In the video, apparently, there are valuable comments on public contribution to the social production of space. I would explain that this approach is like a a value-making process from whatever some may think right. In this case social interaction is assigned to be among those values and a wide consensus on the issue has been assumed. But the question is “Is that true?” Why these people think that streets has changed to separating corridors of our urban spaces, if there is a structure of ‘moving and stable’ object of urban lives? What are the alternative routs to the existing structure? Could we follow the same pattern used in European cities? and Are those cities good enough as usually are claimed? These are among many other questions try to bring the new C20 city into serious questions.

But the most iportant thing in here is:

It is ridiculous that someone thinks people can live in C21with what belongs to C18 human relations or prehistoric one. Please do not forget that many people are annoyed with ‘google taking picture project’ in ancient Europe in where no one will be hurt with photography, but at the same time in the Us in where everyone would file as many lawsuits as possible for issue of privacy or similar, cities would bring people together? Please do not forget that modernism and postmodernism (with all its counter-modern notions) have dedicated individualism to us. Clubs, communities, smaller groups of people are the gift of these eras. the people cannot be stick together would be stuck together. In fact having a crowded community is not a favorite thing or sustainable movement for those whose meals are picked up from drive-through and they would not use public transportation. But it can be a hobby for those types of people and a good advertisement for cities try to show the social production of space.

Have you asked yourself why many still would go to a Tennis court or Golf course rather than going to stadium for watching sport like Football? Then lets us not ignore the issue of individuality and privacy (which may damage with these sort of actions) which is very vital to many and who as citizens living in post-modern era with the value freedom and would hold the boundaries between the phenomena. There is no exemption for the social interaction, even seems very valuable to urbanists, in which those would not participate will be more isolated.

G20: Gordon Brown calls for global tax on financial transaction

Then why planning theorists and thinkers are trying to implant planning operation in local level, when, somewhere else a centralized controlling system, which is acting at global level, is being established.

Many of the planning institutions such as APA and RTPI interfering in training planning people, as planners, emphasize those accounts that facilitate the decentalization act, but the whole operation is being taken to another place.

The contradiction and gap between what is to be assumed as democratic control of planning and what is asserted to planning at practical level as contol by law are very bizzare.

At local level planning organizations reject any type of disceretion and metion the only force that should be able to lead planning is market but at the global level we are seeing many disceretion like the current one that allow G20 to control whatever they think that they need to do.

According to Sport Business Daily,

Indebted Clubs Could Face Expulsion From UEFA Champions League

According to this report the football teams can not be free of charge of socialist controls. Then they can not invest on football player to give the exitment to the games as much as they want. They have to be in a limit!

European soccer clubs “have been given three seasons to balance their books or risk expulsion” from the UEFA Champions League, according to Tom Dart of the LONDON TIMES. Under a new policy, a club such that has “spent far more than their income” would “face punishment and the ultimate sanction of removal from European competition.” UEFA President Michel Platini said, “We are giving clubs three years to abide by the simple sentence that you cannot spend more than you own or generate.”

This means a sport like football (Soccer) needs more serious control. Whatever is the nature of the football as a sport and what was assumed the nature of the sport would be before the recession belongs to the stable and good economic situation. But now UEFA and others are thinking about clubs and teams which are in debt and those may be purchased by someone like Abramovich etc.

But what will happen to ‘football industry’ if the teams invest like Real Madrid has done during the last 2 years: 1 billion and 300 million dollars debt!

It seems, in a socialist Europe, there would be no capitalist football industry. As a matter of fact if semi-capitalist managers like Britain were going to jump over the European limitation before recession, many problems for Leeds United and Liverpool, Manchester United were lessons for UEFA that the level of excitement through ‘unreasonbel’ inverstment should be controlled for having more ‘sustainable  footbal leagues’!

Whether or not it is corrent, it is taken into acction.

these days, healthy choices are reminding by different labels such as ‘smart choice program’ with a big “green check mark “ (do you remember it?), Kellogg uses it, American Heart association label,Healthy Idea as well as nutritious bars are some among many other.

In the report, Micheal Jacobson executive director CSPI, to the question “What is wrong with making this smart choice?” replies “well, … when it  has (the product contains) 40% sugar, … that is not such a smart choice!”. He also mentions some products of food industry Kraft.

But here the matter is that “food companies use these signs for selling the products which are not so healthy” rather than which products are healthy and which not.

“That is concerning FDA too” report says and also it reveals that the “the agency warns food companies that analyzing … (labels) … that appear to be misleading”.

The whole issue however is a crucial case in terms of food industry and people’s health, also can be looked into from different points of view:

The market based system which is to be a controlling system for the entire planning for market and its tasks can face with serious challenges in terms of decentralization. I should remind the reader that I have announced many times in my lectures that a market-based economic system, either in local or global level can move to the higher level. What does it mean?

It means, for instance, some insurance companies in local level, in specific situation, can join together and set up a cooperation. This produces a more centralized system above the local level controls. And it shows the decentralized controls lack the effective controlling tools because they have to access to the higher level. This operation which usually calls “cooperation” can damage the entire market in a higher level because where we set up a decentralized control on planning they have a centralized and organized system to pass the controls.

