Learning from Practice in the Face of Conflict and Integrating Technical Expertise with Participatory Planning
Learning from Practice in the Face of Conflict and Integrating Technical Expertise with Participatory Planning
复制标题
面对冲突从实践中学习并将技术专长与参与式规划相结合
DOI：
10.1080/14649357.2011.586810
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Camilla Perrone and Raine Mantysalo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
John Forester;Lawrence Susskind;Karen Umemoto;Masahiro Matsuura;Giancarlo Paba;Camilla Perrone and Raine Mantysalo
在接下来的实践故事和评论中，好的实践引导和启发好的理论。我们将阅读有关交通规划和环境管理、关于社区参与和多方利益攸关方谈判的内容，以及通篇阅读关于巧妙地发挥技术专长以在规定的预算限制内为创造性建议提供参考的内容。我们将读到建筑用户之间的早期甚至虚拟谈判，以了解建筑师的设计选择以及他们或多或少富有成效的专业角色。而且还有更多的东西。劳伦斯·谢尔曼的实践故事不仅向我们承诺，而且向我们展示了规划和设计职业雄心勃勃的可能性。Sherman总是深陷真正的项目复杂性，因此他总是必须塑造专业专家和多个非专业利益相关者的参与。谢尔曼总是关注设计师和规划师微妙的授权角色，他们希望不仅倾听，而且创造，不仅是为了解决问题，而且是为了解决正确的问题，不仅是为了达成便利的协议，而且是为了满足真正和不同的利益。在我们读到有关建筑设计、交通和环境规划、社区发展等方面的内容的同时，我们也看到谢尔曼总是小心翼翼地处理参与和权力的问题，特别是善意的专家和设计专业人员的角色塑造问题。谢尔曼向我们辛酸地展示了设计专业人士和相关专家的良好意图是如何出错的。我们看到，具有足够讽刺意味的是，专家们急于或假定过早交谈可能会产生反常的效果，可能会让那些知识渊博但专业培训较少的人沉默，或许会过早地缩小议程。在这里，谈论的时机根本不是真正的谈论；而是关于尊重、权力、被认真对待、议程设置、创造力和流程设计。在一个精彩的短篇故事中，谢尔曼也向我们展示了如果谢尔曼没有插手的话，一个农村镇长提出的一项广为人知的提议，即就一个可能导致真正混乱的焚烧厂进行公开的公开辩论，这是如何用普通语言向我们展示的。这里有一个看似简单的框架：“我们将举行什么样的会议？”我们走到一起是为了做什么？非常重要。“我们是不是要有一个
In the practice stories and commentaries that follow, good practice leads and inspires good theory. We will read about transportation planning and environmental management, about community involvement and multi-stakeholder negotiations, and throughout about deftly bringing technical expertise into play to inform creative proposals while working within specified budget constraints. We will read about early and even virtual negotiations among building users to inform architects’ design choices and their more or less productive professional roles too. And there’s much more. Laurence Sherman’s practice stories do not just promise, but show us, ambitious possibilities of the planning and design professions. Sherman is always neck deep in real project complexities, and so he always has to shape the participation of both professional experts and multiple lay stakeholders. Sherman always attends too to the subtle enabling roles of designers and planners who hope not just to listen but to create, not just to solve problems but to solve the right problems, not just to make convenient agreements but to satisfy real and diverse interests. At the same time that we read about building design, transportation and environmental planning, community development and more, we see Sherman also dealing always carefully with issues of participation and power, and especially with the slippery shaping of the roles of well-meaning experts and design professionals. Sherman shows us poignantly how the good intentions of design professionals and related experts can go wrong. Ironically enough, we see, experts’ eagerness or presumptions to talk too soon can have perverse effects, perhaps silencing those knowledgeable but less professionally trained, perhaps narrowing agendas prematurely. Here the timing of talking is not really about talk at all; it’s about respect, power, being taken seriously, agenda-setting, creativity, and process design. In a wonderful short story, too, Sherman shows us how the ordinary language of a well publicized proposal by a rural township’s mayor to have an open public “debate” about an incineration plant threatened to lead to real chaos, had Sherman not stepped into the picture. Here the deceptively simple framing of “What kind of meeting are we going to have? What are we coming together to do?” mattered a great deal.“Are we going to have a