disP - The Planning Review HOW TO MANAGE PLANNING ...

This article was downloaded by: [Politecnico di Torino] On: 27 March 2015, At: 03:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

disP - The Planning Review Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdsp20

HOW TO MANAGE PLANNING SCHOOLS IN TIMES OF CRISIS – Lessons Learned over 25 Years of Experience: Report on the 7th AESOP Heads of Schools Meeting Giancarlo Cotella & Izabela Mironowicz Published online: 20 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Giancarlo Cotella & Izabela Mironowicz (2012) HOW TO MANAGE PLANNING SCHOOLS IN TIMES OF CRISIS – Lessons Learned over 25 Years of Experience: Report on the 7th AESOP Heads of Schools Meeting, disP - The Planning Review, 48:2, 114-117, DOI: 10.1080/02513625.2012.721617 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2012.721617

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

AESOP News Section HOW TO MANAGE PLANNING SCHOOLS IN TIMES OF CRISIS – Lessons Learned over 25 Years of Experience: Report on the 7th AESOP Heads of Schools Meeting Giancarlo Cotella, Izabela Mironowicz

Downloaded by [Politecnico di Torino] at 03:04 27 March 2015

Giancarlo Cotella is the AESOP Communication Officer and a assistant professor at the Interuniversity Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning, Politecnico di Torino (Turin, Italy). Izabela Mironowicz is the AESOP Secretary General and a associate professor at Wrocław University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Planning (Wroclaw, Poland).

1 See: UMB – www.umb.no/ english for further information. 2 See: www.theworldcafe.com/ method.html for further information.

The 7th AESOP Heads of Schools meeting took place in Aas and Oslo, Norway, on May 4 and 5, 2012, hosted by the Norwegian University of Life Sciences.1 The meeting constituted an integral part of the AESOP Silver Jubilee Activities’ program, which has been animating the AESOP community since the beginning of the year (See box). The Heads of Schools meeting was followed by the AESOP Council of Representatives meeting on May 5, 2012 in Oslo (See Council report). The Heads of Schools meeting agenda started with welcome speeches by AESOP President Kristina L. Nilsson and two representatives of the host institution: Ruth Haug, Pro Director of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, and Eva Falleth, Head of the Institute for Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning. The first keynote speaker, Collin Jones, Professor of Estate Management at the Herriot Watt University of Edinburgh, fascinated the audience with an extremely relevant presentation on the interactions occurring between spatial planning and market forces in the field of urban development, pointing out the implications of the latter for the field of planning education. His conclusions suggested that contemporary planning education should provide graduates with the necessary skills to understand and master urban economic change, preferably through market evaluation and monitoring skills, negotiation skills to deal with developers and the ability to shape and promote markets. Professor Jones’ lecture was an ideal introduction for the core plenary session of the Heads of Schools meeting (HOS). Kristina L. Nilsson opened the session by summing up the main conclusions of the six previous HOS meetings and highlighting how year-after-year these conclusions have shaped the AESOP agenda and the various actions undertaken by the Association. After this brief introduction, the meeting moved on to exploring the main theme, How to Manage Planning Schools in a Time of External and Internal Constraints, from different angles. First, Silvia Saccomani (Polytechnic Institute of Turin) and Chris Webster (Cardiff University) reported on their own experiences, animating a lively dialogue that compared how management issues manifest in planning schools in different contexts, i.e., in wealthy countries and in countries in a time of crisis. The floor was then given to Didier Paris (University of Lille), who presented the main relevant elements