Although there some governmental controls try to brake the chain of systematized “cooperation” and “giving-qualification systems”, at the same time those systems are being developed in other ways.

Then the entire idea of fully decentralized planning system face with challenges of the control of the centralized plans and plan-making processes. This entirely means that fully decentralized and controlled planning processes by citizens is merely applicable to the planning sphere if we can make sure that the plans, cooperation and decisions are taking  in the local level. Therefore the appropriate scale of control is the one that coming from the same scale of the plan, otherwise controls are like shooting a tank with tennis balls, you can not stop it!

“growing number of Russians believe their country does not need democracy, a nationwide survey by one of Russia’s leading polling agencies”

Again the subject namely democracy or democratic system comes to serious philosophical questions. If majority of people through a (semi-) democratic survey vote for a non-democratic, can we say the value of democracy is challenged?

For years, in spite of, relativity new postmodernist issue of dissensus on planning subjects, having a democratic system and towards more democratic control either centralized or decentralized, have been a common characteristic of theorizing and practicality. Even centralized idea of modernist planning once tried to establish the social engineering through the window of architecture, design or rationalism was severely challenged by planning thinkers rising from political and social accounts.

But with expansion of planning theory and many paradoxical cases other than physical planning were reinforced. Among them a very ‘Heap paradox’ is the early question of this post.

to fulfill the democratic oath, if we accept that the answer to the above question is ‘Yes’, then some may ask another vital and vivid question:

If the non-democratic system start governing these people, when would be the next time to ask people to examine whether they want to change or not? This means, basically, in a non-democratic system there is no place for people’s vote.

So democracy can accept any other non-democratic system at all? Then if some asset that the concept democracy to be kept requires a dictatorship of democracy what would be the answer(s)?

The period between 2008 and 2009 has been an unlikely period not only for people suffering from the financial problem but for lots of firms, companies and banks and insurance corporations as well as stock markets. The new challenges for free-market concept, governments and people who support liberalism (in its general and radical sense) in its vast meaning are coming up that is why the new regulation to control the free-market attributes is the serious debate these days.This is the serious challenge for New Right supporters

With scrutinizing the roots of current global economic problem it has been assigned to too much credit given by economic and governmental agencies, it is surprising that whereas the problem is being called ‘credit crunch’ in the UK; meaning lack of credit.

Many analysis are being carried out to bail out the existing recession. But it seems a severe recession, instead of any other given name, and even worse than ever. Beyond the analysis of causes and ways to get out of the recession there are some lessons in here I would like to attribute to the system of thought.

Lessons and reminders:

(1) Many of politico-economic theories may not work, whereas, they have been working for a long time. (2) an economic problem with hidden symptoms which seems simple can rapidly spread out to beyond the geographical boundaries of a country and might be changed to a global problem (3) Private-sector is not enough reliable for giving credit to it in economic calculations for many reasons and counting on privates companies to feed their employees who need private-sector money to pay back their loans and mortgages can ruin these types of calculation. (3) Still the construction industries are the most important segments of economy in circulating money and credit. (4) The development of virtual companies like internet-based companies working with information as a product (digital products) can produce lots of problems or even can increase the effect of recession, whereas, they seem as big saving tools for people and money-makers agancies for economies. (5) This showed us still many of the decisions made by political bodies, who decide to serve people in some ways, are not in the right and justified paths. (6) It proved that it is needed to be revised the premises of ‘capitalist political economy’ in action, completely opposite to thinkers feel bored from this kind of discussions. (7) Again the discussion is brought up that the decision-making as a very important part of planning faces with serious questions like who would be legitimize to take and make the decisions in such an ever-increasing complex atmosphere. (8) The rapid expansion of the problem showed that the process of decision-making should be taken to the global level whether politician, planner, people like or not  (sharing better situations with others and worse with others). (9) The idea of ‘The Global City’ (See Saskia Sassen’s works) with its all primitive fascinating concepts needs to come to serious questions which is likely ideological rather than actual or practical, and basically it is in economic threats in such situations.

But how have we dedicated portions of each specialities rather than endless of ligitimation of a single account.

American Planning Association is the organization which educates American planners and planning students with what defines as planning in that country. This organization on its mission says;

“The American Planning Association provides leadership in the development of vital communities by advocating excellence in community planning, promoting education and citizen empowerment, and providing the tools and support necessary to meet the challenges of growth and change.”

They also claim;

“When government officials, business leaders, and citizens come together to build communities that enrich people’s lives, that’s planning.”

“Planning, also called urban planning or city and regional planning, is a dynamic profession that works to improve the welfare of people and their communities by creating more convenient, equitable, healthful, efficient, and attractive places for present and future generations.

Planning enables civic leaders, businesses, and citizens to play a meaningful role in creating communities that enrich people’s lives.

Good planning helps create communities that offer better choices for where and how people live. Planning helps community members envision the direction their community grow and will help them find the right balance of new development and essential services, protection of the environment, and innovative change (APA Website).”

