Theory + practice

The major reason I get antsy at presentations is that I find that practitioners aren't usually capable of making the theoretical leaps and drawing out the meta-lessons from their work, as excellent as it can be.

I think this is why we don't see a lot of replication of best practices. E.g., my criticism of conferences such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation or the National Main Street Center, is as great as they are, they are at the level of case studies, and the great examples of today aren't much different than the great examples of five years ago...

I had been somewhat derisive of planning "theory" but after poking through many back volumes of the Journal of the American Planning Association (and its predecessor, the Journal of the American Institute of Planners) it's humbling to see how "unoriginal" "my" ideas are--because for the most part, others have made similar points over the years. (Fortunately, I do have a few original ideas here and there.)

I do wonder if the writers are frustrated that much in the way of structural change hasn't occurred?

So I think that most forums and conferences should bring together theoreticians with practitioners. Which probably isn't happening at this conference in Detroit, see "Conference aims to improve Detroit neighborhoods," from the Detroit News. Although I think that the conference is a good idea, and similar to something I have been thinking about for DC and neighborhood commercial district revitalization programs.

Yesterday's presentation was fun, because I get to link theory and practice and a breadth of issues, which the average practitioner doesn't do when presenting.

Index Keywords: urban-revitalization