Interface

Abstract

The activity of planning is inextricably concerned with the conceptualization of future possibilities. In many respects to plan is to conceive of the future; a future, hopefully, rather better than the present but at least no worse. Such an observation is easy to make but the enormity of the challenge even simply to envisage a collective aspiration of alternative spatial possibilities should not be underestimated, whether as planner, politician or citizen. The process of conceiving the future does not of course take place in a vacuum. We are all part of an intricate web of histories and of memories which inevitably influence the way we see the future. Much has been written in the recent past about the nature of identity, particularly on the importance of developing greater understanding and sensitivity towards the variety of individual lived experiences with respect to city. However, alongside this impressive body of work there has been relatively little comment about how our individual and collective notions of time, history and permanence impact on our assumptions about what makes for good places and good planning. In this issue of Interface therefore we seek to explore to what extent cultural attitudes to time impact on the way we plan.What is taken for granted must necessarily influence what is regarded as possible or desirable. Consequently, our planning solutions would vary markedly if we see our lives as transitory and impermanent rather than as part of an on-going dialogue between centuries of past and future generations. From a British perspective the burden of history, including both ideas and physical forms, often seem to weigh so heavily that there is a tendency to back-off from engaging with the future (and some might argue the present). The elaborate structure of building conservation regulations bears witness to such attitudes. However, while this is perhaps the most obvious manifestation of British ‘conservatism’ it can also be seen in a general assumption as to the longevity of the built environment; permanence is taken for granted and it is presumed that what is built this week will not be knocked down next. It is possible that I am offering up an unfair stereotype of my compatriots but that does not deny the validity of the observation that notions of permanence are likely to influence the nature of the planning activity and in turn the places created. Moreover, this is not just about cultural attitudes that fit neatly within national boundaries for the priorities of individuals and communities confronted by circumstances of impermanence and vulnerability are likely to be very different from those who perceive themselves to be comfortably embedded within the long traditions of their context.