Home › News ›

The Essence of the Planning Debate: Architects vs. Economists

Posted by: Christian Madera
Thanks to: Tory Gattis
4 June 2007 - 1:00pm

Should urban planners take their cues from architects who prefer central control or economists who prefer free markets?

Economists know that free markets are essential at regional and larger-scales. Architects know that central planning is critical at the building-scale. "Putting a bunch of construction materials and people on a site and letting the 'free market' construct a building without a plan or coordination is clearly not going to work very well." What's the right approach for the middle-scales from streetscapes to neighborhoods to cities to metros?

Full Story: Architects vs. Economists
Source: Houston Strategies, March 18, 2007
»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not the Right Dichotomy

Submitted by crich on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 09:39.

I like frameworks. But, I think that this one is slightly off. “Economies” shouldn’t occupy the far left hand of Tory’s graphic. There is no strict dichotomy between architecture and economics, as both contribute to the design of a building and the aggregate form taken by a region. Unlike other variables in the graphic (region, metros, etc.), “economies” have no actual physical form. But they do relate closely to the built or physical environment. Sometimes, the physical environment can hinder economic prosperity (i.e., through higher transportation costs), and at other times economic growth can transcend the limitations of physical environment (i.e., the development of Internet commerce). A truer framework is one of managing networks: the network of a building is much more discretely managed, and therefore designed from the ground up, than regional or national networks. At the same time, physical form at both the building and regional levels often results in very real economic externalities, which due to the durability of the built environment, necessitate good faith attempts of mitigation and remediation, or planning.

Interesting

Submitted by contrarianplanner on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 15:06.

On the surface, it seems that is the essence of the debate. However, architects are very much part of the market system when they focus on "project level" plans/designs. They are more central planners when they move on to citywide general plans or regional plans.

For example, the Woodlands, which Tory cites as an example, was a a private venture, even though the "community" takes on the look and feel of an entire city. The architects and planners designing the Woodlands were participating in the market system because they were working for General Growth Properties who determined there was a need for this type of project in the marketplace. In this example, I think architects and economists desires' would not be mutually exclusive.

In other instances, I could see there is a clash between the two practices. For that matter, I agree with Tory about the level of development where markets make better sense vs. central planning. Not to put words in his mouth, but I think what he may be eluding to is my example above. To the extent that one is considering regions, it would probably violate a free market perspective since one authority's control and their architects' designs are planning everyone else's projects.

Bookmark and Share
“
There are limits to the amount of pollution the environment can absorb without reducing ecosystem services and impairing both human health and the sustainability of our economy.
”