Nurmeberg-like trials for urban planners

Submitted by misterconcrete on Thu, 07/03/2008 - 21:57.

Far from the halls of academia, urban planners have been busily rubber-stamping approval of the wholesale destruction of the American landscape for the last century. Every single bit of sprawl and ugliness out there was rubber stamped by a so-called urban planner.

When will these people and this so called profession be held accountable for laying waste to this country? Why was not the sprawl denied and stopped? How long can they hide behind the Constitution and continue to draw a salary?

What is the point of this profession, exactly?

Login or register to post comments
Email this page

Sprawl and Ugliness

Submitted by nolasteve on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 11:18.

I'm not sure that planners and politicians are really to blame for how our cities have formed. I'm pretty sure the automobile, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, and glorification of big front lawns all played a part as well. There are definitely some other social factors involved, but that list is good for now.

I will also say that I'm not so sure that suburbia is bad or ugly. It offers a product that many people are still willing to buy into (almost 60 years after Levittown's completion). Who are we to tell people where and how to live? Economics will change behavior, not the planner's pen. As the price of gasoline rises, you may see more changes in social behavior.

When the time comes for change (and I believe the time is near), planners will be there to provide solutions. Planning is about working with people to give them what they want (safety, privacy, community, employment, transportation, entertainment, etc.) in the best form possible. Planning is certainly NOT about telling people what to do and how to live.

Planners And Sprawl

Submitted by Charles Siegel on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 11:50.

This obviously should not condemn all planning, but if you read the planning theory written from the 1930s through the 1950s, you will see that city planners virtually all agreed that it was a good thing to build freeways and encourage sprawl. This ideas were an over-reaction against the dense urban slums of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and they involved excessive faith in technology and progress (which planners shared with most people at the time). Even Lewis Mumford, who later became one of the early critics of freeways and Levittown, supported freeways and low-density suburbs during the 1930s.

This planning theory was, in good part, responsible for post-war federal policy that supported freeways and neglected public transportation. Planners tended to lead the way because they focussed on the issue, just as planners are now leading the way to transit-oriented development and walkable neighborhoods because they focus on the issue.

These early planners did, in fact, tell people what to do and how to live. Because of this early planning theory, the US spent 25 years after World War II building virtually all new neighborhoods as freeway-oriented sprawl, leaving people with little choice but to live in these neighborhoods. These were the days before public input and before environmental politics, when people generally thought that the experts were most qualified to make this sort of decision.

Charles Siegel

You don't get it, do you?

Submitted by M. Jacobson on Mon, 07/07/2008 - 17:42.

You don't get it, do you? Planners don't make land use decisions they provide analysis and recommendations to the elected officials. Conduct some research and develop an understanding of the profession before you make such statements.

Yes, how dare I state the

Submitted by misterconcrete on Thu, 07/17/2008 - 21:35.

Yes, how dare I state the obvious - that this profession has been complicit in the destruction of the American countryside and landscape? Yes, it was the elected officials, right. What exactly did this profession do to stop suburban sprawl, aside from writing interminable books condemning it? What support did the profession give to the planners in the field who had to stand up to the developers and "elected officials" but couldn't. What support does the profession give to the small proportion of planning students who have been militantly anti-suburban sprawl?

I say, on with the trials and let us be rid of this "profession". It is nothing but a rubber stamp for suburbia, much as 1 part per million of chlorine in your drinking water is OK, because it is approved by the EPA.

It's been my experience that

Submitted by robertesmith on Thu, 11/20/2008 - 09:37.

It's been my experience that things that happen and survive in this country do so because the public wants it and pays for it. Since most local and state governments are still representative of the people, and are driven in part by political will and in larger part by, again, money, we often see things happen and survive that defy common sense or the best protestations of the planning profession.

I'd venture to say the the planners out there have the ability to see a little farther ahead than most when it comes to the impacts of development, and as a profession, have consistently included that messaging in thier reports and analysis. The fact that the decision makers may choose to ignore, or minimize that message is not part of the planner's purview, under the current representational political structure. We are advisors, and it is up to the prince to make the decision.

If you don't like the decisions that are being made, you should elect a new prince, or, perhaps become the prince yourself. If the planners become the princes, they compromise their objectivity and professionalism...it's the nature of the roles within the system. Get involved and make a difference as a prince, work to change the public's opinions and priorities as an activist or priest, or develop the skills to advise the prince when he faces difficult decisions -- but don't tear apart the only system we have without a solution in mind for a better alternative.

Robert E. Smith, AICP
Anvil Partners, LLC
www.anvilpartners.us
http://www.linkedin.com/in/robertesmith

No one wants Private Property Rights legislation so try this.

Submitted by Dano on Fri, 09/19/2008 - 08:36.

