Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigonish
You make good points, I guess the focus of my rant is that contemporary planning has become absolute with little compromise or understanding of the human condition almost mirroring post-WW2 planning which is its antithesis
|
Planners clearly do not have the tools to understand the human condition, yet…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigonish
I also notice a large number of people with sociology and even philosophy BAs digging their talons into important planning positions which admittingly irks me the wrong way. Not because those philosophies themselves don't have merit but I've noticed a pattern through my own experiences working for contractors on the geomatics and technical side that a lot of these people have an attitude predicated on an agenda based mostly on qualitative means rather than quantitative. In Saskatoon it was (and still is) really bad. Halifax doesn't seem that much better, based more on what I see rather than personally experienced, mind.
|
Those choosing to understand the human condition are blamed for inserting themselves into planning…
Sociologists and philosophers have had their talons dug into planning topics at least since the days of Engels and later Simmel. The torch was carried through the modern era with Lefebvre and Castells arguing over the role of the city. This is nothing new.
The problem is not qualitative vs quantitative; a purely quantitative approach becomes a ruse of concept since modifying quantities in turn modifies qualities. Technocrats can and do use quantitative data to fit their predetermined conclusion. We of course need this technical ability, but let’s not pretend it exists independently of other abilities. The
real problem is dogmatism, no matter what field you hail from. Planners, scientists and philosophers all need to consistently verify and re-evaluate their hypotheses.
Threaded Mode