that accompany the management of a planning school characterized by several external cooperation initiatives. Finally, Hans Mastop (University of Nijmegen) presented his considerations concerning the management of a planning school subjected to a high rate of change from both internal and external drivers. The input provided by the plenary speakers formed the main framework for the interactive activities of the afternoon session. As at last year’s meeting in Tirana, AESOP set up a Europe Café, organized according to the World Café method 2, to provide an open and creative conversation on a topic of mutual interest in order to bring in participants’ collective knowledge, share ideas and insights, and gain a deeper understanding of the subject and the issues involved. Participants divided themselves into three smaller groups and as many parallel workshops, focusing on issues that are of utmost interest for the Association and its future activities. In the first workshop, co-chaired by Maros Finka (Slovak University of Technology) and Beata Banachowicz (University of Lodz), participants directed their attention and thoughts to the AESOP Experts Pool and to the issues of quality and expertise in planning education facilities. They were asked to reflect and discuss the role and potential of the Experts Pool in transferring expertise and assuring quality among European planning schools. The main themes concentrated on the expertise and information that schools need to perform within an International/European Higher Education Area. Taking this perspective, a debate followed on the extent to which the potential services that the AESOP Experts Pool provides is welcomed by AESOP Member Schools. Particular attention was dedicated to the possibility of instituting an “AESOP label”, in other words, whether AESOP should provide a formal assessment process for those planning schools that require it, as well as the specific criteria, in terms of general and specific requirements, that planning schools should meet to be awarded such a certification. All these elements were discussed in the broader context of the role of research and practice performance assessment of planning schools in different contexts and at the European level, providing participants with a wider framework to reflect upon their own contexts. Building on the discussion, the workshop delivered a series of conclusions and recommendations

AESOP News Section

disP 189 · 48.2 (2/2012)

AESOP-IFHP Lecture Series

115


The second lecture in the series took place on June 2, 2012 at the Université Panthéon-Assas in Paris. Andreas Faludi spoke on the topic: Twentieth Century Foundations of European Planning. This was followed by a joint workshop of participants and representatives of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Regional Policy’s publication: From Cities of Tomorrow to Tomorrow for Cities – What is the Future for European Cities? This was the second in the Lecture Series by well-known planners and other “urban thinkers”, both academics and practitioners, organized by AESOP and IFHP as part of their Silver Jubilee (2012) and Centenary (2013) celebrations, respectively. The lecturers in the series have been asked to present their ideas on new thinking and a new vision for planning. The aim is to find possible answers to present-day and emerging challenges in planning as a modern, broad discipline in a new role in our contemporary complex and dynamic society. The President de Paris-Sorbonne, Professor Barthélémy Jobert opened with a welcome address. Professor Faludi lectured on EU territorial cohesion policy. Its (uncertain) perspective is for framing policies with a territorial impact, However, the EU Macro-Regional Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and the Danube Strategy both point to a future beyond territorialism with their fixation on closed spatial units and “soft” rather than “hard” planning. In any European territorial policy, the city will play a central role. The interconnectivity of cities is after all a major dimension of territorial cohesion. The European Commission has recently brought out a report, Cities of Tomorrow, which looks at the importance of cities for the territorial, economic, social and environmental future of our continent. To complement Prof. Faludi’s lecture, a joint workshop was organized with the participation of representatives of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Regional Policy and other invited experts to initiate a dialogue on the issues raised in this report. It dealt with the following questions: • What is the European model of the city? • What instruments are available to ensure a more sustainable development for European cities? • What is the perspective for possible policy orientations in the new phase of EU research and structural policies 2014–2020? • What should EU urban policy focus on; what should it avoid? The debate, moderated by Prof. Anna Geppert (Université Paris IV Sorbonne), followed a brief introduction by Stephen Duffy (EC, DG Regio), who then joined the panel which consisted of Jean Peyrony (Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière), Didier Michal (DATAR), Karina Pallagst (Kaiserslautern University), Emmanuel Moulin (Head of the URBACT Secretariat) and Andreas Faludi (TU Delft). A full report on the debate will be presented in the forthcoming issue of disP. The lecture and debate between Prof. Faludi and the participants was transmitted live online on both the AESOP and IFHP Websites. Professor Faludi’s presentation, the video from the event and a short interview are available on both the AESOP and IFHP Websites. AESOP and IFHP wish to express their gratitude to the hosts of the Second Lecture: the President of the Paris-Sorbonne and the Institut d’Urbanism et d’Amenagement of the Paris-Sorbonne (IUAPS). — Izabela Mironowicz (AESOP), Derek Martin (IFHP)

that will help AESOP to fine-tune and improve the activities of the Experts Pool in the future. According to the conclusions of the workshop, the service needs more visibility. It should serve both the member schools, in terms of providing an added value through external evaluation and constituting a valuable platform for comparison, and AESOP itself, by working to further improve its experience and knowledge about planning education in Europe. In addition, when it comes to the possible introduction of an AESOP label, participants agreed that the assessment process should be developed carefully, paying particular attention to methods of evaluation, contextualization skills and criteria for the composition of the evaluation team. Moreover, the

