I count architect Andres Duany as a friend who believes in New Urban design but is skeptical of coercive planning. But his book, Suburban Nation (co-written with Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck), advises that “The most effective plans are drawn with such precision that only the architectural detail is left to future designers.”
This is from a section on “Regional Government,” so Duany is clearly advising regional planners to dictate land uses to landowners throughout their regions. Yet it is simply impossible to imagine that planners could do this.
In his classic book on Houston, Land Use Without Zoning, the late Bernard Siegan observed that planners would have to consider “questions of compatibility, economic feasibility, property values, existing uses, adjoining and nearby uses, traffic, topography, utilities, schools, future growth, conservation, and environment.” Before developers invest millions of dollars in a piece of land, they typically spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars doing a market analysis and feasibility study to find out what is the best use of that parcel.
Planners don’t have that kind of money to invest in every parcel in their city or region, yet the job they claim to do is even more formidable than the studies done by developers. Planners say they want to assess externalities, public goods, and all sorts of other things that developers don’t study because they don’t affect the profitability of the development.
Warm Remind: Different people with prostatitis have various reflects cialis prescription on their sexual function, fertile capability. Though many medicines are quoted to be interfering with sexual function but it is relatively difficult viagra sample free to treat, but with the effective treatment of ED. These can all help,” If you think buying them from brick and mortar learningworksca.org buy sildenafil online stores can be little difficult and embarrassing, then you can buy them online from E-commerce sites and get the best deals on them. Moreover, several clinical trial of reliable and trustworthy sildenafil discount learningworksca.org manufacturer. How much data would you need to do a simple transportation plan for a modest city of 100,000 people? Consider how many trips you take per week, how many miles you travel, and how many different destinations you visit. Now multiply that by 100,000. Now add in the externalities that planners claim to account for: pollution, energy costs, safety, congestion. Don’t forget the externalities that planners don’t bother to account for, such as the added worker productivity that comes from increased mobility.
So how many pieces of data is that? Whatever the number, it is obviously overwhelming. And the data requirements for a land-use plan are even greater.
Of course, planners don’t even try to collect this much data. Instead, they rely on gross simplifications. Transportation planners look at all the people driving on a freeway at rush hour and say, “If we had a rail line parallel to this freeway, a lot of people would use it.” What they don’t see is that the cars on that freeway have tens of thousands of different origins and destinations, on a tiny number of which could be served by rail transit.
Meanwhile, Duany’s company has simplified land-use planning by placing all possible uses into a “transect” of six zones: natural, rural, suburban, general urban, urban center, and urban core. While these are slightly different from the traditional six zones of rural, rural residential, single family, multi-family, commercial, and industrial, either system fails to capture all of the potential variety of land uses. Where is exurban residential (perhaps missing because modern planners don’t believe it is legitimate)? Where are urban farms (ditto?)? And why should development follow this particular transect? Why not rural next to urban, suburban next to nature, nature next to an urban core?
The danger with such simplification is that it narrows options. Duany wants planners to leave nothing but the architectural detail to landowners. But he also wants them to fit all developments into just four zones (since natural and rural presumably won’t be developed). Doesn’t that mean that all developments will have to fit into just four different molds? I am sure Duany would say no, but planners have a way of simplifying even the simplifications proposed by the architects who inspire them.
Pingback: » The Antiplanner
Antiplanner:
you’ve got some misconceptions about the transect, which is far more adaptable than you give it credit for. I also take issue with your general worldview, but thats a larger problem.
First, the transect’s primary purpose is to create a scale of development DENSITY. Think of it as a spectrum with dividing lines that create different categories of density(suburban, general urban, urban center, etc.) Since the transect covers the entire spectrum of density, there is no “narrowing of options.” Development can take place at any density, but it gets placed in appropriate locations.
You’d say only the market should make these decisions, but most people realize that the market is not always benevolent. I look at the market like its a car: it will get you where you want to go, but if you don’t steer you’ll end up in the ditch. Have you ever lived in a place like suburban Atlanta? I have, and its profoundly depressing, and I believe the effect of living in these free market paradises have been negative on American culture.
Also, your claim that the transect would not account for exurban residential or urban farms is just wrong. In the transect, “exurban residential” simply becomes a meaningless label. What matters is where it falls on the density scale (in most cases exurban residential is the same as “suburban”).
Similarly the transect could allow for urban farms if desired. There is no rule against placing an “urban center” next to a “rural” designation and skipping over gradations of density if its appropriate for a community.
Antiplanner, I’ll gladly admit that planners have made huge missteps in the past, and won’t be perfect in the future either.
However, I could just as easily devote a website to documenting cases where the unfettered reign of the free market has caused disasters. Complain about planning all you want, but what you are offering is no antidote.
Look at where we are with our reliance on cheap foreign oil compared to where Europe stands. Look at the potential catastrophe of global warming we’ve created. Look at what will happen to the American Dream if gas prices rise to $8 a gallon.
The sprawling living patterns of suburbia and the free market cannot handle such problems. Good planning offers an avenue for creating agreed upon solutions. It also helps account for “quality of life” factors that cannot be quantified.
Beyond these issues is the fact that people support good planning because it can help protect the public interest. This would be a long point to go into, so I won’t. But suffice it to say, planners will continue to improve at helping communities make informed decisions, which is at the heart of democracy. This is just something that the free market cannot accomplish on its own.