美国规划专业的发展历史

依风而来UID: 2211667

这是我的advisor的一篇paper，介绍了美国的规划作为一门单独的学科的发展和演变历史，回头有空我会翻译出来，现在先贴一下英文版～

:) 个人认为还是很有用的，尤其是在国内规划专业偏设计的同学，看看这个可能会对城市规划这个学科有个更全面的理解。

EUGENIE L. BIRCH
Practitioners and the Art of Planning
Journal of Planning Education and Research (2001) This article probes the meaning of the phrase "art of planning" as envisioned by its practitioners—those who work in the field and those who teach and research in academia....Throughout the ninety-year life of the planning profession in the United States, these two groups have pushed the field forward to encompass current and evolving concerns, addressing them from their respective positions. …Over time, they have generated new knowledge through their practices…. This article employs three meanings for "art," ones drawn from the term's dictionary definition. The first is "production or expression according to aesthetic principles" or, in shorthand…, design. In planning, this ranges from the physical planning or urban design involved in the arrangement of land and buildings to the creation of visions for ideal communities. The second is "the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning." This covers planning techniques and includes the understanding of legal, quantitative, social science, geographic, or other substantive concepts pertaining to the interests of the field. The third is "exceptional skill in conducting any human activity" or presentation. This is an allusion to the planner's personal attributes or skills and refers to everything from the ability to oversee the planning process, explain and represent the planning product (plans, implementation programs), and develop the judgment, discretion, practical reasoning, calculation, and prudence in carrying out planning. Over time, planners have given differing interpretations to these facets. In exploring the changing meanings of the art of planning, the article… looks at art as it has appeared in planning literature in the past sixty years…. [It] will examine quasi-official offerings: first, focusing on the early volumes of the Harvard City Planning Series (eighteen books published from 1933 to 1973 and edited by Henry Vincent Hubbard, the "father" of planning education); and second, examining the so-called "Green Books," (handbooks published about every ten years from 1941 to the present by the International City/County Management Association [and later jointly with the American Planning Association], whose successive versions encompassed the growing knowledge and techniques of the field. …

THIRTIES TO SIXTIES: SCIENCE AND ART OF PLANNING
[…]
[T]he field that had been evolving from 1917, when twenty-four men founded the…American Institute of City Planning. Originally dominated by private consultants, largely dedicated to producing municipal master plans and their implementing documents, by 1938 the profession numbered about one hundred. That year the American Institute of City Planning members deleted the word "city" from the organization's title, making it American Institute of Planners (AIP). By then, it had adherents who were likely to be public servants involved not only in local affairs but also in national land-based programs relating to housing, resource management, and settlement patterns. The massive New Deal efforts designed to address widespread Depression-caused unemployment through infrastructure construction had opened up many new avenues for planners. For example, they participated in determining dwelling-unit and site-plan standards for the Federal Housing Administration, land arrangements for the Greenbelt Towns, the nature and type of databases for the National Resources Board, and regional and town site development specifications for the Tennessee Valley Authority.

In this work, they drew heavily from design, engineering, and law and also incorporated knowledge from other areas especially the social sciences, for political science, sociology and economics flourished in the thirties. For example, they drew from the Chicago School of Sociology, which was at its height in explaining the fundamentals of urbanism, and from Keynesian economics, whose "pump priming" principles guided New Deal policy. While under these conditions, the design and craft facets of the field expanded dramatically, the presentation approaches basically remained unchanged from the earliest days of expert-driven diagnosis and prescription accompanied by the graphic and textual material of planning reports. As planners celebrated their mastery of the technical aspects of the field they viewed themselves as apolitical and neutral.... For them, the planning processes took place in their offices or on site with little or no participation of the people for whom they were planning. They presented their output, paper master plans, site plans, and regulatory programs ready for implementation to their respective audiences as finished products. […]

