During World War II, Kenneth Arrow–who would receive the Nobel Prize in economics in 1972–served as a part of the weather forecasting service for the Army Air Corps. As Peter Bernstein recounts in his 1998 book, Against the Gods, Arrow and his colleagues soon realized that their long-range forecasts were no better than numbers pulled out of a hat, and they asked to be assigned to more useful work.
“The Commanding General is well aware that the forecasts are no good,” they were told in reply. “However, he needs them for planning purposes.”
Forecasting the future is no more accurate today than it was sixty-five years ago. Yet planners continue to write “long-range plans” that purport to look ahead ten, twenty, even fifty or a hundred years. For such plans to be worthwhile, planners must be able to answer questions such as:
- What technologies will be available in the future?
- How much will land, energy, and other resources cost?
- How will individual tastes and preferences change?
- How will people earn their incomes?
Also the good habit and balanced emotional life is equally important to control the sexual function. order viagra This way, it will be easier for you to ignore all the other surgical methods for sexual problems cheap women viagra as they are attached with the medication. This cannot be found in the medical stores and prevent falling buy levitra canada prey to illicit drug traders. This drug should be used as per the instructions which are given to you by doctor if you really want to experience levitra no prescription over at this link the best love making session’s at the most reasonable price you could have imagined. None of these plans can be answered with any degree of confidence. Yet any long-range plan that is based on the wrong answers is likely to create far more problems than it solves.
Imagine writing a plan for your city back in 1950:
- Few people had ever flown, and no one had ever flown in a commercial jet airliner.
- Few people had ever worked with computers, and not even the most far-seeing science-fiction writers had predicted microcomputers or the Internet.
- Long-distance phone calls were expensive, and no one had ever made a direct-dial long-distance call.
- Few married women worked, and the highest-paid jobs were all held by men.
- Few other countries could match the United States as a manufacturing powerhouse, and no one had ever imported a transistor radio from Japan, Korea, or China.
Based on what you would have known in 1950, your plan would have made the airport too small and the train station too big. Since you would assume that married women worked at home, you would have designed homes with one-car garages. You would assign too much land to manufacturing and not enough to white collar jobs. You would never have imagined home offices.
In lieu of accurately predicting the future, planners use a technique they call visioning in which they ask people to imagine what they would like their city to look like in the future. They then try to plan for that city.
Visioning has numerous flaws. Most obviously, the people doing the visioning still have no special knowledge of the future. So it is most likely that their visions will really be based on a nostalgic view of the past.
Second, visioning results in a mandate for coervice planning. After all, if you can imagine the best possible future for your city, you would not want to risk that future to the uncertainties of the free market or people’s short-term preferences.
Finally, the people writing the vision do not represent all of the people who will live in that future. If they make mistakes, the cost of those mistakes will be shared with others, so they have little incentive to try to get it right.
For all these reasons, visioning is the wrong solution to planners’ inability to predict the future. Instead, in many cases, it just become one more excuse for planners to impose their own nostalgic ideas on their cities.
Again, there is so much wrong here it is difficult to know where to begin.
The most obvious thing is the continued lack of current examples. Randal must, here and elsewhere, use outdated examples to conflate to a non-existent strawman condition in the present.
Forecasting the future is no more accurate today than it was sixty-five years ago.
Yes.
That’s why most agencies have dropped forecasting and instead use projections, and scenarios are used in concert with projections informing decisionmaking.
Hint: the ‘visioning’ is part of the scenario analysis for baseline construction.
planners use a technique they call visioning in which they ask people to imagine what they would like their city to look like in the future. They then try to plan for that city
No.
Vision informs the process, it doesn’t create the process. Participatory processes do not drive the entire outcome, they inform it.
BTW, this visioning process negates several of Randal’s theses: that planners are stovepiped, atomistically disincentivized and modeling-dependent.
The very fact that planners engage the public in transparent planning processes makes many of Randal’s assertions flat wrong.
If ideologues were current and not out of date, they could mount a better argument.
DS
Thank you for bringing up participatory visioning processes, Randal.
Can you discuss how this process negates many of the assertions about planning that you make on this blog?
Thank you in advance.
