disP - year 2017

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/2288

Browse

Browsing disP - year 2017 by Title

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A Giant Contribution to Global Planning Education : Klaus Kunzmann and the Founding of AESOP
    (Routledge : Taylor and Francis Group, 2017) Alterman, Rachelle
    The existence of a global academic identity for planning must not be taken for granted. If it weren’t for Klaus Kunzmann, there would have been no AESOP. And if it weren’t for AESOP, today’s global planning education institutions would have not emerged or, at best, have been greatly delayed. The vision that Klaus realized 30 years ago with the founding of AESOP has created a momentum with invaluable benefits not only for planning education, but for the citizen-clients of planning worldwide. Even though I was not representing any European school 1, I sensed that something very significant was in the offing; I therefore travelled to Amsterdam in 1987 to attend AESOP’s inauguration ceremony (and was the only non-European there). I have followed AESOP’s evolution and impact ever since. In this brief note, I would like to share with you what I have observed about AESOP’s contribution to the emergence of planning education globally. Unlike medicine or engineering, for example, planning is not a self-propelling global profession. Medical practitioners are dependent on knowledge transfer about dangers discovered, new medicines, or new technologies. In planning, the gains and losses due to knowledge transfer are more amorphous. In fact, planning has a built-in contradiction between the pull of localization and the push of globalization. On the one hand, planning is locally grounded both in its history and ideology: Historically, the planning profession emerged from local-national initiatives in a geographically fragmented process. Planning ideology seeks to enshrine locally specific “placemaking” as a valued norm. In each country, the planning profession is bounded by its own national and local legal frameworks, and it is embedded in specific socio-cultural and political contexts. The legal and political contexts differ greatly across countries, even when they might seem similar from a distance (Alterman 2017). At the same time, the planning profession cannot continue to serve its clients – the majority of humanity – without global knowledge exchange.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Creating AESOP
    (Routledge : Taylor and Francis Group, 2017) Healey, Patsy
    Atlanta, Georgia, 1985. We are at the annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) in the US, both invited for a special session on developments in planning in Europe. Klaus Kunzmann was already well-known in regional development planning circles. I was only there as a substitute for Mike Batty, who had fallen ill with pneumonia. But both of us felt somewhat alien inside the huge hotel and conference complex, and outside in the centre of the city, where we seemed to be the only people, in our separate explorations, trying to discover the area on foot. It was in this challenging context that we came together. We were both excited by the intellectual energy evident at the ACSP event. Could such an arena be created in Europe, then vigorously building a transnational single market and encouraging professional interconnections? Could this be done not as a reproduction of the ACSP model, but in a distinctive and European way, infused with a deep awareness of the diversity of cultural, economic and political conditions across the continent? We knew that, in Europe, planning systems and practices, and education for these practices, had arisen in several different ways. In several countries, the architectural tradition dominated. In others, an engineering origin was more significant, while in eastern Europe, planning was often strongly linked to urban and regional economics (Rodriguez- Bachiller 1988; Frank 2006). We sought to recognise these different strands, while emphasising the focus on place and spatial relations, on urban and regional dynamics and environmental qualities. Both of us understood the planning field as about the interaction of people and places, and how to enhance place qualities for the benefit of ordinary citizens.