Volume 8 / Issue 1 / (2024)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/2143

Browse

Browsing Volume 8 / Issue 1 / (2024) by Author "De Franco, Anita"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Editorial - Volume 8 / Issue 1 / (2024) : Exploring conformorality in planning debates
    (AESOP, 2024) Cozzolino, Stefano; De Franco, Anita
    This themed issue on “conformorality” is inspired by the work of Chiara Lisciandra, Marie Postma-Nilsenová, and Matteo Colombo (2013), which explores the tendency of individuals within a particular group or community to align with certain ideologies and values. The term “conformorality”, which combines the concepts of “conformity”, “conformism”, and “morality”, was first introduced into planning debates by Claudia Basta, the former coordinator of the AESOP Thematic Group on Ethics, Values, and Planning, in her thought-provoking presentation entitled “Unequal, thus Unjust?”. This presentation was delivered at a research seminar entitled “The Just City in Practice: Operationalising a Broad and Varied Concept,” which was held on August 21, 2020 in The Hague after the long period of social distancing that had been enforced due to COVID-19 restrictions. In Basta’s presentation, conformorality represented the widespread sentiment that exists between planning scholars that economic inequality equates to injustice; she discussed the limitations of this uncritical attitude.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    To plan or not to plan? Is this the question?
    (AESOP, 2024) De Franco, Anita
    Few articles within planning debates have generated both indignation and fascination like the Non-Plan: An Experiment in Freedom. The idea of the Non-Plan is to embrace a more experimental approach to spatial planning by observing what would happen if people were free to choose how to transform their living environments. As this paper shows, practitioners and scholars have perceived the utility and applicability of the Non-Plan proposals in somewhat ambiguous ways. In their iconoclastic essay, Rayner Banham, Paul Barker, Peter Hall and Cedric Price criticise traditional planning schemes while revealing the different ideologies involved in – and enacted by – the quest for designed orders. Current levels of interest and momentum surrounding the proliferation of ‘plans for societies’ in contemporary discourses make the idea of Non-Plan still fascinating and worth considering. The reactions that the Non-Plan have sparked may be a warning for mavericks of past, present and future generations.