DS
I also note, Randal, that many of my comments – particularly the ones with references links to material that negate your arguments – are deleted. Surely inadvertently.
Fortunately I anticipated this and saved these comments to a Wurd document, should your readers wish to consider my responses to their comments.
Regards,
DS
To go after one claim:
“Few people had ever flown, and no one had ever flown in a commercial jet airliner. [in 1950]
…known in 1950, your plan would have made the airport too smallâ€Â.
Even in 1950, there was reasonable evidence to show that air travel would have a large impact on the lives of the American populace. As early as 1951, passenger air miles had outstripped train miles (surely this trend had started prior to 1950). The share of airline traffic as a form of transportation had grown from 3.3% in 1940 to 14.1% in 1950. It seems reasonable to me that those planning in the 1950’s would recognize that this constantly emerging technology would keep growing. You have stated that they would have to know 100% of the future data to write a comprehensive plan (for example, to write an effective plan they would have to know the total number of flights in 2002).
There are numerous things wrong with this assumption, the main being why you would need to know with 100% certainty what will happen in the future. Could we not predict, from the data prior to 1950, that in 1960, given the current trend, total ridership will be approximately some number, and that in 1970, it will likely be approximately this number? Given that data, could we not reasonably design an airport that could accommodate some of the growth expected in the coming 20 years, with the expectation that it will need to be modified at that time (not unlike the Metro 2040 plan)?
I continue to ask why you need to know 100% (all as you state) of the future data, and what that even means. You seem to be stating that unless I were omniscient, I can’t write a plan. If I were omniscient, why would I even need to write a plan?!
http://www.faa.gov/
http://www.faa.gov/education_research/education/educator_resources/curriculum/wright_brothers/media/bharris.pdf
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ic-airrailhist.htm
To go after one claim:
“Few people had ever flown, and no one had ever flown in a commercial jet airliner. [in 1950]
…known in 1950, your plan would have made the airport too smallâ€Â.
Even in 1950, there was reasonable evidence to show that air travel would have a large impact on the lives of the American populace. As early as 1951, passenger air miles had outstripped train miles (surely this trend had started prior to 1950). The share of airline traffic as a form of transportation had grown from 3.3% in 1940 to 14.1% in 1950. It seems reasonable to me that those planning in the 1950’s would recognize that this constantly emerging technology would keep growing. You have stated that they would have to know 100% of the future data to write a comprehensive plan (for example, to write an effective plan they would have to know the total number of flights in 2002).
There are numerous things wrong with this assumption, the main being why you would need to know with 100% certainty what will happen in the future. Could we not predict, from the data prior to 1950, that in 1960, given the current trend, total ridership will be approximately some number, and that in 1970, it will likely be approximately this number? Given that data, could we not reasonably design an airport that could accommodate some of the growth expected in the coming 20 years, with the expectation that it will need to be modified at that time (not unlike the Metro 2040 plan)?
I continue to ask why you need to know 100% (all as you state) of the future data, and what that even means. You seem to be stating that unless I were omniscient, I can’t write a plan. If I were omniscient, why would I even need to write a plan?!
http://www.faa.gov/
http://www.faa.gov/education_research/education/educator_resources/curriculum/wright_brothers/media/bharris.pdf
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ic-airrailhist.htm
pdxf said: There are numerous things wrong with this assumption, the main being why you would need to know with 100% certainty what will happen in the future. Could we not predict, from the data prior to 1950, that in 1960, given the current trend, total ridership will be approximately some number, and that in 1970, it will likely be approximately this number? Given that data, could we not reasonably design an airport that could accommodate some of the growth expected in the coming 20 years, with the expectation that it will need to be modified at that time (not unlike the Metro 2040 plan)?
JK: And which city plans did this?
Give us an example that this actually was done (to counter the impression that planners are just incompetent BS artists.)
Thanks
JK
Dan said: I also note, Randal, that many of my comments – particularly the ones with references links to material that negate your arguments
JK: refrences?? I’d love to see some, but do try to link to a particular page, not just to a large web site.
Dan said: – are deleted. Surely inadvertently.
JK: Yeah. He did it to me too. Instantly, He must just watch the web site 24-7 and instantly delete things.
