Granice ustaleń planu a granice architektury

Is the border between architects vision and urban planner's vision still existing and where it lays? According to the law, in spatial and urban planning, planners should define architectural form of future development. Their task is also to take care of public interest and quality of public space. It is obvious, that private and public interests are often quite different. Private land owners take care mainly of their own business and rarely are interested in what is out of their property. Because spatial order appears as an important aim of any local plan, it is impossible to achieve it anticipating incoherent, but even best architectural visions of different architects working in the same space. New law contain tools appropriate to implementation and control of architectural forms throughout the whole process of planning, designing and building. What is the price of freedom of creation architectural forms? Should we still pay quality of space we live in for? Those questions are always up to date. Where lays border between architects vision and urban planner's vision? Spatial order is an aim of any local plan; it is impossible to achieve it anticipating incoherent, but even best architectural visions of different architects working in the same space. New law contain tools appropriate to implementation and control of architectural forms. Is quality of space we live in the price paid for freedom of creation architectural forms?