“Many creative writers keep journals; the sociologist’s need for systematic reflection demands it.” -C. Wright Mills

Turns out that there was one more hurdle to leap before my exam sequence was over. Yesterday I spent nearly two hours going through my exam with Susan. She would flip through page by page, asking me questions about my answers based on her comments. In effect, I was expected to make the same corrections to my essays that she made, or to defend points where we disagreed. Fortunately, it was much more of the former and little of the latter. And it was fun. It seems that I do know a thing or two. It was telling, however, when we discussed the question on methodology, which was the least developed. While ideas and answers about the first two questions flowed easily enough, the methodology explanations were much more difficult, demonstrating that my dissertation proposal has still a long way to go. That said, I do think that in the process of writing about structure and agency, I was able to put some philosophical concerns to temporary rest for myself, which should allow me to zoom in on far more concrete issues fromthis point forward.

But to look back a moment first… Monday night’s Will we plan our cities? debate went relatively well. We had a sizable turnout (estimated at 180-190)(thanks to everyone who joined us), there was a lot of energy in the room, the speakers were engaging, and the audience participation was high. We went at least a half hour over, and there were no end to the questions being asked. I’m sure the conversation could have lasted much longer. In my eyes, Bob Beauregard was the standout. He most directly engaged the questions without inserting an agenda (to my knowledge). Perhaps I feel this way because his basic argument is rather close to one that I’ve been making over time. The decentered nature of planning is a good thing, especially since it recognizes that the technocratic, rational planning of the past was incredibly narrow and functioned in service of vested capital. Instead, he suggests, we should circulate around the “physicalist” core comprised of “the land use-transportation-zoning nexus”, informing it and keeping it in moral check (though he didn’t use the word “moral”). Of course, that doesn’t answer the question of how we can teach these things without a large program that has the expertise to deal with all the issues. Also missing from the conversation, though an implicit answer was assumed, was the political orientation of planning. To what extent does planning have an inherent political agenda? Should planning programs seek to instill a progressive political view upon its students? If so, where does this place planning in the context of increasing pressure from right-wing students and politicians to be “fair and balanced” in our classes? If you want to view a tape of the debate, one will soon be available through the URBAN website.

M. Rivero send this article in on the Bronx Terminal Market, which Susan adamantly argues is a bad move (under current arrangements for relocation…or lack thereof).