Wajah Kota Apa yang Kita Inginkan? Dapatkah Kita Membuatnya?
Abstract
Since its early history , city planning has dealt with different models of city. At the turn of the twentieth century, it was a discipline of design that focused on how to design the ideal-city. By the mid 1930s, city planning became a discipline of social science that focused on how to pursue the rational comprehensive city. By the early 1960s, on one side, city planning became a discipline of urban process and outcome. By the early 1980s, city planning became a discipline of management science that focused on how to use public money efficiently and effectively for the desired future city. By the early 1990s, city planning became a discipline of information technology that focused on how to provide information for social interaction and social future. By the early 2000s, city planning became a discipline of scientific design that focused on how to design the new urbanism. This paper deals with these different models, and analyzes whether city planners can make the model of the city they want.Downloads
References
Arthur, C.J., ed. 1993. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: The German Ideology. New York, New York: International Publishers.
Brail, Richard K, and Richard E. Klosterman (eds). 2001. Planning Support Systems: Integrating GIS, Models and Visialization Tools. Redlands California: ESRI Press.
Burchell, Robert W. and George Sternlieb. 1979. Planning Theory in the 1980's: A Search for Future Directions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Campbell, Scott and Susan Fainstein, eds. 1996. Readings in Planning Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Chadwick, George. 1971. A Systems View of Planning. New York: Pergamon Press.
Day, Kristen. 2003. New Urbanism and the Challenges of Designing for Diversity. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 23
Davidoff, Paul. 1996. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning Theory. Cambridge, Massahusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Eisinger, Peter. 1997. Theoritical Models in Urban Politics. A Chapter in Urban Politics and Policy in the United States. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Fainstein, Susan S. 2000. New Directions in Planning Theory.
Fainstein, Susan S. 2001. Competitiveness, Cohesion, and Governance: Their Implications for Social Justice. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol 25(4).
Fainstein, Susan S. and Norman Fainstein. 1996. City Planning and Political Values: An Updated View. Cjapter 12 in Campbell, Scott and Susan Fainstein, eds. Reading in Planning Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Faludi, Andreas, ed. 1973. A Reader in Planning Theory. New York: Pergamon Press.
Fishman, Robert. 1996. Urban Utopias: Ebenezer Howard and Le Corbusier.Chapter 2 in Campbell, Scott and Susan Fainstein, eds. Readings in Planning Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Foglesong, Richard E. 1986. Planning the Capitalist City: The Colonial Era to the 1920s. Princeton. New Jerset: Princeton University Press.
Friedmann, John. 1996. Two Centuries of Planning Theory: An Overview. Chapter 1 in Mandelbaum, Seymour J. et. al, eds. Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Galloway, Thomas D. and Riad G. Mahayni. Planning Theory in Retrospect: The Process of Paradigm Change. The Journal of the American Planning Association. January 1977, 62-71.
Hall, Peter. 1988. Cities of Tomorrow. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Harris, Britton. 1996. Planning Technologies and Planning Theories. Chapter 23 in Mandelbaum, Seymour J. et. al. eds. Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Harvey, David. 1989. The Urban Experience. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Judge, David; Gerry Stoker and Harold Wolman, eds. 1995. Theories of Urban Politics. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publication Inc.
Klosterman, Richard E. Fact and Value in Planning. The Journal of the American Planning Association. Spring 1983, 216-225.
Krueckerberg, Donald, ed. 1983. Introduction to Planning History in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Nutgers University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mandelbaum, Seymour J. et. al, eds. 1996. Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Peterson, Jon A. 1983. The City Beautiful Movement: Forgotten Origins and Lost Meanings. Chapter 3 in Krueckeberg, Donald, ed. Introduction to Planning History in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sassen, Saskia. 1994. Cities In a World Economy. Thousand Oaks, Californai: Pine Forge Press.
Squires, Gregory D., ed. 1989. Unequal Partnerships. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Talen, Emily and Cliff Ellis. 2002. Beyond Relativism: Reclaiming the Search for Good City Form. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 22
Wagner, Fritz W.; Timothy E. Joder; and Anthony J. Mumphrey Jr. eds. 1995. Urban Revitalization: Policies and Programs. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.
Wilson, William H. 1983. Moles and Skylarks. Chapter 6 in Krueckerberg, Donald, ed. Introduction to Planning History in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Wilson, William H. 1996. The Glory, Destruction, and Meaning of the City Beautiful Movement. Chapter 3 in Campbell, Scott and Susat Fainstein, eds. Readings in Planning Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Manuscript submitted to JRCP has to be an original work of the author(s), contains no element of plagiarism, and has never been published or is not being considered for publication in other journals. The author(s) retain the copyright of the content published in JRCP. There is no need for request or consultation for future re-use and re-publication of the content as long as the author and the source are cited properly.