Or maybe there is a technical problem: I had the same problem posting an answer to #11 on “Seven Reasons Why Government Planning Cannot Work†– it said that it was a duplicate post. (it wasn’t).
I am going to try that one again.
Thanks
JK
â€ÂAnd which city plans did this?
Give us an example that this actually was doneâ€Â
My post was showing that plannning could be done despite the claims of the antiplanner (specifically that you need to know ALL information). Whether or not a plan was carried out as my post describes is irrelevant.
Please answer:
-Does the the way I described the theoretical plan make sense? If not, what are your specific issues with what I said? (circle one: Y or N…and explain if no).
-If my plan makes sense (which you seem to agree with by prompting for a direct example), then do you agree that I do not need to know 100% of all information to develop a plan? (circle one: Y or N …and explain if no)
As a side note, I’ve noticed that the site doesn’t like my posts that have “http†within the text.
I also must point out that I’m not airport planner, so perhaps my plan isn’t any good, but what I’m trying to show is that it’s reasonable to plan without knowing all of the possible data.
Dan,
“Can you discuss how this process negates many of the assertions about planning that you make on this blog?” I will leave that to you since I consider “visioning” to merely be one more way for planners to impose their preconceived notions on people.
“I also note, Randal, that many of my comments are deleted.”
I have not deleted any comments. Let me know which ones seem to have been deleted and I’ll investigate.
PDXF:
Alistair Gordon’s recent book, “Naked Airport,” makes it clear that in 1950 few airport planners, much less urban planners in general, anticipated the growth in air travel that would take place after the introduction of jet aircraft. Meanwhile, the country’s major railroads were still ordering many new passenger trains and passenger cars — orders many would soon regret. It is easy to say in hindsight that you would have anticipated something, much more difficult to actually do it.
“I also note, Randal, that many of my comments are deleted.â€Â
I have not deleted any comments. Let me know which ones seem to have been deleted and I’ll investigate.
JK:I had several tries at posting either not post or declared duplicate messages. I commented on this on another thread earlier today. There is something set wrong or a bug.
Thanks
JK
Thank you Randal.
Running late & necessarily not cross-checked nor complete, but comments tagged # 135, 133, 97.
Have a good weekend sir,
DS
“It is easy to say in hindsight that you would have anticipated something, much more difficult to actually do it.â€Â
Again, I don’t really think that this matters. Sure, things are clearer in hindsight, but my point is that there was data available at the time to adequately predict the future of airline usage (as today we have information that lets us predict Oregon’s population 10 years down the road, the average global temperature 20 years from now, etc…).
Did my post sound unreasonable (whether or not planners at the time recognized it)â€â€that given the trends prior to 1950 we could predict x number of years out and have at least a rough number of airline passengers as a design basis for our airport? It doesn’t sound that unreasonable to me. Sure, our prediction could be wrong, but at least it can give us an idea of how much land we need to reserve for our expanding airport, or give us an idea of how much money will be required over the next 20 years to allocate enough for expansion.
Too me, this just makes sense, and I am yet to be convinced that unless we know the exact number of airline passengers in 2020, we can’t make a plan to accommodate them.
Sure hindsight is great, but we do have the capability to project into the future with some reasonable certainty. If we find that there is a 90% chance of an asteroid hitting the Denver Metropolitan area 10 years from now (by the way, we can create mathematical models to predict this sort of thing, and even stranger, there are computers that can interpret the models), should we not create a plan to deal with the issue?
pdxf said: Again, I don’t really think that this matters. Sure, things are clearer in hindsight, but my point is that there was data available at the time to adequately predict the future of airline usage
JK: But they didn’t act on that information. That is the point – they had the information and didn’t use it.
pdxf said: (as today we have information that lets us predict Oregon’s population 10 years down the road,
JK: No you don’t. You only have a set of assumptions, that if true, would predict. Note the IF TRUE. Second, the information has to be acted on and when it is acted upon by the political precess, it is bot used rationally.
pdxf said: the average global temperature 20 years from now, etc…).
JK: No you don’t. See above plus: http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html Tell me what 20 year out temperature would you predict in 1895, 1912, 1969 or 1974?
pdxf said: Sure hindsight is great, but we do have the capability to project into the future with some reasonable certainty.