To codify their expertise, planners produced textbooks and monographs capturing the art (design, craft, and presentation) of planning from their own experiences….[P]ublished under the aegis of the Harvard City Planning Series, their art was land-based and aimed to advance new ideas about site planning, traffic management, and zoning. For example, in Urban Land Uses (1932), Harland Bartholomew, principal of one of the nation's largest consulting firms, collected data on twenty-two cities to suggest how to distribute uses within a zoning ordinance. Ever since Euclid v. Ambler upheld municipal jurisdiction in zoning in 1926, American cities adopted this powerful instrument with great enthusiasm but limited information. Until the publication of Bartholomew's book, there was little empirical knowledge about the relationship among land uses, much less how to allocate them for a whole city. And in Design of Residential Areas (1934), Thomas Adams, executive director of the Regional Plan Association of New York, demonstrated the latest in housing design and site planning, espousing the benefits of large-scale settlements planned to incorporate not only the dwelling units but also the arrangement of open space and streets in the so-called "neighborhood unit." His vision incorporated a comprehensive and unified approach. While planners did not explicitly write about the presentation techniques needed to succeed in their field, they did assemble lists of exemplary planning products. When Henry-Vincent Hubbard and his wife, Theodora Kimball Hubbard, a Harvard librarian, assessed professional advances in Our Cities, Today and Tomorrow: A Study of Planning and Zoning Progress in the United States (1929), they demonstrated how planners defined their evolving product and, by implication, their presentation. They started with City Beautiful plans, such as Daniel Burnham's Plan for Chicago (1909), showing their systems for transportation and open space and the design of civic centers and moved to City Efficient plans, such as the Official Plan of the City of Cincinnati (1925), highlighting their more fine-grained analysis of the traditional areas and addition of land use analysis, zoning recommendations, and capital budgeting proposals. They argued that over time, the planners' skills encompassed not merely the ability to offer graphic and textual views but also included the fusion of assembled data and information into a unified approach that allowed the many parts to function efficiently and in a complementary fashion. In the early forties, the Institute for Training in Municipal Administration, an ICMA subsidiary, asked Cincinnati planner Ladislas Segoe to develop instructional materials for the field. The result was Local Planning Administration, (later known as the Green Book, which denoted the color of its cover). As with the writers for the Harvard City Planning Series, the author, who had a renowned planning practice, wrote from experience. Later cited as a "god-send" and "undoubtedly the most influential planning book in the United States during the first half of the twentieth century," this state-of-the-art compilation was really a loose-leaf notebook containing almost seven hundred single-sided mimeographed pages, maps, and tables. It described the role of planning in local government, the studies required for a city plan, the contents of such a plan, implementation devices, and planning agency administration. Above all, it perpetuated the idea of the planner as a technical expert who diagnosed his or her clients' ills and prescribed their solutions.

Fueling the development of the art of planning from the forties to the sixties were academic leaders from the small number of universities that offered degrees in city planning. Among them were Frederick J. Adams, head of MIT's Department of City and Regional Planning; G. Holmes Perkins, chairman of Harvard's Department of Regional Planning and later dean of Penn's Graduate School of Fine Arts; and Walter Blucher, executive director of the American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO) and first director of the University of Chicago's Planning Institute. Working on AIP's successive education committees, they fleshed out art in curriculum development in their own institutions [M]ost programs lodged with sister disciplines, architecture and landscape architecture, in schools of design firmly dominated by practitioner outlooks. In this environment, design, craft, and presentation focused narrowly on the physical, land-based and applied issues specified in the Green Book. Although students had classes tempered by the social sciences, they spent most of their time in studios. Their instructors engaged extensively in field practice in addition to teaching. […] Within a decade of its first issuance, the Green Book was obsolete. So ICMA reissued hardbound texts… in 1948 and 1959 to cover the old and new material. In their thirteen chapters, 337 and 467 pages, respectively, the new Green Books covered the traditional topics of the earlier version and included a new concern: urban renewal. Howard Menhinick, director of the Department of Regional Studies, Tennessee Valley Authority, and a faculty member of Harvard's School of Planning from 1929 to 1937, single-handedly put together the 1948 edition. But by 1958, the next Green Book editor, Mary McLean, director of research for ASPO, called in twelve authors, about three-quarters drawn from practice, to help with the update. On the whole, these volumes expanded the design and craft aspects of the field but reiterated the presentation formats of the past. This is best illustrated in the discussions of slums and blighted areas that emerged in the late forties and continued into the fifties. While both editions acknowledged the complexities of the surrounding social conditions, they asserted that the planner had expertise only in the physical environment and could lend this skill to multidisciplinary teams attacking obsolete land uses. In the 1948 edition, Menhinick appended four pages devoted to urban redevelopment to a much longer chapter on district planning. This small section focused primarily on land assembly and administrative structure and speculated about potential issues revolving around determining property values, land tenure arrangements, reuse of condemned land, population displacement, and relocation.

