适应性城市主义和弹性社区:改造街道以应对气候变化

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
I-Ting Chuang
{"title":"适应性城市主义和弹性社区:改造街道以应对气候变化","authors":"I-Ting Chuang","doi":"10.1080/08111146.2022.2049877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I remain to be convinced that the time and effort needed to gain a working knowledge of Heidegger’s ontology and then apply it in a meaningful way to one’s practice as a planner is worth it. Perhaps I will never know until and unless I take that journey and then reflect on whether I have become a better planner. And I suspect that if I remain unconvinced, as an academic planner with more time than most to take such a journey, then few if any practitioner planners will choose to make it. But Low does offer some interesting observations on the place of planning in the contemporary world. He reformulates Patrick Geddes’ trilogy of place, work and folk into the slightly more modern assemblage of people, planet and place and while he devotes considerable attention to feminist conceptions of nature, the environment and planning, he is surprisingly silent on the Indigenous history of Australia and Australian cities and of the processes and legacies of colonial settlement. By the end of Low’s book, I was still ambivalent about whether it is helpful or worthwhile for planning academics to adopt a particular philosophical position as the foundation for their approach to planning, or to advocate the work of a particular philosopher as a foundational element. In my case, I was introduced as an undergraduate planning student to the work of Karl Popper and have retained an interest in the application of his work to planning and to planning theory, especially his epistemology of empirical testability and falsifiability as the hallmark of scientific or objective knowledge and his critique of totalitarianism. Low’s application of Heidegger’s philosophy probably seems equally old fashioned to many of today’s planning scholars, but he is to be commended for trying, with some success, to connect it to the actual practices of planning rather than the imagined practices that seem to underpin much contemporary planning theory. If you have the time and money, Low’s book is worth the read.","PeriodicalId":47081,"journal":{"name":"Urban Policy and Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adaptation Urbanism and Resilient Communities: Transforming Streets to Address Climate Change\",\"authors\":\"I-Ting Chuang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08111146.2022.2049877\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I remain to be convinced that the time and effort needed to gain a working knowledge of Heidegger’s ontology and then apply it in a meaningful way to one’s practice as a planner is worth it. Perhaps I will never know until and unless I take that journey and then reflect on whether I have become a better planner. And I suspect that if I remain unconvinced, as an academic planner with more time than most to take such a journey, then few if any practitioner planners will choose to make it. But Low does offer some interesting observations on the place of planning in the contemporary world. He reformulates Patrick Geddes’ trilogy of place, work and folk into the slightly more modern assemblage of people, planet and place and while he devotes considerable attention to feminist conceptions of nature, the environment and planning, he is surprisingly silent on the Indigenous history of Australia and Australian cities and of the processes and legacies of colonial settlement. By the end of Low’s book, I was still ambivalent about whether it is helpful or worthwhile for planning academics to adopt a particular philosophical position as the foundation for their approach to planning, or to advocate the work of a particular philosopher as a foundational element. In my case, I was introduced as an undergraduate planning student to the work of Karl Popper and have retained an interest in the application of his work to planning and to planning theory, especially his epistemology of empirical testability and falsifiability as the hallmark of scientific or objective knowledge and his critique of totalitarianism. Low’s application of Heidegger’s philosophy probably seems equally old fashioned to many of today’s planning scholars, but he is to be commended for trying, with some success, to connect it to the actual practices of planning rather than the imagined practices that seem to underpin much contemporary planning theory. If you have the time and money, Low’s book is worth the read.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Policy and Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Policy and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2049877\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Policy and Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2022.2049877","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

我仍然相信,为了获得海德格尔本体论的实用知识,然后以一种有意义的方式将其应用于一个人作为计划者的实践,所需要的时间和精力是值得的。也许我永远不会知道,除非我经历了这段旅程,然后反思我是否已经成为一个更好的计划者。我怀疑,如果我仍然不相信,作为一个比大多数人都有更多时间进行这样一段旅程的学术规划师,那么很少有人(如果有的话)会选择这样做。但对于规划在当代世界的地位,洛确实提出了一些有趣的观察。他将帕特里克·格迪斯(Patrick Geddes)关于地点、工作和民间的三部曲重新表述为稍微更现代的人、星球和地方的组合。尽管他对自然、环境和规划的女权主义概念给予了相当大的关注,但他对澳大利亚和澳大利亚城市的土著历史以及殖民定居的过程和遗产却出奇地沉默。在洛的书结束时,我仍然对规划学者采用特定的哲学立场作为他们的规划方法的基础,或者倡导特定哲学家的工作作为基础元素是否有帮助或值得感到矛盾。就我而言,作为一名本科规划专业的学生,我被介绍到卡尔·波普尔(Karl Popper)的作品中,并对他的作品在规划和规划理论中的应用保持了兴趣,尤其是他的经验可测试性和可证伪性认识论,作为科学或客观知识的标志,以及他对极权主义的批评。洛对海德格尔哲学的应用,对于今天的许多规划学者来说,可能同样显得过时,但他尝试将其与规划的实际实践联系起来,而不是将其与支撑许多当代规划理论的想象实践联系起来,并取得了一些成功,这一点值得称赞。如果你有时间和金钱,洛的书值得一读。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adaptation Urbanism and Resilient Communities: Transforming Streets to Address Climate Change
I remain to be convinced that the time and effort needed to gain a working knowledge of Heidegger’s ontology and then apply it in a meaningful way to one’s practice as a planner is worth it. Perhaps I will never know until and unless I take that journey and then reflect on whether I have become a better planner. And I suspect that if I remain unconvinced, as an academic planner with more time than most to take such a journey, then few if any practitioner planners will choose to make it. But Low does offer some interesting observations on the place of planning in the contemporary world. He reformulates Patrick Geddes’ trilogy of place, work and folk into the slightly more modern assemblage of people, planet and place and while he devotes considerable attention to feminist conceptions of nature, the environment and planning, he is surprisingly silent on the Indigenous history of Australia and Australian cities and of the processes and legacies of colonial settlement. By the end of Low’s book, I was still ambivalent about whether it is helpful or worthwhile for planning academics to adopt a particular philosophical position as the foundation for their approach to planning, or to advocate the work of a particular philosopher as a foundational element. In my case, I was introduced as an undergraduate planning student to the work of Karl Popper and have retained an interest in the application of his work to planning and to planning theory, especially his epistemology of empirical testability and falsifiability as the hallmark of scientific or objective knowledge and his critique of totalitarianism. Low’s application of Heidegger’s philosophy probably seems equally old fashioned to many of today’s planning scholars, but he is to be commended for trying, with some success, to connect it to the actual practices of planning rather than the imagined practices that seem to underpin much contemporary planning theory. If you have the time and money, Low’s book is worth the read.
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
3.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
56
×
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