JK: 1) see above; 2) we cannot predict the unexpected event such as the invention of the transistor (the key to the internet), or the fallout from same – integrated circuit – computer – internet – camcorder. Remember Maxwel Smart’s portable phone – everyone thought that science fiction. Now most of us have them.
pdxf said: (by the way, we can create mathematical models to predict this sort of thing, and even stranger, there are computers that can interpret the models)
JK: You mean like those models that predict next weeks weather?
pdxf said: should we not create a plan to deal with the issue?
JK: No.
1) You prediction is flawed (see above);
2) In the current world of planning, the solutions don’t work as claimed.
3) Just about everything that planners believe is simply wrong.
Thanks
JK
“But they didn’t act on that information. That is the point – they had the information and didn’t use it.â€Â
Actually the premise of this piece entitled “Planners aren’t Prophets†is that planners don’t know what the future would bring, which I stated that they could predict, which you then agreed with me on, but stated that they didn’t act on it.. You are contradicting yourself here by saying now that they did have the information, yet in the past you have stated that we can’t have the information because we can’t predict it.
“pdxf said: (as today we have information that lets us predict Oregon’s population 10 years down the road,
JK: No you don’t. You only have a set of assumptions, that if true, would predict. “
You should say “No you don’t with certaintyâ€Â. We can get pretty close with our estimations. Sure we use assumptions to predict, but they are informed assumptions. The assumptions could be wrong, but with a little research, we can improve the odds that they are correct, which can form a basis for future action. We don’t need to know with 100% certainty to formulate a plan.
“pdxf said: the average global temperature 20 years from now, etc…).
JK: No you don’t. See above plus: http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.htmlâ€Â
Well that hardly proves that we don’t have an idea of what temperatures are going to be like in 20 years. Do you have the full articles with those? Some of them look like they could be a good read, and I’d like to read them before commenting about them.
“we cannot predict the unexpected event “
Your right, but do we need to know the unexpected to make plans? I could get hit by a car tomorrow, but I still have plans for this summer, next year, and I’m still saving money for my retirement. If I do get hit by a car, my plans may change, they may not. If I don’t get hit by a car, by the time I reach retirement I’ll be better off for it.
pdxf said: (by the way, we can create mathematical models to predict this sort of thing, and even stranger, there are computers that can interpret the models)
JK: You mean like those models that predict next weeks weather?â€Â
I was mainly referring to models such as those that predict when Halley’s Comet will return, but the weather could work too. In fact, it may be a good example. I’ve been needing to put caulk around one of my windows. The caulk says that it needs to be above 40 for it to work correctly, and last week’s weather forecasts said that this week we’d be stuck with highs in the low to mid 30s. Because of the weather forecast, I new that I needed to clear out some time in my schedule last week to get the job done, since I wouldn’t have a chance this week. You can note that they probably weren’t 100% accurate with their predictions, yet they were close enough that I could plan when I needed to do it. It has been too cold this week to do it.
“pdxf said: If we find that there is a 90% chance of an asteroid hitting the Denver Metropolitan area 10 years from now…should we not create a plan to deal with the issue?
JK: No.â€Â
Really…really, honestly? Well I’ve got to admit, you’ve stumped me with that answer, and I find it unacceptable if you truly feel that way. I certainly would want to do something (really even if there was a 30% chance of it happening). I definitely don’t mind being on my side of the argument. Complacency isn’t my thing.
1) You prediction is flawed (see above); They’re pretty good at calculating when Halley’s Comet arrives, how long it takes spacecraft to reach Mars, the moon, etc…, (despite what you guys say about models) we may want to listen to them!
2) In the current world of planning, the solutions don’t work as claimed.I see, so why should we even bother? Let’s just let the asteroid impact. Good solution.
3) Just about everything that planners believe is simply wrong.I don’t even think that one requires a comment!
pdxf said: Actually the premise of this piece entitled “Planners aren’t Prophets†is that planners don’t know what the future would bring, which I stated that they could predict, which you then agreed with me on, but stated that they didn’t act on it.. You are contradicting yourself here by saying now that they did have the information, yet in the past you have stated that we can’t have the information because we can’t predict it.
