Here, we go one step further, since we are going to go from what is called classical planning, that I call physical planning of the city, to strategic planning. So we're going to stop the suspense, we are going to give the end of the movie, meaning you will see, we will be talking about physical planing or strategic planning, there is no paradigm shift. We're dealing with the same type of thinking, the same type of tools, we have simply upgraded the questions a little bit, we have opened the box, to go from a rigid physical planning to a planning much more flexible which would bring about the intervention of other players. But, broadly speaking, the purpose, which most of the time, is a plan, is exactly the same. Two definitions of strategic planning. Strategic spatial planning is a process of collective elaboration. There it is, the big news is that there is a participatory process with a number of players who have to be present. And this is a city project carried out by the political power, inevitably, here, we are dealing with classical planning since it was already the case. We define a general framework consisting of general guidelines and principles of action to control the development of an urban area. This is the main objective, it is the mastery of an urban area of the city. That is the French Agency of Development which in one of its documents, which you will find referenced, so all the documents that are used for this type of definition are, of course, referenced. You will be able to see the references, and when there is a PDF link there and free of copyright, the link is of course set and just go click. Strategic planning provides a methodology. Once again, we are dealing with new methods which allow cities to identify the strengths and weaknesses and then we define the strategies for local development. It is the UCLG which gives this definition of strategic planning. We are not going to make more definitions since virtually each donor, each association, has its own definition. The planning aspect means that we are looking to regulate development. It's the very definition of planning. Planning gives us a notion of time, we try to imagine what the city will be in the future and we try to imagine, both spatially and socially what the city will be. We should not confuse planning and programming. Programming would be the operative version under the guise of a number of projects in a plan. Let's keep for planning the idea of frame-working, of mastering a development, in time, both socially and spatially. Urban, why? Because it is located in an area which is the city area. So we are dealing with spatial issues, we are not interested in planning what is not directly spatialized or spatial or that would have an important effect on the spatial aspect of the city. Finally, the concept of strategy, it involves more the question of process, of progress, to achieve a goal that has been given. So behind this, there is not only the objective but the means to achieve this objective which is also important. So the few keywords of this planning. The question of priorities, strategic planning demonstrates what the city priorities are, demonstrates these priorities in time. So there is a notion of perspective. The idea behind this, is that we will distribute resources, we come back to the question of priorities, which resources are used first? What resources do we use second? There is there, behind the idea of of strategic planning a new instrument. We were talking earlier about progress, we were talking about the goal to be achieved, but of the process which allows us to achieve this goal, it's there that there is a new instrument to put in place. A new instrument which is meant, it is the goal of the planning, which is there to coordinate public politics. So we are going to, thanks to this new instrument, transform public action. We must be able to see this in a dynamic question, it allows to coordinate and transform public politics at the same time. It can materialize in the form of drawings, plans, but also regulations or public policies, as we have already said. So the physical planning of the city, this is also what we call sometimes technical planning, in my opinion, too reducing as a term, it's what some call classical planning, allowing for the assumption or understanding that it's the old version of planning and that strategic planning would come on the scene as something extremely new, there, in the middle. We have seen it earlier, there is nothing new in the strategy. We saw it earlier, there is nothing new in the strategic urban planning tool. There are new things that happen but there is no real paradigm shift. So planning, for me, is not classical but it is what I call the physical planning of the city. This planning, it's here for, both mastering the different uses or the land uses and at the same time, to manage the distance between these uses. It is a very reductive drawing, but it's true that this drawing started from a quantification of the elements. So there is of course, behind this an idea to quantify things, an idea of modeling things, to be able to, in this way, imagine their future. So, physical planning, also known as technocratic, also known as technical, that is known to be flexible, finally, it's what we wanted to put there. Indeed, the plans are relatively rigid, but nothing used to stop us before, the invention of strategic planning to make documents or to make tools that were much more flexible. But it is clear that there is something much more static. And what we look for then, is to go to something that is flexible which corresponds much better to the city's rapid changes. We'll start, of course, from the question of the new urban situation. So each time that we want to justify a new instrument, we must of course say that the situation has changed, which is, in this case is true, really, this doesn't even truly