In fact, Valentine’s day was yesterday, so you are free to think that the second part of the text is somehow related.
It is common to read on the press that a planning scheme is presented for a given area. It would be naïve (and even unfair) to think that such an activity, which touches such matters as property rights and the construction industry, has no economic implications and can be limited to a prefabricated civic speech. But it would be as naïve to think that urban planning is just an addition of these two matters, even if their weight can sometimes be too hard.
My favourite film in 2006 was “Inside Man”, by Spike Lee. Nothing is what it seems. The bank heist is not really that, and Clive Owen’s gang provide a thought time to a Denzel Washington portraying a cop at the merging point of too many interests. Getting out of the cinema, I felt it was the best film I had ever seen on urban planning, and to a certain degree, it still is. Not because urbanism is mentioned (not a single line), but because the way in which different interests and intents get entangled, in a never clear way (which doesn’t mean that they are outlaw, but just impossible to understand), quite similar to what you can see when making a plan. In fact, the idea of calling Plan an urbanism document is somehow misleading, as the road you get down is too often far from being an ordered sequence of future facts.
So, this is why I sometimes think what I say in the title when reading the press.