AZ plan wrote:
it does seem good idea to point out the difference between sub-classes in
the UN code (poor ole planning has problem, it is sub-class!) and
implications of other details
gita, i think the issues are slightly larger than the old architecture
versus planning games. they are also slightly more urgent. i think
planning, landscaping and gardening are correctly slotted together and
in the right place anyways. can we take-up this eternal argument some
other time?
letter draft / points to raise would help. I will have a go for planning
(with bit about architecture, legit-ly, as for some curious reason only
limitation to market access for planning is establishment only through
incorporation as partnership firm constituted by Architects!)
again, this is really not about power-plays about planning as such. it
is about the access of international practices in the marketplace. it is
also about some gaps in inter-governmental communications regarding
classifications UN 867xx, which must be explicated immediately or
they'll throw open all 867xx professions anyhow (planning included), and
it'll be a hell of a job correcting the mess - to compete with global
practices in india will change our priorities and the complexion of the
profession a bit.
alright, so probably i will end in speaking to a stone. after all, you
are a planner.
- anand. (who is off to the ministry on monday, will speak privately,
and say planners have hijacked his public conversation with their
power-concerns, sorry!)