By 1959, urban renewal merited an entire chapter and a dominant place in the book. With thirty-nine pages on the subject, author Marion Massen, a staff member of the National Association of Housing and Renewal Officials (NAHRO) defined it in terms of design and craft, focusing on physical layouts, legislative requirements, model administrative structures, examples of blight analysis studies, and before/after photographs. She discussed redesign and density patterns, tie-ins with highway planning, and the need for a metropolitan approach to redevelopment.

THE ART OF PLANNING, SIXTIES STYLE
Just as New Deal activities had prompted the examination of the profession in 1938, the implementation of postwar programs would cause heavy soul searching in the sixties….the Green Book barely kept up to date in its two revisions. The implementation of the Housing and Slum Clearance Act (1949) and its major amendments (1954, 1961, 1968), the Federal-Aid Highway Act (1956), the Economic Opportunity Act (1965), and the Demonstration Cities Act (1966) began to transform American settlement patterns and approaches to land development. For example, combined with existing market tendencies toward decentralization, the highway legislation contributed to the dominance of the suburbs. (By 1970, more people would live in these low-density settlements than in cities or rural areas.) The execution of slum clearance and urban renewal programs turned out to be more complicated than the mere updating of land uses originally envisioned by policy makers. Regional demographic shifts, industrial restructuring, and "edge city" growth, all having early-twentieth-century roots, also began to blossom in the sixties. Finally, heightened consciousness of racial inequality, peaking with publication of the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968), bitter divisions revolving around the U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam, and discovery of the negative environmental impacts of large public works, especially in transportation and urban renewal projects, fueled the planners' professional reassessments that took place in a turbulent nation struggling with civil disorder and a massive loss of confidence in the federal government. Moreover, with their focus on city and suburb and their claimed expertise in urban structure and land use, planners were often at the heart of the debates on domestic issues. They had contributed not only the intellectual capital for many of the era's policies and practical techniques for their implementation but also had generated extended critiques of these approaches as they evaluated the programs. […] In this period, education in planning was also changing. It was no longer the sole province of a few schools. By the end of the sixties, more than seventy universities offered advanced degrees in planning, usually a Master's of City Planning. […]

By the late sixties, the profession called for a new Green Book. Its editors, William I. Goodman and Eric C. Freund, educators at the University of Illinois who both had extensive infield practice experience, entirely recast Local Planning Administration...[and changed] the title to the loftier Principles and Practice of Urban Planning. In assembling the volume, they amplified the definitions of the art of planning, especially in the craft and presentation areas. At the same time, they expressed a new level of tentativeness about the profession, probably responding to the criticisms it began to weather in this period: The urban environment obviously means many things to different people. It is organic, metropolitan, overcrowded, value-laden, pluralistic and diverse. . . Planning and urban management, relatively young professions have an exciting future at a time when change is a way of life. Despite the caution, this 620-page tome was a third larger than its predecessor and had twenty chapters contributed by twenty-four authors, 70 percent drawn from field practitioners. While it elaborated the traditional topics of the previous edition more fully—urban renewal still had its own chapter, now situated at the end of the book pushed out by other interests—it had new entries on systems analysis and planning and the public. Where earlier versions had a single chapter on planning methods, this one had nine. The editors gave increased attention to methods as applied to the traditional functional areas, including city- design, land use, and transportation, and added others such as social welfare planning and computer-based planning information systems. In two new chapters, one recognizing the contemporary advocacy planning and the other identifying aspects of today's communicative planning, the editors also showed a different sensibility to presentation, inching toward recognizing the impossibility of the planner's being a neutral technician. […]