JK: You are slipping and sliding again. Without going back though the complete exchange, You said: but my point is that there was data available at the time to adequately predict the future of airline usage and I responded to that statement with: But they didn’t act on that information. That is the point – they had the information and didn’t use it. So what is your problem?
pdxf said: “pdxf said: (as today we have information that lets us predict Oregon’s population 10 years down the road,
JK: No you don’t. You only have a set of assumptions, that if true, would predict. “
You should say “No you don’t with certaintyâ€Â. We can get pretty close with our estimations.
JK: Prove your assumptions are correct. IE: prove you have a crystal ball that works.
pdxf said: “pdxf said: the average global temperature 20 years from now, etc…).
JK: No you don’t. See above plus: http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.htmlâ€Â
Well that hardly proves that we don’t have an idea of what temperatures are going to be like in 20 years.
JK: Get real. Most of those articles make a prediction (or implied prediction) which is contradicted by a later prediction.
pdxf said: Do you have the full articles with those? Some of them look like they could be a good read, and I’d like to read them before commenting about them.
JK: Go to the library – that is what I did. Some like the NYT are online, free at some libraries. Don’t bother comment further, because I have already wasted too much time correcting you on this thread.
pdxf said: “we cannot predict the unexpected event “
Your right, but do we need to know the unexpected to make plans?
JK: Yes, the transistor was an unexpected event with century long, society transforming, implications, same for electricity, the automobile and others. (Remember the context here is long range government planning that results in laws.)
pdxf said: pdxf said: (by the way, we can create mathematical models to predict this sort of thing, and even stranger, there are computers that can interpret the models)
JK: You mean like those models that predict next weeks weather?â€Â
I was mainly referring to models such as those that predict when Halley’s Comet will return,
JK: No you weren’t – you were referring to the models city planners use. They are crap.
pdxf said: but the weather could work too. In fact, it may be a good example. I’ve been needing to put caulk around one of my windows. The caulk says that it needs to be above 40 for it to work correctly, and last week’s weather forecasts said that this week we’d be stuck with highs in the low to mid 30s. Because of the weather forecast, I new that I needed to clear out some time in my schedule last week to get the job done, since I wouldn’t have a chance this week. You can note that they probably weren’t 100% accurate with their predictions, yet they were close enough that I could plan when I needed to do it. It has been too cold this week to do it.
JK: What does that have to do with long range city plans that dictate people’s choices up to 50 years in the future?
pdxf said: “pdxf said: If we find that there is a 90% chance of an asteroid hitting the Denver Metropolitan area 10 years from now…
JK: Sorry, you don’t get to add this back in. I left it out on purpose.
Now lets put back what you left out:
pdxf said: (by the way, we can create mathematical models to predict this sort of thing, and even stranger, there are computers that can interpret the models), should we not create a plan to deal with the issue?
JK: I repeat. NO, we should not plan based mathematical models and computers interpretations. They are ca-ca.
pdxf said:
Really…really, honestly? Well I’ve got to admit, you’ve stumped me with that answer, and I find it unacceptable if you truly feel that way. I certainly would want to do something (really even if there was a 30% chance of it happening). I definitely don’t mind being on my side of the argument. Complacency isn’t my thing.
JK: Its not complacency – its acknowledging the real world – if an computerized astrological projection, based on highly accurate measurements, (none of which applies to city planner’s model’s) shows an asteroid hit 10 years out, we should pay attention, realizing that the measurement accuracy is insufficient to show what city it will hit, or whether its path actually hit the earth as opposed to a near miss. Just to help with obscure scientific concepts: to determine which city gets hit, you have to know the time of impact to the minute (or seond?) 10 years out.
pdxf said: 1) You prediction is flawed (see above); They’re pretty good at calculating when Halley’s Comet arrives, how long it takes spacecraft to reach Mars, the moon, etc…, (despite what you guys say about models) we may want to listen to them!
JK: Different models. Astronomers are competent, planners are not.
pdxf said: 2) In the current world of planning, the solutions don’t work as claimed. I see, so why should we even bother? Let’s just let the asteroid impact. Good solution.