Although these kinds of definition seem more realistic compare to most definitions presented in planning theory, it is not failure-free. It is very considerable that there is nothing in this definition from nature, built environment and foresight for future generations (the word future generation in the first part of definition is a posteriori of current generation and there is no dedication to it visible). This definition emphasizes on ‘creating places’ with a very urban design sense. Another point in this definition is that APA knows planning equal to urban planning or city and regional planning, and other thing is in the definition of the country which is supposed built up based on free-market and free economy, this is nothing in this definition to clarify the role of planning in this matter, instead, the only thing which stands out in here is the point ‘enrich people’s lives’ (which expresses in a very vague way). This point has been exhibited as the final goal of planning albeit, the emphasis on the democratic methods is significant and bolded (For more details see the section ‘our vision’).

Friedmann suggests a new (was new at the time) approach (his famous knowledge and action model) to tackle the aforementioned problems;

By contrast, the new approach which may be called the action planning model fused action and planning into a single operation so that the concep­tual distinctions of planning-decision-implementation-recycling are washed out. This model is close to observable reality. In most situations, it is ex­tremely difficult empirically to isolate the four phases of the classical model, particularly the critical step of decision-making. An action will include delib­eration and choice as pervasive, but these are not to be identified as distinc­tive phases prior to action; they are – inseparably – a part of it (Friedmann, 1969).

This mentioning the issue of crispness which has been pursued in rational planning reminds me of the same problem we face in architecture. Some, perhaps, critisize me due to the structual differnecitation between architecture and planning. But it is not worthless to be mentioed that the recent attempts in architectural design to make a rational decision making pattern (in order to generate a rational decision-making algurithem to use by computer to design the buildings, see John Frazer’s works (School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)) and evan in traditional pedagogy of architecture in which students are encouraged to make a separation between different stages of design is very similar to what is being pursued in planning from structural point of view. This mechanical method (machinary thought), instead of reality which seemed very useful for planning as an activity engaged with technical issues vs. architecture as the art of handling the space, can be held by supporters of systems theory.  It was (and is) not successful in both;

In architecture, students and practitioners have been taught to make a separation between the feasibility study stage and design (and implementation) and then between  different elements of design such as Plans, elevations, Sections and Volumes and in some school of thought considering the psychological factors as well.This is exhibited in planning as well in the same sense but with different form, objective, goal and function.

This traditional crispness, beyond the nature of activity seems to be rooted in the nature of human mind trained to analyze the issues in this way. Either it is because of the human mind restrictions of analyzing multiple values and factors, at the same time, or it is pursed to save the time and resources or even for tackling the issue of uncertainty in work, can cause the danger of oversimplification of process by using artificial boundaries between stages and integral variables and their relationships. This is why there are a few examples of work (shaped based on the experience of smart people who can process lots of different factors and see their relationships) which can be considered and named successful work either in Planning or in Design. This is what I would like to call the ‘occasionallity of intelligence’, where there is no rule-based approach.

Apparently, in Golden Age (See Historian Eric Hobsdawn’s work), speaking of cut the work hours would seem interesting and many of the people, at the time, would embrace this kind of plan. But, how about today?

According to USAToday report (written by: Larry Copeland) ;

“Utah this summer will become what experts say is the first state to institute a mandatory four-day work week for most state employees, joining local governments across the nation that are altering schedules to save money, energy and resources.”

This sounds amazing! But this is amazing to whom?

“The reaction (from the public) has been very much a willingness to give this a go,” Gov. Jon Huntsman says.

However, he didn’t mentioned about the type of public who are interested in this policy and the statistic related to this decision.

Today economic condition has no analogy with Golden age. I am pretty sure that this plan/policy has its own reasoning and its supporters try to solve some of their problems through it and may save a lot of money for state agencies and governmental bodies when one dollar values more than one dollar!

But the issue which raises my concern is the lack of circulating money due to shrink the businesses (one day less than before) which can be resulted by impimenting this kond of plan.

Specially, under this circumstance that global financial crisis is threatening many of businesses, cut one day work can back million dollars for governmental bodies, but not for private sectors. In this cycle that many of the local and chain private businesses (specially, at the first glance, food industry including restaurants and fast-food stores and suppliers who produce food) might face with a sudden subsidence in their selling rates. Then, with a very simple analysis, the cycle may cause a decline in the state tax income and then again the shortage of the financial resources right after carrying out the plan. This can slow down or stop the development of some businesses which are able to generate considerable amount of jobs. Then we, both, lost lots of jobs and face with new type of financial lack with our new artifact problems, at the same time.

This needs to be scutinized very well to be found out the possibly financial side effects (cost) of the decision (with every day remembering of sustainable benefits!). Here is not only the matter of coopration of govenrmental financial advisors and politicians to make a decision for people, but the most important issue would be analysis of the information aquired from surveys form public (after informaing them form coast of plan) and owner of the private businesses (and who work for these businesses) and make a decision with people and space actors. This needs to bring back the coalition of the stakeholders of planning to discussion in order to have their opinion very accurately.

Then it seems, the decision-takers (at least in this case more than other cases!) need to know the result of different groups’ interests (and knowledge) on the idea to make it legitimized before entering the implementation phase.