Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
They are useful tools and people who don't have them don't tend to appreciate their worth (e.g. understanding basic modeling used for planning purposes).
|
You really don’t need more than the fragment of linear algebra included within an undergraduate statistics course to understand the modelling of economic growth or demographic change used in planning. My argument, again, is not that there’s no use for quantitative method. It’s that these methods used in planning, economic development and geomatics, and any additional ones that would be needed, are simple enough they should be open to critique from other fields such as Law, Sociology, Philosophy or the general public, and that vice-versa the already technocratic planners need to venture into these relatively unexplored areas.
Take Law as an arts-based example, so few people mention the contributions of legal opinions in shaping the planning system. These lawyers have very little planning or mathematical knowledge but have solved many of the arguments regarding NIMBYs. Let’s take the issue of compatibility: There is a precedent stating “compatible” does not mean “similar to”. Compatibility, while subjective, means having “regard for” the development’s surroundings. So hypothetically, if you built a 40-storey building next to Peggy’s house but took measures to mitigate the building’s effects on its surroundings, it would still be “compatible”. Legal opinions such as these are an influential treasure trove that quite frankly gets ignored within public debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
If we can't teach a bunch of it to 20 year olds in university or worse still people doing a planning master's degree we don't have a very good education system.
|
So the ideal planning system is a Jirga of elders who also happen to be mathematicians? “Afplanistan” - There’s a certain jingle to it
Threaded Mode