Specifics and recent development of Central European - Spa

Specifics and recent development of
Central European planning culture
10th SPA-CE.net conference,
Dresden, 25th -27th September 2013
Prof. Maroš Finka
Dr. Matej Jaššo
STU Bratislava
1
Core ideas
„The character of planning culture is determined by the value
system, which is mediated by und mirrored in the acting and
communication“
(Finka, M.,2007)
Understanding of cultural dynamics, the ability to develop a clear
vision of the desired planning culture and its active fostering,
should be an essential competence of any spatial planner.
(Jaššo, M.,2012)
2
Contexts of the planning cultures development in Europe
Globalization and integration
Approximation processes
Growing complexity of the objects of planning
Growing spatial extend of individual and societal activities
Development of civil society – democratization, direct
participation on decision making, from collective to
individual/personal
• Growing sensitivity to the phenomena like community,
identity, place, social behavior or human values....
• Growing uncertainty in the decision making (complexity,
interlinks, individual behavior)
• Growing vulnerability (different sources of vulnerability)
•
•
•
•
•
3
Global changes in spatial planning
• Changes in the understanding of the role of planners –
planner as creator to planner as coordinator and
intersiciplinarity of spatial planning
• Changes of spatial planning tasks – from design to mediation
and negotiation, from the definition of the target quality to
process management
• Changes of planning paradigm - the shift from the system
theories („comprehensive planning“) having their roots back
in 1950s toward the „incrementalism“ of the 1970s and later
to cooperative planning of 1990s.
Changes of planning instrumentarium, from hard to soft
instruments, from plans to process interventions
• focus on processes and phenomena beyond the traditional
classification schemes and patterns
4
Global changes in spatial planning 2
•request for „communication turn“ („kommunikative Wende“), continuous proliferation of consensus and cooperation-based
behavioral patterns and proceedings,
•synergy of new and traditional or formal approaches
(sustainability paradigm – ex-ante, problem oriented
participative planning ex-post)
•redefinition of the relations between the planners and the
environment (commonly regarded as a more intelligent
approach, (Rode, 2006)).
These new qualities/requirements/challenges as
common denominators for new emerging planning
cultures
5
Planning culture – specific and unique versus universal
• Planning as an integrated part of the societal reflection and society
interactions with the environment – uniqueness of environment –
unique reflections
• Planning culture could be deemed as specific, unique as well as
typical, non-casual set of approaches to the factors playing principal
roles in the process of spatial development
• It can be considered as one of the softest dimensions of spatial
planning, being an important non-proprietary part of social and
territorial capital
Planning culture is embedded in the society and its culture, in the
territory – planning culture as important phenomenon significantly
influencing not only spatial development, but the society as whole
6
Planning culture and current spatial development challenges
•smart (smooth, succesful and genuine) spatial development requires
cultural compatibility and continuity.
•Smart and sustainable spatial development requires integration of
different values, basic assumptions and beliefs into a coherent spatial
concept - Forester´s concept „making sense together“ has been
completed by Healy´s addition „while living differently“ (Mäntysalo 2005)
•efficiency of planning (especially cooperative planning) is strongly
dependent on the degree of trust and quality of social capital (incluseve
the planning culture) within the society
•Dynamic changes of the planning object and tasks require the
development of planning culture
Planning culture is continously changing and developing,
absorbing plethora of impulses from social, political, economical
and spatial discourse...
7
Are there any models and methodologies how to research, assess,
classify planning cultures?
What are the essential traits and scopes of Central European
planning culture?
8
Few definitions of planning culture:
- Dollinger (2007) is simply reffering to „the ways how the
decision-makers are dealing with planning processess“.
- Friedmann (2005) defines planning culture as „the ways, both
formal and informal, that spatial planning in a given-multinational region, country or city is conceived, institutionalized
and enacted“.
According to Beutl (2007), planning culture is „the mode and
ways of coordinating the spatial behaviour of various actors, not
only planners and stakeholders.“
Falludi (2007) emphasis the ethical dimension, defining
planning culture as „the collective ethos and dominant attitude
of planners regarding the appropriate role of the state, market
forces, and civil society in unfluencing social outcomes“.
