Hidden defining factors of the evolution of spatial planning schools

In the five years that Ekistcis exists, it’s members have discussed numerous topics within the realm of spatial planning and beyond. The power of Ekistics is the broad approach to these topics. Ekistics members can identify with a broad range of spatial planning Schools. However all these spatial planning schools differ, the environment they evolved has also much in common. In February 2013, a small group of Ekistics member tried to identify common factors which defined the evolution of spatial planning schools.

Most spatial planners oversee ordinary factors as: sovereignty, ownership, visibility, habitability, solidness and boundaries as defining factors for the evolution of their planning schools. As these factors are the same for the evolution of most spatial planning schools, it is usually no problem to give them less attention. But if one is planning an environment where the factors differ one should take notice. An example of such environment is the seas. The seas are have less sovereignty, no ownership, low visibility, no inhabitants, a fluid nature and no clear boundaries. Therefore spatial planning within the seas is a different ball game to the realm of terrestrial spatial planning!

The last is the topic of the Master thesis of Ekistics Member Tom van der Meer. As the chairman, he used this meeting to refine his hypothesis and find the right terminology for certain parts of his argumentation.

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Google photo

Je reageert onder je Google account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s