Lemme guess: This post is written like someone is either sad about no one voting for anti-zoning...er...private property rights initiatives (if there is such a groundswell, where are they on this year's ballots?), or someone wants to rezone their property and cannot, so they want to eliminate planners. Well bew-hoo-hoo.

Talk about argument from logical fallacy (hasty generalization, conflation, incorrect premise, bare assertion, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, failure to provide burden of proof, take your pick).

For others who may read this thread, one of the main issues in zoning to stop sprawl is regular folk want single-use zoning to protect their property values. So they lobby their Councilperson-American and then the politician directs staff to ensure single-use zoning across 80% of the town for single-fam detached with big yards for the 1.0 child and yellow Labrador retriever, despite the fact that this demographic is far less than half the population. Obsolete parking standards and traffic throughput ideas reinforce the status quo.

As Euclidean zoning goes away, Patriotic Americans will have greater choice in housing and sprawl will slow. That is, provided we can continue to afford housing choices after the economic shakeout subsides.

The neoconservative ideology of "free" markets and little of th' regalayshun has failed for those of us who don't own multinational corporations. We are watching the failure rapidly unfold before our eyes (and the movement of capital upward into the hands of a few), and we all will be paying for it for decades in dollars and reactionary regulation.

Paroxysms such as misterconcrete's forum post are to be expected from this unfolding. Let it go, son, and move on.

Best,

Planning or Practice?

Submitted by JimCity3000 on Thu, 02/19/2009 - 12:40.

Hmmm...Misterconcrete presents an interesting point. Many have taken his comments to mean he's anti-planning; but I get a different impression. He's identified poignant examples of bad development: sprawl, auto-oriented landscapes, etc. He recognizes that there are poor conditions out there, which not only require fixing, but also should have been prevented from the very beginning. It's my assumption that his claim isn't that planning is "bad"; his claim is that it is pointless--given that the result is decades of bad development. Yes, the planning profession has honorable ideals and aspirations to create great communities, and yes, the role of planners is to influence decisions (that don't always get implemented), and yes planners mediate and strive for win-win situations; but he's pointing out (as he sees it, anyway) that despite all of those intentions, the end result is flawed, nevertheless. Whether it's due to market-driven conditions, people's individual spirit, lack of cohesion on the part of decision makers and the planning teams, failure to enforce, etc, he’s questioning planning’s effectiveness. After all, when a philosophy is espoused in text but then doesn't come to fruition in reality--he's posing the question, "what's the point?". I see another question being "Isn't planning's mission futile if it's chasing something it can never truly catch?" Example: City Zoning Codes were once upon a time the size of a pamphlet. Now, they’re crammed into 5" three-ring binders—with no diet in sight.

I'd like to ask Misterconcrete if he'd think differently of the planning profession if planners had an increased ability to influence and to work cohesively with all of the various stakeholders to assure better development? If efficient regulatory measures were in place to ensure that development more closely followed the near-utopian mantra of planners? If everyday people within the community simply did their part to arrive at a better community, to not be ignorant or selfish (like a property owner building a 50' high metal garage in the front yard of his home, one inch from his neighbor's property line)? If planning wasn't so experimental: being pro-highways and suburbia in the '60s, advocating "Urban Renewal", a.k.a, Urban Removal" in the '70s, rallying behind "New Urbanism" in the 90's, and bragging up "Mixed-Use" in the '00's"? It could be argued that planners are merely responding to the times. After all, Euclidian zoning was established due to the sentiments of people at the time--people didn't want to live near differing uses. Nowadays people are flocking to live in Industrial-sectors of town, inside renovated warehouses that abut busy train tracks in downtown lofts...

I agree with the respondents that planners didn't necessarily "create" what exists today--it was definitely a combination of many factors, such as the result of decision makers’ failure to listen to planners, or politics, or money speaking louder than ideals. Regardless, planners ultimately signed off on the plans that created what exists today. Surely, planners have also been key in fixing some of the past mistakes, and planners have helped influence and guide great projects--true gems. Many can point to projects entailing perfect tree-lined walkable neighborhoods, great use of space and social interaction in parks, and fluid inclusive retail areas; however, often times there are equally good examples of those very things which existed well-before the planning profession. So, does it take planning today to create what people got right without planning yesterday? Is it cyclical?

My two cents is that planning is important because, at least now, it advocates for principals that potentially guide the development community in ways that create sustainable, inclusive, community-minded products. Planning is the process that evokes citizen’s input to ensure that the product isn’t just satisfactory or usable by and for a limited few. However, in order to achieve that; and/or, in order to be more successful, it’s going to take more buy-in from other parties, increased vigilance on behalf of the planning profession itself, and a simplified, less-bureaucratic rigmarole of which planning has been stigmatized. Do not rubber stamp a project if you know it has dior future consequences…push for more buy-in and follow the comprehensive/master plan, and simplify processes where you can. Create, don’t react. Less rubber stamping, and more true advocacy may help show Misterconcrete that planning’s not all for not.