JK: Usually, we should not try because the proposed solution is worse than doing nothing. Look at Portland.
pdxf said: 3) Just about everything that planners believe is simply wrong. I don’t even think that one requires a comment!
JK: You are right. It is self evident. But if you need a reminder of all the things the planners have wrong, take a look at: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/SmartGrowthLies.html
Thanks
JK
pdxf said: Actually the premise of this piece entitled “Planners aren’t Prophets ..
JK: You are slipping and sliding again. Without going back though the complete exchange, You said: but my point is that there was data available at the time to adequately predict the future of airline usage and I responded to that statement with: But they didn’t act on that information. That is the point – they had the information and didn’t use it. So what is your problem?
pdxf said: “pdxf said: (as today we have information that lets us predict Oregon’s population 10 years down the road,
JK: No you don’t. You only have a set of assumptions, that if true, would predict. “
You should say “No you don’t with certaintyâ€Â. We can get pretty close with our estimations.
JK: Prove your assumptions are correct. IE: prove you have a crystal ball that works.
pdxf said: Well that hardly proves that we don’t have an idea of what temperatures are going to be like in 20 years.
JK: Get real. Most of those articles make a prediction (or implied prediction) which is contradicted by a later prediction.
pdxf said:… I’d like to read them before commenting about them.
JK: Go to the library – that is what I did. Some like the NYT are online, free at some libraries. Don’t bother commenting further, because I have already wasted too much time correcting you on this thread.
pdxf said: … Your right, but do we need to know the unexpected to make plans?
JK: Yes, the transistor was an unexpected event with century long, society transforming, implications, same for electricity, the automobile and others. (Remember the context here is long range government planning that results in laws.)
pdxf said:… I was mainly referring to models such as those that predict when Halley’s Comet will return,
JK: No you weren’t – you were referring to the models city planners use. They are crap.
pdxf said:…. . Because of the weather forecast, I new that I needed to clear out some time in my schedule last week to get the job done, ….
JK: What does that have to do with long range city plans that dictate people’s choices up to 50 years in the future?
pdxf said: “pdxf said: If we find that there is a 90% chance of an asteroid hitting the Denver Metropolitan area 10 years from now…
JK: Sorry, you don’t get to add this back in. I left it out on purpose.
Now lets put back what you left out:
pdxf said: (by the way, we can create mathematical models to predict this sort of thing, and even stranger, there are computers that can interpret the models), should we not create a plan to deal with the issue?
JK: I repeat. NO, we should not plan based mathematical models and computers interpretations. They are ca-ca.
pdxf said:
Really…really, honestly? Well I’ve got to admit, you’ve stumped me with that answer, and I find it unacceptable if you truly feel that way. I certainly would want to do something (really even if there was a 30% chance of it happening). I definitely don’t mind being on my side of the argument. Complacency isn’t my thing.
JK: Its not complacency – its acknowledging the real world – if an computerized astrological projection, based on highly accurate measurements, (none of which applies to city planner’s model’s) shows an asteroid hit 10 years out, we should pay attention, realizing that the measurement accuracy is insufficient to show what city it will hit, or whether its path actually hits the earth as opposed to a near miss. Just to help with obscure scientific concepts, to determine which city gets hit, you have to know the time of impact to the minute (or second?) 10 years out.
pdxf said:…They’re pretty good at calculating when Halley’s Comet arrives, how long it takes spacecraft to reach Mars, the moon, etc…, (despite what you guys say about models) we may want to listen to them!
JK: Different models. Astronomers are competent, planners are not.
pdxf said: 2) In the current world of planning, the solutions don’t work as claimed. I see, so why should we even bother? Let’s just let the asteroid impact. Good solution.
JK: Usually, we should not try because the proposed solution is worse than doing nothing. Look at Portland. As to the alleged asteroid, see above.
pdxf said: 3) Just about everything that planners believe is simply wrong. I don’t even think that one requires a comment!