Keim et al. (2002) defines planning culture as a „repertoir for
planning practice“, consisting from the underlying planning
assumptions, leading ideas and images, rationalities bound to
consensus building and conflict management, norms and rules
and the „planning styles“
9
Legal frames
Nadin, V. (2011) Four
traditions of planning in
western Europe, AESOP
Prague Prof. Maroš Finka
SPECTRA Centre of Excellence EU, STU Bratislava
Social models as the basis for political concepts behind the
planning cultures
Nadin, V. (2011) Four
traditions of planning in
western Europe, AESOP
Prague Prof. Maroš Finka
SPECTRA Centre of Excellence EU, STU Bratislava
Contentual models in European planning systems
Land use
managment
Regulation of
fuctinal landuse by plans
and decissions
about the
conflicst
Regional-economic
planning
Management of
regional economy by
public interventions
into the infrastructure
and development
Strategic planning – integrated
planning
Coordination of spatial impacts
of public policies by the frame
strategic documents and plans
Urban design
Structural
planning, urban
desing by
regulatives
Nadin, V. (2011) Four
traditions of planning in
western Europe, AESOP
Prague
Prof. Maroš Finka
SPECTRA Centre of Excellence EU, STU Bratislava
Contentual models in European planning systems –
dominace of land use dimension
Land use
managment
Regulation of
fuctinal landuse by plans
and decissions
about the
conflicst
Obsahové modely v
európskych
priestorovoplánovacích
systémoch
Prof. Maroš Finka
SPECTRA Centre of Excellence EU, STU Bratislava
Contentual models in European planning systems –
dominace of regional – economic planning dimension
Regional-economic
planning
Management of
regional economy by
public interventions
into the infrastructure
and development
Prof. Maroš Finka
SPECTRA Centre of Excellence EU, STU Bratislava
Contentual models in European planning systems –
dominace of urban design dimension
Urban design
Structural
planning, urban
desing by
regulatives
Prof. Maroš Finka
SPECTRA Centre of Excellence EU, STU Bratislava
Contentual models in European planning systems –
dominace of strategic planning dimension
Strategic planning – integrated
planning
Coordination of spatial impacts
of public policies by the frame
strategic documents and plans
Prof. Maroš Finka
SPECTRA Centre of Excellence EU, STU Bratislava
Contentual models in European planning systems –
overlapping dimensions in the western European countries
Nadin, V. (2011) Four
traditions of planning in
western Europe, AESOP
Prague
Prof. Maroš Finka
SPECTRA Centre of Excellence EU, STU Bratislava
Conceptual models of planning systems as the core of
planning cultures
18
Conceptual models of planning systems as the core of
planning cultures – dimensions/scopes of planning
cultures
a) degree of own initiative and pro-active behaviour of actors of
spatial development
b) underlying values and beliefs
c) risk taking behaviour and readiness
d) decision-making style and feedback mechanisms
e) integration and participation of actors
f) degree of restriction and supervision
g) dealing with spatial/social conflicts
h) degree of beaurocracy
i) communication patterns
j) „the pace“ of planning
k) flexibility, innovative behaviour and ability to learn
....
19
Conceptual models of planning systems as the core of
planning cultures
Central Europe:
semiotics of the Central Europe is very wide, going far beyond
the old cliches (Austro-Hungarian Empire, „Ostblock“, „Eastern
Europe“). It has been tackled in many essential
politological/sociological texts (T.G.Ash: Does Central Europe
Exist?, M.Kundera: Tragedy of Central Europe...).
According to Bělohradský (2000), there are 3 most important
historical prerequisites for forming (post) modern interpretation
of Central European identity and culture:
- highly instructive demise of Austro-Hungarian Empire as a
supranational state...
- Viennise modernism with its fragmentation of tradition and
„turn to language“ anticipated later post-modern movements
- prevailing historical concesciesness in 1970s and 1980s in
Western Europe that its a scandal that cities like Prague,
Budapest, Bratislava or Ljubljana are missing in European
discourse ....
20
Conceptual models of planning systems as the core of
planning cultures – central European planning culture
a) large time horizons of the planning executive
CE planning culture has rather “slow pace”, is rather adaptive,
evolutional even beaurocratic
b) attention paid to social aspects of planning
planning was always considered as a set of activities largely influencing
social composure and coherence of society (planning was never purely
„physical“)
c) considerable methodical depth but lack of
interdisciplinarity
Planning based more based more on data than on people brought
precise classification, segementation, evaluation and passportization.
On the other hand, social sciences were involved rather modestly.
d) sceptical attitude of public toward planners profession
Public confidence, expectation and trust is lower than wished. Planners
have been forced to continously weaken their ultimate roles of experts
in order to integrate the roles of moderators and facilitators.
e) less intensive public involvement
Lack of historical continuity, numerous setbacks and dissapointing
experiences led to rather diffuse and hesitant approach to public
participation.
21