Seminar 1: Argument For and Against Planning

Seminar 1’s readings were from Richard E. Klosterman a well known academic that has written extensively on planning. In this reading he explores arguments for and against planning. He divides the arguments into four different areas. These were the economic arguments, the pluralist arguments, the traditional augments and the Marxist arguments. Each of which were relevant to the argument for and against planning.

The argument that stood out most to me was probably the traditional argument. Overall the argument was that planning was an external part of government and the private sector. Having the ability to make plans for society’s benefit. This really struck me because it seemed it was the most positive of all the arguments in helping society. Though Klosterman thought that the traditional argument lacked true power because of the self-interests of the planners. Meaning planners were helping themselves more than the greater good. For example traditional practices of planning did not serve society as whole but the more affluent of society. Each of the arguments have their flaws and their positives but for me I found the traditional argument the most interesting.

After the seminar we also looked at post 1980's issues facing society on a local, national and global scale. One of the local issues that we discussed was urban sprawl and the issues that have arisen from it. Nationally we discussed the issue of ageing population and one global issue that we discussed was resource scarcity. All of these issues are important into today’s planning. I’m going to leave you with quote that I think is very important in planning and is from Albert Einstein. “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”