World Urban Forum

is the key issue were all have to be discussed on how the city can be well managed.

Many cities have a broad planning framework but on one hand it might be completely detached from the real dynamics of the city itself, and on the other hand it might not have been designed with the flexibility required to be managed on a day to day basis. It is also common that cities do not have the required institutional capacity to reinforce planning. This is way in many ways policies which are designed to strengthen local capacities are so important.This is particularly critical in countries with central estates and weak decentralized development bodies.

I think every city has its own dynamics and particularities of growth, which depend on various aspects regarding economics, urban policies, social criterion and of course, politics.

I completely agree with the fact that every decision about the city and taken by the city urban specialists have got to be accorded with the community in general. THIS IS THE CRITICAL STEP WHICH HAVE FAILED SO MANY TIMES IN MANY COUNTRIES: the public consensus of public urban policies.

I agree fully that public participation is what in some sense can both balance interests and provide ownership/sustainability to planning. But there are risks - the "no in my back yard" situation might threatens the "public interest".

How can we develop mechanisms that balance a more public/general interest to those too localized and biased? How can we prevent that a given group patronize a cause?

.I could tell that Mrs. certainly we live in a world economy and the population is very dense but it can appeal to a planning document called local development plan to address this issue with expropriation if possible .

Could you develop further your pint. I could not get how we eneded up touching in the issue of expropriation?

I would suggest we return to the issue of participation and local bias x public interest.

This was posted originally by Markus Appenzeller, 7 May 2012 20:55 on
Does the world planning and if so - don't we need a different kind of planning

We are all victims of modernist planning paradigms. When we as planners make plans, we anticipate a future that to an increasing extent is hard to predict. Our plans often cover time frames of 30 or 40 years.
Just imagine: You are now in the year 1972 - just 40 years back - and you would have to tell how 2012 looks like. Back then the oil crisis did had not hit the world, the cold war was still a fact with little sign of change, China was just starting to leave the cultural revolution and the not so 'great leap forward' behind, computers had the size of entire sports halls and mobile phones were something one had to drive around in the trunken of a car. Gender equality was at the beginning and the still was this almost childish believe that technology can solve all problems.

None of what we have today and how the world looks like was predicable. But one does not have to go back 40 years, just 5 years is enough. Remember - there was no financial crisis yet - an event that will leave deep scarces in our world.

But as planners we act like the almighty that has superior knowledge and unlimited foresight.

Is it not time to abandon planning we have been doing it and still do it all the way and embrace process and change?
This was posted by
Should we not replace the big plan that attempts to cast an unforeseeable future into form by joint agreements of stakeholders - a kind of compact in which we fix how we want to do things and what which qualities we want to achieve rather than what we precisely want to do.

This would have a huge impact on the profession since it means that we have to move from mainly being designers to being process managers, activists and matchmakers that occasionally use drawings to explain possible consequences of this or that decision. Of course it would and should also heavily impact the planning systems and legislation that is in place.

But it is obvious that our traditional way of planning and its legal frameworks are not able anymore to cope with the complexity of society and the world as a whole and to a growing extent we can see that people around the globe - the end users of our planning efforts - are also not willing to accept this any longer.

Everybody is invited to help shaping such a new approach in contributing with thoughts and critique.

This was posted originally by Shipra Narang Suri (Moderator) from India, 9 May 2012 12:06 on
Does the world planning and if so - don't we need a different kind of planning


Indeed, there's no questioning the fact that we need a new kind of planning, and therefore a new kind of PLANNER as well! Please join the discussion under the heading "The challenges of urbanization, and urban planning responses", where our colleagues from UN-HABITAT have posted a set of seven principles that they believe should underpin a new planning approach. We would like to hear what you think about those.

This was posted originally byLerato Thabo Motloung from South Africa, 10 May 2012 10:42 on
Does the world planning and if so - don't we need a different kind of planning

Finally, someone puts a nail to this new debate! Mr Appenzeller you're right, the role of the planner as one who imposes his/her scientific knowledge and modernist models given the vast complexities of society worldwide is becoming obsolete, especially in Cities of the global South. The sooner we start conscientizing contemporary planners about this new emerging wave of planning, the better it is as far as enabling the craft of planning to evolve with the changing contexts under which it is being practiced! What a more conducive platform to raise such crucial debates like the World Urban Forum 6 in Naples. Faranak Miraftab, in his Journal Article titled: Insurgent Planning - Situating Radical Planning In The Global South, presents a new type of radical planning approach which seeks to move awasy from the conventional norms of modernist palnning. This type of Insurgent Planning has been derived from the emerging struggles for citizenship in the global south, seasoned by the complexities of state-citizen relations within colonial and post-colonial regimes. This new planning approach is grounded on principles which are counter-hegemonic to the norm, more transgressive, as well as more imaginative and context specific to changing times! To you Mr Markus Appenzeller and Ms Shipra Narang Suri, I would really appreciate it if we can deepen this debate so as to conscientize planners about this new wave of planning in time for the conference, progressive topic indeed!! Thank you!