Masterplanning the Future [an error occurred while processing this directive]

This was one of the debates in mantownhuman's Critical Subjects Summer School which was a week-long opportunity for some of the keenest young design students - from UK and across the world - to engage in a series of intellectual, architectural and urban design challenges facilitated by leading names in the field. This debate was sponsored and held in the offices of Arup Associates in London on 14 July 2014. Originated by Future Cities Project, it was filmed by FCP Ltd and Oktoberworks.

'Is the ambition to build new cities no longer realistic or desirable in the West? Alternatively, with shoddy designs, poor workmanship and inadequate conditions often resulting from China's dash for urban growth, would the developing world benefit from a bit of Western-style restraint? Is the philosophical embrace of limits acting as a brake on the human-centred arrogance required to master plan the future; or is master-planning actually too audacious, technocratic and authoritarian? - Should we plan, or go with the flow? Should we strive to shape the world, or adapt to it?

The great American urbanist Daniel Burnham, the man who drafted the first comprehensive city plan a century ago, summed up the necessary ambition involved in the art of city-making: 'Make no little plans… They have no magic to stir men's blood'. These days, the aspiration to stir men's blood by planning cities seems out of fashion in the West, making Asian attempts at huge projects of social transformation, elevating millions out of poverty through urban expansion, all the more remarkable. The Urban Planning Museum in Shanghai is telling. The centrepiece of its exhibition is a vast model of central Shanghai which maps out the existing, and more importantly, the planned developments over the next 20 years. Here, the model is 'the future'. Conversely, in Britain, the Prime Minister has recently announced his plans to recreate the past: a blueprint of urban villages derived from the Victorian era.

In the post-war period, by contrast, the mood in Britain was future-orientated. The Barbican itself was built by the Corporation of London after the Second World War and was Europe's largest reconstruction project. It was conceived as a symbol of the optimistic new London arising from the destruction of the old. In 2001, the estate was 'listed' in recognition of its historical and architectural importance. These days, it seems that the past is protected more than the future planned. Master-planning the future seems at odds with contemporary Western attitudes. Nowadays, the US and Europe are burdened with a cautious approach to development, growth and progress, often represented in calls for restraint, limits, risk-aversion, precaution, low growth and minimal consumption.

Is the ambition to build new cities no longer realistic or desirable in the West? Alternatively, with shoddy designs, poor workmanship and inadequate conditions often resulting from China's dash for urban growth, would the developing world benefit from a bit of Western-style restraint? Is the philosophical embrace of limits acting as a brake on the human-centred arrogance required to master plan the future; or is master-planning actually too audacious, technocratic and authoritarian?'

SPEAKERS

• Lucy Bullivant, author, 'Masterplanning Futures'
• Alan Stewart, partner, John Thompson & Partners (London & Shanghai)
• Jürgen Häpp, Associate, Urban Design, Arup
• Helen Castle, editor of Architectural Design (AD), executive Commissioning Editor, UK Architecture, John Wiley
• Chair: Austin Williams, Associate Professor of Architecture, XJTLU, Suzhou, China

mantownhuman.org