After reading the article from John Lovering, the first impression was that we, even those who are planners, sometimes forget what it means to be a planner and underestimate the importance of proper planning and its impact when practiced on a specific city or a region
The fundamental argument that forms basis of the article is that the Neo-Liberal model which conceptualized and practiced planning for a couple of decades has been crashed. Now, as a planner, the main task is to help transform the physical and social legacies of Neo-liberal urban regeneration into resources for “real development” by converting failed exchange values into viable use values (Lovering, 2009). The article emphasizes the importance of contribution from the planners in achieving the goal.
In the article, the arguments of the author seem to correspond to three fundamental arguments in regards to Neo-liberal approaches to planning. The three fundamental arguments of the author included criticisms of Neo-liberal model of economic policy-making, as well as the planning and planners during the era, and the possible ways to reconstruct through planning.
The article started with criticisms of Neo-liberal model of economic policy-making. In this section, the first argument the author clearly stated that the Neo-liberal model is over, as well as its opportunity-driven pseudo-planning.
According to the author, the “urban regeneration” which the Neo-liberalism supported, is more of a biased term for the urban construction which only created socially questionable and often environmentally harmful developments (Lovering, 2009). Looking at the absence of net growth in global employment during 1990s and 2000s while GDP per capita decreased, it is clear that the urban regeneration failed to regenerate much beyond what they have expected to bring. While withstanding the fact that Neo-liberalism was boom, author stated that economic crisis brought by Neo-liberalism only created personal tragedy and social disturbance especially towards voiceless minorities, by forming hostility towards them (Lovering, 2009).
Beginning with the criticisms of Neo-liberal model of economic policy-making, author continued on making arguments on criticizing blameworthy planning and planners during the era of Neo-liberalism. In the section, author made one fundamental argument regarding Neo-liberalism that formed the basis of all the other arguments in the section. According to the author, Neo-liberalism which now has been crashed was a model of inequity which brought socially, culturally, and environmentally harmful effects, along with economic unsustainability. Partly, it was due to the reduction of planning to primarily a reactive, short-term, and opportunity-driven activity (Lovering, 2009).
The argument from the author in relation to the issue was that both planning and planners have been complicit with the Neo-liberal disaster and the inevitability of the recession, which Neo-liberalism have...