Analysis of as new park case study Essay

Analysis of as new park case study Introduction                   The planning process involves developers, communities, engineers, planners, and government. The involvement of all the stakeholders in planning process ensures that a project is positively implemented in the public interests (Carmona, 2010). The new project would commence as an improvement the old city. The old city was widely used by women and children. Although it was developed 30 years ago, it still remained as the best choice for the people living at its vicinity. It formed the best recreation centre for people during warm winter season. The new park would replace the old trees, grass, and build new shades and buildings that would be used to shade people during hot weather. The case involved closed down of the old city for 2 years and relocation of people living around the city to place where there were no social amenities such as schools and recreation centre. The case represents of unethical issues that pertains to urban planning evident through th e developers.                   The ethical issues include closure of the city and denying people their recreational facility. The new park development would deny people a chance to enjoy their recreational facilities, which is professionally unethical to a developer. In addition, the developer would be destroying people’s heritage on old trees and grass. The modern buildings would destroy the old trees and grass heritage in the new park. Moreover, it is not ethical to transfer people from their own comfort zone where they enjoyed social amenities such as schools, parks and other infrastructures such other shopping malls to a place where they no longer enjoy the amenities. The act is believed to on self- interests that do not care about other community. In planning process, it is important for planners and developers to consider professional ethics while executing their city planning so that respect between communities and the affected people is maintained (Allen, 2009).                   In this case, the most probable solution would be first to develop the area where the two communities would be relocated before relocating them. It would be most appropriate if the government could start by developing infrastructures such as roads, schools, hospitals, and recreational centres before displacing people in towns if the new park would not be avoidable. On the other hand, a new park could be developed elsewhere and the old one be renovated to maintain national heritage. Moreover, the old park renovation should not be closed for a long period and should developers should allow people to access the park even under constructions. The renovation of the park would ensure that the national heritage on traditional trees and grass would not be destroyed thus maintain it as way of protecting the countries indigenous species. This would ensure that people are not relocated from their original comfort zone. Consequently, development of area that the two communities were transferred would ensure that the communities’ living standards would not be affected except their geographical shift. The move would maintain the respect between the communities, planners, developers and engineers as their lives will not be affected.                   The solution approach where the planners would ensure that all the social amenities are developed before relocation would ensure that the professional code of ethics on the conscious on the right of a third party would be upheld (American Planning Association, 2009). In addition, the code of ethics on fairly dealing with all the people involved in the process will be highly upheld. However, the value of professional code of ethics on heritage will be violated through electing a new park and indigenous trees will be destroyed. The planners will have made sure that the decision making process involves all the party and thus no one would be negatively affected by the new project. Similarly, the second approach of electing the new park elsewhere would ensure professional code of ethics for planners to ensure social justice and responsibility not to disadvantage people would be upheld. This solution would ensure that people are not relocated and at the same t ime the national heritage is maintained. The value of heritage that is attributed to indigenous trees will be upheld while that of excellence design and updated design will be violated (American Planning Association, 2009).                   Both solutions would minimize the negative impacts of the planning in the city. However, the best solution will be to design and construct the new park elsewhere near the old park. The solutions to planning dispute safeguard the rights of the people and the professional ethics of the planners (Staatskoerant, 2011).The old park can only be renovated so that the heritage of the city will be upheld. Similarly, there would be relocation of people to new areas and thus they will be fairly treated and their lives will not be affected. In addition, the solution will ensure that people are not denied their rights to enjoy themselves during winter. Renovation for the old park could be done during summer when people are not using the park so that they would not be limited access during winter. The move will impact positively to people living there and would retain the respect of communities to developers.                   The solution would limit the planners, developers and engineers from implementing their own design and planning of the city. In addition, the people would not have a chance to enjoy a modern facility. However, there would still be a chance for them to construct a new park elsewhere in the city and increase the number of parks. One that would be rich in heritage and there other one would be modern. Although space and area allocation may be a problem, a new park elsewhere would stand out for this case. Conclusion                   In conclusion, it can be noted that planners, developers and engineers should highly consider professional ethics when carrying out new projects that would impact negatively to the public. All planning processes should involve all stakeholders and fair implementation of the project should be considered to avoid unethical issues that are evidenced in the case of new park development. References Allen, J. (2009).  Event planning: Ethics and etiquette : a principled approach to the business of special event management. Mississauga, Ont: Wiley. American Planning Association,. (2009). AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Planning.org. Retrieved 13 May 2014, from http://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode.htm Carmona, M. (2010). Public places, urban spaces: the dimension of urban design. Oxon: Routledge. Staatskoerant,. (2011). Code of ethics and professional conduct for the urban and regional planning profession. Gov.za. Retrieved 13 May 2014, from http://www.gov.za/documents/download.php?f=147400 Source document