Planning is a public action that has a specific organization and acts within a specific timeframe. Through the design it is desirable to find the right future energy to make it desirable from the community, that is, it regulates relationships in space. From this alone, it is instantly understood how many difficulties exist in programming. Regarding the rational model, it uses an induction method, it is easily understood by society but it does not work meritocratic. It acts in the public interest, resulting in uncertainty for people, since it has now lost its social character and is mainly aimed at private interests. More generally, there was a perception that scientific knowledge can improve the society and the environment of people. In the rational model programming was a cycle that included the implementation stage. It started from the values and goals and came to find solutions. For the above reasons, he has received acute criticism from liberal and Marxist positions, yet we would say that he has established himself.
At this point, it is easy to understand that there is no design without anyone intending to implement it. This shows us the interrelated relationship between designers and political power. The role of political power in the rational model we study is the same as that of developers. A basic pillar for both planning and political power is distance. The further you are, the more likely your positions are not calculated as you planned, but that does not mean that the rational pattern does not work by distance. An equally active role in programming is played by the recognition of power and the acceptability of the community to which it is addressed each time. At the same time, the more direct the presence of power in society is, the more intense its effect on it. Planning has created strong social inequalities and lack of interest from political power towards citizens. What was strongly observed was that there was no communication between designers and society in contrast to other standards that had their decision-making dialogue at their hearts. Citizens in the rational model do not express their opinion contrary to other design standards such as co-operative. Political power coincides with a specific person, body, etc. and is not general and indefinite. Still, it is understood that resources are different from the exercise of power and must be distinguished from one another. Resources are mobilized to support this exercise of power. Something that may not be readily understood is the buildings that house the power. The choice of these buildings is not accidental but involves planning. These buildings are imposing, majestic, recognizable by all and worthy of respect. They are the symbols of each political power (eg City Hall).
As we have said above, the relationship between designers and politicians has a common object of reference. The designers were specialized scientists with undoubted knowledge of the subject and work experience. They were rational and committed to serving the public interest. Their goal was to make a design workable and acceptable to society. Political power, on the other hand, was responsible for implementing the design of the first. According to Sandercock (1998: 87-8) the instrumental rationality of the capitalist state has found in this twin its complete expression. Conclusively, the role of the rational model is catalytic in design, but it is certainly logical the strong criticism accepted. The ideal would be, in my view, that designers would have a real interest in society, through the debate with citizens, and would push the decision-making centers in that direction.
bibliografy i used for this post
Αllen, J. (2001) Lost Geographies of Power, Rutledge: London
Healy, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in Fragmented Societies, Mc Millan
Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons
image : 