (Scott, 2020, p. 344). Crisis periods like the one we are in can bring on sober reflections, as well as seed change. For planning, reflecting on what has been and what could be can invite new questions. In responding to Porter’s call, one could ask, what is the potential to transform planning to better engage with the politics of its content? (see Campbell, 2021). Efforts to answer this question will need to be prudent. Critically analysing what these times reveal about the political content of planning’s work could be underpinned by what this moment is demanding from us. For practitioners, theorists, researchers and educators alike, how we move forward will require a kind of hopeful intentionality that is perhaps more overtly political as it contends with past failings and present contexts. Crisis can spur such hopeful ruminations. For instance, Rebecca Solnit (2020) wrote about how the pandemic was revealing moments of hope at every turn; connections and solidarities forging within and across communities seeking to manage the immediate effects of Covid-19. Such moments of hope can be the precursor to something much larger. Perhaps even a transformation? Heather Campbell (2021) explored this question in her recent editorial highlighting how incredibly difficult transformation can be to achieve. From the “stifling paradigms” to the institutional arrangements designed to work against inter-professional and inter-disciplinary learning, Campbell (2021, p. 6) contends that addressing these challenges are the very “bread-and-butter” of the work required to seed future transformations. PLANNING THEORY & PRACTICE 2021, VOL. 22, NO. 4, 511–515 https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1962054
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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