JK: You are right. It is self evident. But if you need a reminder of all the things the planners have wrong, take a look at: http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/SmartGrowthLies.html
Thanks
JK
Dan,
You say you can’t find comments tagged 135, 133, and 97. Unfortunately, we are bumping up against my limits of understanding WordPress. As administrator, I can review the most recent 20 comments but I can’t find a way of reviewing older ones. I will go through the software’s documentation and see if I can figure out where those comments went.
Thank you Randal.
Not a problem – WordPress does have some quirks that make it frustrating. I have the comments saved at home if you are unable to find them in your queue.
Enjoy your weekend,
DS
Comment tag #169 is also lost in the ether, Randal.
DS
It turns out that apparently “lost” comments are comments that WordPress automatically holds for moderation because they have lots of links in them (for fear that such comments may be spam). When I eventually approve these comments, they appear in their proper place. I’ll try to keep up with such moderation in the future.
So what is your problem?
here was data available at the time to adequately predict the future. PDXF
they had the information and didn’t use it.. Jim Karlack
With this response, you are saying that they had the information, but that they didn’t use it, implying that they could use the information to predict the future conditions (they just didn’t). In the past as well as in your response you have stated that they can’t predict the future conditions (prove you have a crystal ball that works ). It still seems like a contradiction to me.
Get real. Most of those articles make a prediction (or implied prediction) which is contradicted by a later prediction.
I’m sure you find exceptions to any accepted notion in science. Even today, I’m sure you can find newspaper articles on how evolution is false, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a scientific consensus, or correct.
Yes, the transistor was an unexpected event with century long, society transforming, implications,…
Red Herring. Sure, I can accept that the transistor had a big affect on humanity, but this doesn’t however answer the question of whether you need to know everything in the future to make a plan.
JK: What does that have to do with long range city plans that dictate people’s choices up to 50 years in the future?
Don’t know. You tell me, it was your example.
JK: Sorry, you don’t get to add this back in. I left it out on purpose.
My apologize for reinserting the context that you removed. Even with the context, you still wouldn’t change your behavior, so what’s it matter?
if an computerized astrological projection, based on highly accurate measurements…we should pay attention
Geesh, you’ll pay attention to an astrological projection over an astronomical projection?
JK: Different models. Astronomers are competent, planners are not.
Baseless premise.
JK: Usually, we should not try because the proposed solution is worse than doing nothing. Look at Portland.
Yeah, what a hell hole Portland is. I’m sure the 90,000 people who moved in between 1990 and 2000 agree with you. You wouldn’t happen characterize yourself as an optimist would you?
pdxf said: With this response, you are saying that they had the information, but that they didn’t use it, implying that they could use the information to predict the future conditions (they just didn’t). In the past as well as in your response you have stated that they can’t predict the future conditions (prove you have a crystal ball that works ). It still seems like a contradiction to me.
JK: NO!
Here is what we said:
pdxf said: Again, I don’t really think that this matters. Sure, things are clearer in hindsight, but my point is that there was data available at the time to adequately predict the future of airline usage
JK: But they didn’t act on that information. That is the point – they had the information and didn’t use it.
YOU said they had the data. I SAID that they didn’t act on the data that YOU said they had, indicating yet another failure of planners. All of the facts came from you, I just pointed out that this is yet another occurrence of planner’s failure.
pdxf said:
Yes, the transistor was an unexpected event with century long, society transforming, implications,…
Red Herring. Sure, I can accept that the transistor had a big affect on humanity, but this doesn’t however answer the question of whether you need to know everything in the future to make a plan.
JK: You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is: Can planners collect enough information to make a plan that works. The answer, in the case of airports, is clearly NO. (Of course the question that no planner dares to ask is: “Do people want planners dictating their future lifestyleâ€Â)
The importance of the transistor is that a 40 year plan, in 1960 would have to include today’s computer networks and infrastructure before computers migrated out of the air conditioned rooms.
The importance of the model “T†is that the planners would have to plan for the first freeway before the automobile became a mass market item.
Try this one: How is our rush to pushing high density going to play out after the first terrorist nuke in some high density neighborhood?
pdxf said: Yeah, what a hell hole Portland is. I’m sure the 90,000 people who moved in between 1990 and 2000 agree with you.
JK: Or the 4008 jobs that left downtown in the last 5 years – a truly successful downtown plan.
Thanks
JK