This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.
PLANNING FOR CITIES OF DIVERSITY, DIFFERENCE AND ENCOUNTER
PLANNING FOR CITIES OF DIVERSITY, DIFFERENCE AND ENCOUNTER
Ruth Fincher
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning
University of Melbourne
Email: r.fincher@unimelb.edu.au
1 Introduction
In 1998, in a talk I gave then, I positioned the task of planning for cities of difference as
one caught (productively) in the tension between modernist narratives of progress, with
their emphasis on designing a better future for all, and the contemporary recognition of
the heterogeneity of the public, which makes redistribution of resources difficult because
what suits one group may not suit others. Central to this positioning is the
understanding that diversity exists between people. There are interest and attribute
groups we need to recognise. But important also is the point that differences between
us are continually reproduced by a range of processes and politics, rendering some
people mainstream and others marginal.
In public policy, including planning, we have improved at recognising and responding to
diversity. But we do need to take account of the full range of diversities on offer, and the
subtle ways differences are created not just take a focus on ethnic difference within a
frame of multiculturalism, for example, but recognise that life cycle, income and location
are also markers of diversity and lines along which difference is produced. Planning
policies are among those that tend to recognise diversity primarily in certain ways (often
ignoring gender, for example) and that can serve to perpetuate differences
(encouraging gentrification, for example, without maintaining affordable housing in the
area in question). I remember in 1998 signalling that the task of urban planning, in
working with cities of difference, required more than ensuring that many voices speak.
In addition to proper and inclusive consultation, it is important to acknowledge the power
differentials at work at many scales, which are not erased by many voices just making
utterances. This has been a central criticism of the planning literature on communicative
democracy. (...)
Find this paper @: NATIONAL PLANNING CONGRESS
http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/congress/pdf/Papers/Fincher.pdf
Ruth Fincher
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning
University of Melbourne
Email: r.fincher@unimelb.edu.au
1 Introduction
In 1998, in a talk I gave then, I positioned the task of planning for cities of difference as
one caught (productively) in the tension between modernist narratives of progress, with
their emphasis on designing a better future for all, and the contemporary recognition of
the heterogeneity of the public, which makes redistribution of resources difficult because
what suits one group may not suit others. Central to this positioning is the
understanding that diversity exists between people. There are interest and attribute
groups we need to recognise. But important also is the point that differences between
us are continually reproduced by a range of processes and politics, rendering some
people mainstream and others marginal.
In public policy, including planning, we have improved at recognising and responding to
diversity. But we do need to take account of the full range of diversities on offer, and the
subtle ways differences are created not just take a focus on ethnic difference within a
frame of multiculturalism, for example, but recognise that life cycle, income and location
are also markers of diversity and lines along which difference is produced. Planning
policies are among those that tend to recognise diversity primarily in certain ways (often
ignoring gender, for example) and that can serve to perpetuate differences
(encouraging gentrification, for example, without maintaining affordable housing in the
area in question). I remember in 1998 signalling that the task of urban planning, in
working with cities of difference, required more than ensuring that many voices speak.
In addition to proper and inclusive consultation, it is important to acknowledge the power
differentials at work at many scales, which are not erased by many voices just making
utterances. This has been a central criticism of the planning literature on communicative
democracy. (...)
Find this paper @: NATIONAL PLANNING CONGRESS
http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/congress/pdf/Papers/Fincher.pdf
Howdy, Stranger!