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PLANNING IN THE SEVENTIES
Interest in the field of urbanism ran high throughout the seventies, especially after President Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating the cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1965. The federal presence in cities, redefined by President Richard M. Nixon in his 1974 creation of block grant funding, remained important. For example, in the mid-seventies intergovernmental transfers, primarily federal aid, generated 30 to 65 percent of the budget revenues in the nation's largest cities. And of particular note was the emergence of environmental planning, fostered by the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 and subsequent legislation regarding water and air pollution. In other areas, revisions to the Federal Highway Act recognized mass transit, and passage of favorable local, state, and federal taxes and regulations boosted historic preservation and affordable housing production. Practitioners, both in the field and in academia, led many initiatives in these fields. There was an outpouring of literature stretching from planning theory to suburban sprawl. The authors were not always planners, but the topics certainly informed practitioners' thinking about the art of planning. […] Concurrently, university programs proliferated…. By the end of the eighties, about eighty schools had degree offerings. The demand for professors to fill teaching positions joined with the rigor of university hiring policies led many to appoint Ph.D.-bearing scholars who had little or no academic training in planning or experience in field practice. Drawn heavily from the social sciences, these scholars applied their disciplines to planning. Trained in scientific methods, they tended to be skeptical of professions and turned their interpretations of the art of planning to developing planning theories and evaluative studies of current and past planning activities. In general, they did not contribute to technically based fieldwork. In fact, the academy began to reject applied work as a legitimate scholarly activity. […] In this environment, the ICMA and the APA issued the fifth Green Book, with its editors' actually needing a two-volume set to cover the material. The editors, Frank So, APA deputy director, and Judith Getzels, APA director of research, removed the word "principles" from the title, calling it The Practice of Local Government Planning (So et al. 1979). (Seven years later, they produced The Practice of Stale and Regional Planning [So, Hand, and McDowell 1986].) Shaped and shaken by a decade of knowledge creation and criticism, this 676-page volume had twenty-one chapters contributed by thirty authors, three-quarters of whom were field practitioners. In this version, however, the editors used two chapters, "Values of the Planner" and "Historical Development of American City Planning," to advance the idea that the planner, contrary to decades of prior teaching, was not a neutral technician but a professional who was influenced by personal values and the context of the times…. [T]hey had chapters on the enlarged domain of planning, pointing to some new directions in Planning for the Arts and Planning Educational Services and forging the area of economic development in a three-part, 37-page chapter. Remarkably, they did not offer a chapter on environmental planning despite the passage of the NEPA ten years earlier but folded reference to the subject in a half-page statement at the end of "Utilities Services. Finally, they reflected current thinking on urban renewal/redevelopment by subsuming the topic in three chapters, “Maintenance and Renewal of Central Cities,” “Planning for Diverse Human Needs,” and “Planning for Urban Housing.”