certification should be separated from any sort of professional recognition, it should take into account existing differences between the various domestic contexts of the member schools and, in general, it should be always seen as a stimulus for improving the quality of planning education, rather than as a tool to rank planning schools. Finally, particular recognition concerning exceptional qualities and/or specialization of a school may be awarded. The second workshop was set up as a Europe Café focusing on the importance of the institutional context for the management of planning schools. Coordinated by Pantelis Skayannis (University of Thessaly) and Giancarlo Cotella (Polytechnic In-

Box 1: AESOP Silver Jubilee Celebration Events.


116

disP 189 · 48.2 (2/1012)

stitute of Turin), the attendees were challenged with the question of whether planning schools can – and should – adapt to an ever-changing institutional, economic and financial higher education environment. The discussion at the Café tables developed around a heterogeneous set of sub-questions and topics that often took on board the stimuli provided by the plenary speakers earlier in the day, such as how to manage the institutional impact of EU and nationwide higher education reforms, how to adapt to the increasing share of private sector funds in school and department budgets, how to manage the increasing demand for interdisciplinary activities, what alliances planning schools could benefit from within the university environment – and at what cost, what means a school should use to attract good staff and students, what could be a good mixture between internationalized and context-dependent planning education, how the issue of professional recognition of planning graduates affects planning education in its various contexts, etc. In general terms, the participants agreed that the main aim for each planning school is to be a “good” school, and then went on to articulate what a “good” school may mean: a highly motivated staff and students, a functioning organization, and a good balance between education, research and practice, etc. The relationship between planning schools and the outside world was explored in more detail and the considerations matured in relation to a set of additional remarks concerning the management of change. As planning schools are located in real territories, these should serve as laboratories for the schools to educate and train their students. In this light, academic planners should maintain links with the “outside world”, continuously developing and supporting the links between research and practice in order to contribute an innovative perspective and concrete support to the activities of practitioners active in the area. When it came to the management of change, the discussion turned more pessimistic as participants agreed that, especially in today’s state of financial constraints and continuous reforms, day-today management problems draw the full attention of school managers, overshadowing more strategic, long-term issues. Despite this, the audience acknowledged the common need for planning schools to keep academic quality at a high level, meaning to keep delivering high-quality research and practice activities and maintaining their independent identity without bending over backwards to market contingent needs. The third workshop reflected upon issues of cooperation and competition between planning schools. Andrea Frank (Cardiff University) and Piotr Lorens (Gdansk University of Technology) opened a discussion on the increasing commodification of higher education and the ever more fiercely competitive

international market and, in light of these two elements, possible strategies that planning schools might adopt to survive and flourish. The debate touched upon three main themes. The first issue explored was the impact of competition on planning education provision, curricula and staff requirements. Participants recognized how, despite the strong desire for cooperation, competition between schools is indeed the reality. Global competition creates enormous pressure on schools to shift from research to education and to offer “new products”, while at the same time maintaining a high level of publication. As rankings and leagues become increasingly important, cooperation between schools becomes more and more difficult and competition between subject areas increases. However, competition also has a positive side and planning schools may benefit from this. For instance, competition might increase the pressure to improve the quality of a school or the quality of teaching may rise through benchmarking exercises or schools might find a prosperous niche through comparative processes. Furthermore, when it works correctly, competition may result in a decrease of education costs and favor an increase of investments in the students who are now seen as customers. The extent to which planning schools should specialize within national and international markets in order to create greater diversity and, as a result, enrich the profession was also a subject of discussion. Here the “place factor” was identified as a potential key advantage that should lead each school to capitalize on its own specificities and the particular elements linked to its location. Specialization is necessary to retain the ability to deal with geographical, social, cultural and legal qualities of planning. The final issue concerned the conditions that trigger cooperation between schools both nationally and internationally. Here the potential role that AESOP could play in the future was discussed ending with formulations of several recommendations for future activities. Participants suggested that AESOP should undertake a pioneer research on the positive and negative impact of competition and cooperation between its member schools in order to fine-tune its role as a cooperation and networking platform. Furthermore, it should give more promotion to an organized model of cooperation at the PhD level, favoring the exchange and circulation of students and staff, as well as the networking and cross-fertilization of programs and activities. Once the three workshops concluded their activities and the coordinators had reported the conclusions of each workshop to the plenary session, the participants moved on to the University of Life Sciences Cafeteria, where they celebrated the AESOP Silver Jubilee with a toast and an entertaining dinner enriched by a talk by Sigmund Asmervik (University of Life Sciences).


