Our collective identity crisis

Since making the switch from architecture to planning / urban design, I've been fascinated by the continuing dialogue that surrounds what we do to explain what we do. There is less emphasis on this dialogue in architecture of course as the tacit assumption is that architects build. (I would say not all great architects need to build but this is a debate for a different setting.) What did often emerge in architecture was the common concern that "design" is not valued to the degree that it should. And why not? Architects spend anywhere from 5-6 years in school the majority of which is spent in studio learning how to design. Who wants to then enter the profession feeling like their education mis-led them?

But I'm digressing. The issue of our identity seemed most apparent to me when, at a recent planning conference, there was a stack of books in the conference lobby called "What Planners Do." I haven't read the book so this post is certainly not intended as a book review. I'm sure it contains valuable insights and would serve as a great read for politicians (or at least their staff who may actually read it). I don't think, however, that we as professionals need self-affirmation.

It seems that many planners feel differently. There is a growing list of organizations that certify and license planners. Combine that with the littany of conferences and awards and it seems we are grasping to legitimize our profession. One could say every profession falls victim to this process of self-promotion and self-congratulation. It is, after all, one way that we as a society have learned to form communities - through exclusion.

But what I appreciate most about our profession is the very fact that it is inclusive. We're long past the days of a select few "experts" master planning cities. The collabortive nature of planning that has been nurtured by the continued presence of non-profits, community groups, foundations, etc. means that what I, as a professionally designated planner, can control is only one voice in a larger conversation. Planning is a wide-ranging profession that is more a state a mind than a defined and shared set of technical expertise. I have more in common with people from other professions than many in my own field of planning. So while I understand the desire to license planners, every instinct tells me its not helping us. In this process of defining who we are, are we not leaving out people that are, in fact, planners but not trained as such?

I think our profession needs a labotomy. Let's not apologize for what we do or get concerned when our moms don't completely "get it." Let's embrace the fact that we can't control everything. Let's champion planning as an art that merges vision with pragmatic thinking. And let's find a better way to define our community which, ironically, is precisely what we are trained to do.