change, there are few paradigm shifts. On the other hand, there is an acceleration of changes. And we visibly have a change of scale, where we have gone from municipal management to a management of towns and cities. A change of scale, which doesn't mean that the administrative network has already changed. Most of the time, we are still dealing with municipalities, a number of municipalities can form an urban community, or a district but it's rare that we have an entire town that would be treated as a single and unique city. We have a redistribution of powers due to decentralization. So, often a power has been decentralized, the financial means have never or very rarely been decentralized, which raises another concern. We have in the context of globalization, new centralities that appear, so this is effectively a fairly recent situation. We have seen with global cities, there is competition of a number of cities. The role of the civil society that has increased, the civil society will also get an input. The emergence of new players who are particularly private players. So it's quite interesting to see that they are considered as new players in the African cities or in the European cities. If we consider urban planning in the USA, we realize that the city development, particularly New York was made with private players. So in the USA, it's something very old. In Europe, in Africa it's something much newer, to take into account private players. In summary, the strategic planning has an objective, the improvement of quality of life, evidently, this is not new either, this objective. An objective, finally, little innovative since it is the same in almost all the cities. With behind this, notions of equity of area of social equity, but it's about this, the main objective is the improvement of the quality of life of all of the residents of the city. It's very important, the last part, all of the residents of the city. If the goal, if the objective, remains classical, it's also a process, it's an instrument that takes a different shape since we are really dealing with a planning process with the new players as well as the private ones, civil society, all of these people are player who become important in planning. So we have a goal that remains the same, since the dawn of time, in the end, the improvement of quality of life is what we're looking for. But we also have an instrument that becomes dynamic since it's no longer a finality but it becomes an entire process. Finally the shape of the instrument, it is flexible, simple and finally modifiable rather quickly in time. So in summary we have a new scale of area, new players, we have new themes, new thematics and all this shapes an instrument that's called strategic urban planning. To conclude, some drawbacks to this strategic planning, which seems to throw everything which was before, quantitative, we have gone from a quantification of area to a qualification of area by throwing the quantification, I think that precisely a smart tool should use the two, so it is not against the other. Strategic planning gives the impression that it no longer wants to address things from a model perspective, quantitative, but above all with qualitative aspects. I think they are actually very important, but we need both. Again when we want to believe something is completely new, we minimize what has already been done before to the point of caricaturing, for this also there is a mistake, there is a considerable bias because we cannot say that we are dealing with something totally new, it is just reflections that go a little further, that take on a few more player legitimately, it's fine but we are not going to say that nothing was happening and that nothing was done before. So we are really dealing with strategic planning not being a rupture but fits exactly in the continuity and it should not be made to believe that before this there was nothing and that today we found a solution, it's absolutely not the case. The proof is that the shape tool remains a plan, a regulation, so this is the unsurpassable framework that even strategic planning has not suceeded in surpassing, not succeeded in proposing something new, it's important to understand it, and there is behind this, a very important point that I would like to highlight today. In the global cities theories, we have seen it, the cities play on the competition with each other. And we have seen that for this there needs to be a concentration of powers. In each city which has wanted to become a global city, we have seen a reconcentration of powers with a small group that had their hands free to play on this competition. Yet what strategic planning proposes today is exactly the opposite. It's that this power be given to the greatest number, that we have a maximum of players. So it's necessary to know that on one side we have an opening, it's the strategic urban planning and on the other side global cities so as to be able to play on the competition, we realize that they have to re-centralize the powers and designate their actions and their plannings according to these global objectives. So there is here a major paradox with two situations that do not lead at all to the same type of city. So if we wanted to continue to caricature a little more, we would say that if the African cities absolutely want to become global cities, play a role in the international scene, there must be above all strategic planning or rather the planning method needs to be drastically changed and the powers re-centered to propose a planning that is directly in total agreement with the competition objective with the other cities. I am not placing any value judgement on this, I am not saying it needs to be one more than the other, one must simply be conscious that it will not result in the same objectives. There it is, we stop here for strategic urban planning. I look forward to seeing you in the next video.