Saturday’s HOS program was dedicated to the presentation of spatial planning issues of local interest. After a fascinating study tour of the Oslo harbor area, participants gathered at the Oslo Planning Agency to listen to two interesting presentations on spatial planning in that city. Ellen de Vibe (Executive Director of Oslo Planning Agency) presented the main characteristics of Oslo’s waterfront development, discussing the impact of the joint venture at the base of the process. Then Eby Ove Ellingsen (Executive Director of the Division of Urban Renewal and Real Estate, Municipality of Oslo) presented his considerations on the models and mechanisms underlying the financing of public goods in urban redevelopment processes. The meeting concluded in the afternoon with AESOP officials invited all the participants to gather

once again in one year’s time at the 8th AESOP HOS meeting in Gdansk, Poland in 2012. The 2012 AESOP Heads of Schools meeting touched on important issues for planning schools and planning education. The vibrant debate might not have delivered all the answers, but it definitely opened new opportunities through sharing the experience and exploring the most important problems. It proved that our meetings are important for the AESOP community and are able to help with developing the quality of planning education. The next Heads of Schools meeting will probably move more towards links between education and practice, discussing how to bridge the gap between academia and professional practice.

AESOP Council of Representatives Meeting, May 5, 2012, Oslo, Norway The Heads of Schools meeting was followed by the AESOP Council of Representatives meeting on May 5, 2012 in Oslo. The Council meeting was important for the future of the organization because the new AESOP Charter, which had been under discussion since May 2011, was finally approved. The new Charter frames the new structure of the Association. During the meeting, the Council of Representatives also decided on the following issues: AESOP Event Officer The decision about the new Event Officer, who will also be a new Executive Committee member, was ratified. Prof. Gerhard Schimak (TU Vienna) will take the office for the mandatory period 2012–2016. Prof. Schimak will start his duties as the AESOP Event Officer on July 16, 2012. At that time, Prof. Pantelis Skayannis (University of Thessaly, Volos) will step down from the position of Event Officer. AESOP Congress 2014 The Secretary General got two bids for hosting the AESOP Congress in 2014. The applications came from TU Dortmund (in cooperation with ILS Dortmund) and the University of Utrecht (in cooperation with University of Delft); both presented very ambitious content. Prof. Luuk Boelens presented the bid on behalf of the University of Utrecht and Prof. Thorsten Wiechmann presented the bid of behalf of TU Dortmund. The Executive Committee, greatly appreciating both bids, did not single one out in its recommendations to the Council. The result of voting was: 17 votes for the University of Utrecht and 11 votes for the TU Dortmund. Therefore, the 2014

AESOP Congress will take place in Utrecht. The Council of Representatives and the Executive Committee would like to express their gratitude to both TU Dortmund and the University of Utrecht for their outstanding work and commitment. HORIZON 2020: the EU Framework Program for Research and Innovation 2014–2020 The next EU research program, succeeding FP7, is called Horizon 2020. Within this framework program, planning is not named as an autonomous discipline. On behalf of AESOP, President Kristina L. Nilsson wrote a letter to the national representatives in the EU Parliament requesting that the European Commission address this issue. The letter stresses the importance of planning as an autonomous research discipline, especially within the next EU Framework Program. The letter was approved by the Council of Representatives. Everybody, especially members of the Council, are encouraged to write to their national EU representatives on this important topic. AESOP Heads of Schools meeting 2013 The next AESOP Heads of School meeting will take place in Gdan´sk, Poland in April 2013. 27th Joint AESOP–ACSP Congress 2013 The next AESOP Congress will be a joint event with the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP). Since the last joint congress was in the USA (Chicago, 2008), the next Joint Congress will be held in Europe, namely Dublin, Ireland, July 15–19, 2013.

disP 189 · 48.2 (2/2012)

117