ART OF PLANNING IN THE EIGHTIES AND NINETIES
…[I]n the eighties and nineties as the literature continued to grow. The degree programs, now numbering about one hundred, continued to focus on master's and doctoral education. […]
Publication of two editions of the Green Book bracketed the next two decades. Frank So and Judith Getzels remained as editors for the sixth edition (1988), a reduced and reshaped version of the 1979 volume. Cutting it by about 20 percent, they organized the material into sixteen chapters (down from twenty-one) written by nineteen authors. This time, they began to rely more heavily on academics for content. (In former versions, field practitioners had comprised at least 75 percent of the contributors; here, they comprised just more than 60 percent, with academic practitioners constituting the remainder.) And they focused the material on a narrower definition of the art of planning. For the core of the book, they compressed methodology and policy discussions into nine chapters tied to the functional specializations, including a new one on environmental planning, and others on urban design, transportation, and economic development. They put social policy interests in two sharply defined chapters: "Social Aspects of Physical Planning" and Planning for Housing. Finally, they reshaped the "Values of the Planner" chapter, adding short sections on ethics and negotiation and conflict resolution. In fall 2000, ICMA and APA issued the seventh Green Book, now having three editors—two academics, Charles J. Hoch, University of Illinois, Chicago Circle, and Linda C. Dalton, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo; and one field practitioner, Frank S. So, executive director, APA. Having 497 pages (down from its 554-page predecessor) with seventeen chapters, its thirty-two authors were predominantly academic practitioners. This slant affected the content as the editors added contemporary findings to time-honored topics and opened up new areas hitherto uncovered. Regrettably, they eliminated the planning history chapter. But they did add a much-needed description of the state of the field to date. They included a sophisticated planning theory chapter and expanded the planning information section. They solidified the position of environmental planning with three chapters on the subject and focused on urban design; land use; transportation; and environmental, housing, and community/economic development as the core functional areas. They repeated the coverage of the traditional implementation strategies of land use regulation and budgeting and finance. They gave new emphasis to presentation with two chapters, "Building Consensus" and "Communities, Organizations, Politics and Ethics," that delved more deeply than ever before into the new ways that planners participated in the planning process.

THE ART OF PLANNING IN THE MILLENNIUM
As this account has related, the art of planning, as seen in the… successive editions of the Green Book, is composed of three elements: design, craft, and presentation. While the markers (Green Books) used in this discussion are reactive, consensus-driven documents that compress, codify, or summarize what their authors, practitioners of planning, consider important, they derive from the continuing flow of scholarly literature and field experience. Over time, planners have amplified or modified the definition of the three facets of the art of planning, adding new areas of expertise and redefining their role in exercising this knowledge. A singular result of the changes has been the production of an entirely different kind of planner than in the past. What planners do and how they do it has moved from "neutral" technicians who prescribe general plans or calculate specifications for projects for municipalities to experts, cognizant of their own and others' value systems, who blend design, craft, and presentation in numerous roles, often based on considerations of land and place, but enriched with knowledge and skills emanating from a variety of disciplines. For example, planners now practice in areas that include public development with its blending of design, finance, and negotiation; community and economic development with its expertise in negotiation, business, and housing and community organization; environmental planning and growth management with its unity of land use, infrastructure investment, and regulation; transportation planning with its understanding of land use, finance, and travel behavior. Today, planners are strategists, regulators, program evaluators, and project managers. […] Furthermore, their serious, well-intentioned self-examination has yielded a profession that self-corrects often, adapting to change gracefully. Sometimes this quality has created a level of self-consciousness that has been self-defeating. But on the whole, its practitioners—both in the field and in the academy—share a set of common values as reflected in the … Green Book contents. […] These are a few ideas, designed to stimulate discussion and action. As practitioners of this generation develop the art—design, craft, and presentation—of planning for the next century, they should make such progress that when a new intellectual history of planning appears at the brink of the next millennium, its author will refute Peter Hall's assertion (1988, 1989) that the field's most significant ideas emerged in the last half of the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth centuries. Hopefully, when other observers examine the profession's mission statements and Green Books (or whatever markers they choose), they will find proof that the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries made up a most productive era for advancing the art of planning.

[ 本帖最后由 依风而来 于 2008-12-19 08:59 编辑 ]

gongke_aeckUID: 2235130

:) 好长啊。。。看的都晕了

wulianer123UID: 2244806

EUGENIE L. BIRCH  系主任啊，想请问 advisor 和国内导师的区别， 谢谢

依风而来UID: 2211667

原文比这个还长呢，这只是缩略版;d:

依风而来UID: 2211667

Birch现在已经不是系主任了，今年9月份系主任换成了John Landis，一个很有趣的人，个人认为他讲课还是很有艺术的。
advisor就是导师的意思了，UPenn这里全称叫academic advisor

xfx8512UID: 2521526

版主您就发全文吧，最好PDF的
哈哈

miaoguangUID: 199196

发个pdf版的吧，谢谢，呵呵