The Digital Frontier of Planning

In Kohn's piece on the private nature of cyberspace, she raises several important questions regarding the role of the internet as a public forum.  Local governments are increasingly turning to internet technologies as tools for engaging the public in the planning process.  Kohn's writing predates the recent social media phenomenon, but it presents the caveats that should be considered before allowing public processes and events to be relocated from public spaces to e-spaces.

Digital technology has recently captivated the mind of both politicians and planners.  Local governments have rolled out internet-based applications such as one that allows to citizens to easily record and submit the location of potholes.  Considering that internet access is uneven across different socio-economic populations, these technologies have the potential to direct resources toward places of higher income.  

One can easily imagine further applications that would move important public functions into the virtual sphere.  As planners, we must investigate the equity implications of this transition to a internet-based medium of governance.  Kohn argues that the private nature of the internet bolsters the argument for preserving public space, but it also raises questions about the use of new planning techniques that have developed out of the social media craze.

From Sustainability to Resiliency: Finding the Middle Ground

In the past decade, sustainability emerged as one of the leading issues in the planning field.  Since the events of Hurricane Sandy last October, resiliency has stolen the spotlight as communities, cities, and regions have discussed ways to cope with future disasters.  The issues of sustainability and resiliency are strongly interconnected, but are still treated as mostly separate areas of planning and policy.  In "Climate Change and Planning," Kieran Donaghy emphasizes the need to incorporate mitigtion and adaption efforts into a comprehensive framework that is inclusive and flexible.

Perhaps the greatest opportunity for transitioning to a sustainable and resilient future is through imminent long-term investments in infrastructure.  For example, the electricity system is aging and will require substantial reinvestment in the coming years.  This investment could be used to rebuild the same inefficient and environmentally harmful system or it could be used to invest in a new system architecture that would advance the goals of sustainability and resiliency.

In New York City, following Hurricane Sandy, there has been much talk about changing zoning codes so that buildings can move generators from the basement to the roof and government officials have voiced support for distributed energy technologies that would allow energy customers to maintain power during disturbances to the grid.  Before Sandy, much of the talk was about energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but now the discussion has transitioned from focusing on sustainability to now preaching resiliency.  We as planners should establish a framework that ensures we will focus on mitigation and adaption by leveraging limited resources to advance both interests.

The Rise of the Celebrity Planner

The argument in Richard Florida's famous book, The Rise of the Creative Class, can be traced back to his 2001 Brookings Policy Report, "Technology and Tolerance."  In this report, Florida calls attention to an interesting trend--the cities with the most tech firms tend to be the cities with the most diversity.  The implication is that economic development is linked to a city's level of tolerance for "diverse" population groups.

This argument makes sense in a place like Austin where a thriving music scene and the slogan "Keep Austin Weird," probably plays a role in attracting techies from other tech poles.  But is this model replicable everywhere?  How about most places?  Or perhaps just in a few places?  I think that the top tech cities with the most diversity-friendly cultures might hold an advantage over other tech cities that are lacking, but I doubt this theory holds for those cities in the bottom half of the Milken Institute Tech Pole (e.g. Buffalo, Richmond, Louisville).

Ironically, Florida who toured the country advocating diversity and tolerance to places big and small, vibrant and declining, has since adopted the position that some cities stand no chance to return to prosperity.  He now argues that we should be giving aid to mobilize people in declining cities toward those cities that were at the top of the list for tech firms and diversity.  Florida comes off as a populist and his intentions seem dubious, but does his argument actually hold any value for policy makers and planners?

The Right to the City as a Vehicle for Social Change

Over the past few centuries, urbanization has followed a cyclical trajectory of centralized neoliberal preeminence followed by periods of social and urban revolution.  Harvey relates this pattern to the capitalist pursuit of economic surplus and the social claim on maintaing a collective right to the city.

The latest struggle involves the growing economic inequality that has accompanied the age of globalization.  Neoliberal policies and the pursuit of economic surplus absorption have implications for the social makeup of our future cities.  The working class is being slowly pushed out of the center city.  This pattern of displacement threatens not only the look and feel of the city, but the ability of our society to achieve social reform.

Cities have long been places of collective action and social change.  Social movements often originate in urban spaces and cities become a vehicle for social change.  The Occupy Movement suggests that the relationship between cities and social movements is starting to change.  As urban landscapes become privatized and the poor are displaced to the urban periphery, the city is losing its function as a place of protest and reform.  This phenomenon provides insight on the evolution of cities, but it is also, in and of itself, a cause for social action.