Sustainable Urban Planning

self-deception. Nevertheless, with the aid of an effective facil-

itator, consensus or negotiated compromises can be reached

based on mutual recognition of, and respect for legitimate, if

different, interests and discourses.

Radical development is notout of the planning loop in
some aimless pluralist way, as with the ‘muddling through’
prognosis (Lindblom 1959). Radical planners can of course be
protesters. Exercises in freedom of expression, activation of
rights, and expressions of discontent are valid. But
the general run of strident protestation against officialdom
is not mainstream radical planning. Connectedness and
cyclicity are the key to radical planning practice, instituting a
‘working around’ rather than an ‘imposed over’ philosophical
approach.
Clarification of understanding about roles, between activists
who mostly do notget involved professionally in the develop-
ment or conservancy processes, and the operationally effective
‘radical mode’ planner, is a significant issue. Sustainable-sensitive
planning operatives would be likely to accede to Popper’s (1963: 358) contention
‘that it is impossible to determine ends scientifically. There is no scientific way of
choosing between two ends...There is (always) a quarrel about ends.’ This
degree of difficulty is well understood, calling into being the need for a manage-
ment advocacy (Lawrence Susskind et al., Negotiating Environmental Agreements,
2000).

What, then, can be identified as the distinguishing mark of a radical-multiplex
approach to planning practice? Well, it is of course ‘in the planning loop’. And it
is a planning activitybecause of the engagement of forethought before taking
improving action. It is directed toward community-enhancing outcomes. Addi-
tionally it is aligned with the neomodern ideals of sustainability (cyclicity) and
empowerment (connectedness). In the realm of values (Perry 1954) it suggests
working to endorse a framework for the municipalization of community ethics
and values. Politically, radical practice can be identified as coming from the main-
stream ‘right’ (protecting individual property interests and upholding established
institutional entitlements); andfrom the mainstream ‘left’ (improving community
wellbeing and putting in place arrangements for safeguarding community
values). There is some concurrency with orthodox new-age groups, the ‘greens’
and ‘liberals’, and those on-the-fringe minority interest lobbyists – an intersection
and an amalgam of multiple interests.

The social reformist and revolutionary movements are historically relevant to
radical planning. To Popper (1963: 358) the ‘interventionist period of European
History’ can be viewed as the seed-bed for the now neomodern style of radical
planning. The nineteenth-century ‘company town’ concept (Robert Owen in
England 1771–1858, and Charles Fourier in nineteenth-century France); the

Knowledge Power Outcomes 59

From Successful Public

Meetings:

Three Essentials:

• Organization


• Leadership


• Preparation
  Elaine Cogan 2000.