The draft Vancouver Declarations presents a lens to determine whether megaproject

formats are appropriate, viable or feasible in delivering housing and sustainable

human settlements. The test is the new urban planning principles and objectives
i.e. do they reduce vulnerability to natural disasters, create environmentally
friendly cities, reduce new slums formation, build sustainable economic growth,
resolve conflict, and create safer cities making the connections between people,
economic opportunity and the environment? (Anon: 2006).

The megaproject format is contextual. In Sin City (Prepared for the Development
Planning Theory and Practice Module: 2009), the project intention was to address
housing problem of the poor later seen as a World Cup 2010 PR exercise.
Implemented as turnkey to pilot for a new approach to housing delivery informed by
scale and sustainability, it failed to deliver on the target of housing at least
22 000 households per year, displaced original occupants who were meant to be
temporarily relocated 20 kilometres away and allocated new units to the not-so-
poor. Residents face constraints of energy, water and public transport. The
implied communicative action planning ethos of the project with its promise of
participation by the affected “poor” community, the displaced households are the
ultimate casualties.

Century City (see Marks and Bezzoli: 2000) and its Mexican equivalents (see Jones
& Moreno- Carranco: 2007) are megaprojects driven by business interest with little
to do with addressing the plight of the poor. They have excesses hidden in the
post modern discourse of “market led urbanism” which removes the poor out of urban
spaces. As Jones & Moreno-Carranco (2007) observes they are often an expression of
“exhibitionism of architects as ‘celebrity chefs’...that …destroy urban coherence
[with] absurdly expensive” commodification of urban landscapes. Century city does
not comply with the municipalities Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework, the
city walls insulates its inhabitants form crime and grime beyond its boundaries
and is centred around the retail malls “as cathedrals of consumption” not readily
accessible to the poor. Both fail the test.

Strategies, tools and instruments that planners can employ falls within the broad
spectrums of either the comprehensive rational modes which are prescriptive
including legislated requirements, zoning schemes, codes of good practice etc, or
those falling under communicative practice theories which takes into account the
knowledge, ethics, justice (power) and how these influences strategic actions
(Coetzee and Oranje: 2006). Yet the traditional tools of zoning and compliance
with the provisions thereof and clarification of responsibilities are still
important. As seen in the century city case, whilst the City does not comply with
the MSDF, the municipality will be saddled with servicing this city in perpetuity
due to irregular, pro-developer agreements veiled in overestimated and
unrealisable revenue for the municipality.

Contextualising the problem is important in determining which of these should be

used. Planners deal with wicked problems of complexity where the more attempts are
made to solve a problem, the bigger the problem becomes. Application of a suite of
tools and techniques available – ranging from wind screen analysis, synoptic
planning in the rational comprehensive mode, to integrated planning to deal with
meta (planning integrate all planning activity within one approach) and meso-
planning (linking of different parallel planning processes) – planners must be
aware of the power dynamics at play that can influence process and outcome. The
practice movement with its communicative theories and practices seem to offer a
conceptual framework that empowers planner to combine both the structured tools
and fluid/power and dynamics “aware” tools and techniques.

The role of the planner is therefore not to look for perfect solutions but one
that can best mitigate power plays jeopardising the livelihoods of the poor.
Burian 1997 (cited in Jones & Moreno-Carranco: 2007) contends that “politicians
and planners today are more circumspect about projecting a sense of inclusivity
and few seem prepared to make their reputations through mass construction of
public housing, hospitals or schools…” Planning has ceased being just about
developing blue prints and using tools such as zoning schemes etc to influence
form and function of places. This requires planning ethics to be contextual,
negating in some instances the usefulness of a code of good practice.

Coetzee and Oranje accordingly warns that planner must be aware (i) that there are
dynamics in power structures and relations, (ii) of the different types and
combination of power, (iii) power relationships and struggles, (iv) conflict and
resistance associated with it. Power moves around and changes over time and adapt
to different situations, thus context informs what the planner can and cannot do.

All highlights the need to understand and accept the complexity and
unpredictability of power and search for appropriate ways to manage, control and
balance based on an understanding of the power the planner holds, how it is
perceived and can be used. Is the planner’s power vested in community, social
group (planning sections), is it professional, political or autocratic. Each bears
the seed of good or bad depending on how they are used. Consequential or
utilitarian ethics will see the planner adopting different strategies to influence
decision, planning as well as the implementation processes.

Ultimately, embracing conflict and using conflict for positive ends is a skill
required of today’s new urban planner if they are to continue playing a role.
Management, not just planning strategies are important. Kotter:1996 (cited by
Peter Coutts) 8 points to organisational transformation may be useful to the
planner. This talks of establish a sense of urgency –including creating crisis if
necessary - and forming powerful guiding coalitions before creating a vision for
an organisation or process; communication and empowerment of critical role players
as well as stakeholders to act on the vision and plans to create short-terms wins,
consolidate achievements keep momentum for change before institutionalising
change.

List of References:

1. Coetzee. J & M. Oranje. 2006. Power and dynamics in a transforming local

authority planning environment: the Tswane experience. University of Free State,
South Africa
2. A case study: Megaprojects and human settlements development: Beneath and
above the pavement. Prepared for the Development Planning Theory and Practice
Module: 2009. Unpublished. Sustainability Institute, University of Stellenbosch.
3. Marks. R & Bezzoli M. 2000. Places of desire: Century City and the
ambiguities of development. Paper presented to the Urban Futures Conference,
Johannesburg.