catalogimages.wiley.com › images › db › pdf › 9780471475811… · 4 Plan Making PART 1...

Part 1

PLANS AND PLAN MAKING

Plan Making

Types of Plans

Participation

Planning Movements

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 1

COPYRIG

HTED M

ATERIAL

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 2

Plan Making 3

PLAN MAKING

A plan is an adopted statement of policy, in the formof text, maps, and graphics, used to guide public andprivate actions that affect the future. A plan providesdecision makers with the information they need tomake informed decisions affecting the long-rangesocial, economic, and physical growth of a commu-nity. This section provides an overview of plan makingas applied to a wide variety of plan types.

PURPOSES AND APPLICATIONSOF PLANS

Plans are used when making decisions concerningthe future of an area or of a specific topic under con-sideration. For example, a plan may be used toidentify:

• Housing needs—and recommend a program tomeet them

• Transportation needs—and propose alternative sys-tems and modes to meet them

• Open-space preservation areas—and present mech-anisms to protect these areas permanently

• Priority investment areas—and recommend pro-grams to stimulate growth

• Strategies for a specific area, such as a downtown,corridor, or neighborhood

Some specific applications of plans include:

• Providing residents, local officials, and others withan interest in the area with an overview and pro-jection of development and conservation in theplanning area, along with a summary of trends andforecasts.

• Serving as the basis for the local government enact-ing and administering regulatory measures, such aszoning and subdivision laws, and establishingurban growth boundaries.

• Serving as the basis for making budget allocationsfor capital improvements, such as parks, utility sys-tems, and streets.

• Serving as the basis for many other public programs,such as those relating to growth management, historicpreservation, economic development, transportationsystems, and open-space preservation, for example.

PLAN AUTHORITY

Plans may be expressly authorized or required bystatute or administrative rule, depending on the type ofplan and the state in which the community is located.For example, every state has its own planning statutes,one part of which authorizes or requires communitiesto prepare a comprehensive plan, referred to in somestates as general or master plans. The statute specifieswhich elements are included in the plan and theprocess required for developing and adopting it. Statesalso often use their administrative rule-making powersto further specify, refine, and interpret the statute.

In addition to state planning statutes, federal andstate programs established by law sometimes require

PLAN MAKING

PLAN MAKING

Larz T. Anderson, AICP, Santa Rosa, CaliforniaWilliam R. Klein, AICP, American Planning Association, Chicago, IllinoisStuart Meck, FAICP, American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois

The process of plan making should be viewed as a continuous cycle.There are interrelationships among the phases ofthe planning process. Information gained at a later phase can inform the outcome of an earlier phase. It is important torecognize the iterative nature of planning and to allow for continuous cycling to occur.

THE PLANNING PROCESS Reprinted with permission from Guidelines for Preparing Urban Plans, copyright 1995 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

1. Identify Issuesand OptionsIdentify New Issues 2. StateG

oals, Objectives

andPriorities

ReviseO

bjectives

andPriorities

3. Collect

andInterpret

Data

Collect

New

Data

asN

eeded

Revise

Plans

4. Prep

arePla

nsRevise Draft of

5. Draft Programs for

Implementation Program

Plan Implementation

Evaluate Impacts of

6. Evaluate Impacts

Revised Plans and Programsof Plans and

Implementation Programs

7.Re

view

and

Ado

ptPl

ans

8.Re

view

and

Adop

t

Impl

emen

tatio

nPr

ogra

ms

Am

end

Impl

emen

tatio

n

9.Administe

r Implementation

Programs

Eval

uate

Impa

cts o

f Imple

mentation Programs

Prog

ram

s

Basic Cycle of the Planning Process

Recycling Steps That Are Frequently Added to the Planning Process

EXAMPLES OF PLANS AUTHORIZED OR REQUIRED BY STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTEPLAN TYPE STATUTE JURISDICTION Conservation Element Florida Statutes Sec. 163.3177(6)(d) FloridaEconomic Development Element R.I. Gen. Laws Sec. 45-22.2-6(4) Rhode IslandHazard Mitigation Plan 42 U.S. Code Sec. 5133 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)Housing Assistance Plan Cal. Gov’t. Code Secs. 65580 to 65589.8 CaliforniaHousing Element N.J. Statutes Annotated Sec. 52:27D-310 New JerseyLand Use Element Kentucky Rev. Statutes Sec. 100.187(3) Kentucky Transit-Oriented Development Plan Cal. Gov’t Code Secs. 65460 to 65460.10 CaliforniaTransportation Improvement Program 49 U.S. Code Sec. 5304 U.S. Department of Transportation

Source: American Planning Association, 2004.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 3

4 Plan Making

PART 1 PLANS AND PLAN MAKING

and relationships that appear to have a direct rele-vancy to the subject of the plan, hence to the strategy.Consequently, these plans are more focused and canusually be completed more quickly and with fewerresources.

Community InvolvementThe issues, findings, and recommendations of a planshould take into account the knowledge and concernsof existing residents, businesses, and other interests inthe planning area, and the anticipated concerns ofthose interests in the future. Issues to consider arethose with a connection to local, regional, statewide,and even global matters. Consequently, an importantscoping task is the creation of a legitimate and effec-tive process for involving a wide variety of interests inthe preparation of a plan. Successful public involve-ment processes are designed to fit the unique contextof the plan.

In-House versus OutsourcingWho should prepare a plan? Choices typically includein-house staff, outside consultants, community-basednongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or volun-teers, or a combination. The best mix results from arealistic assessment of in-house staff capacity in termsof hours and expertise available, funds available foroutside consultant services, and the capacity to trainand lead an NGO or volunteer effort.

Binding Plans are officially adopted or endorsed by a govern-mental body and thereby become a statement of itspolicies. Depending on the state and type of local orregional governance structure, the governmentalbody may be the local legislative body, the planningboard or commission, a council of governments, orregional planning agency. Occasionally, plans areadopted by nonprofit regional planning organizationsfor the benefit of the public they serve, such as theregional plans prepared by the Regional PlanAssociation for the New York metropolitan area orChicago Metropolis 2020 for the Chicago region.

BASIC PLAN STRUCTURE

The structure of a plan usually consists of two basiccomponents: a core, followed by a number of ele-ments. The specific contents of a plan depend uponnumerous factors, such as the type of plan being pre-pared, the purpose of the plan, and the scope beingaddressed. Consult the chapter on types of plans forinformation on plan contents for specific types ofplans.

The Plan CoreThe core includes the following:

• A statement of authority to prepare and adopt plan • Background data, including area history, existing

conditions and trends, and data projections• Documentation of stakeholder interests and stake-

holder involvement process• A vision statement or statement of goals and objec-

tives for future conditions• An evaluation of plan and design alternatives• A program of implementation

The Plan ElementsThe elements of a plan consider, specifically, the plan’svarious topics. The elements that must be includeddepend upon the plan’s purpose. For a comprehensiveplan, the land use, transportation, housing, and com-munity facilities elements are considered essential—theyform the foundation of the comprehensive plan. Otherelements are added as considered to be appropriate,based on the plan’s scope and as required by state law.

Elements frequently included in a comprehensiveplan or often prepared as separate functional plansinclude the following:

• Economic development• Historic preservation • Natural hazards• Farmland preservation• Parks, recreation, and open space• Urban design

GOALS, OBJECTIVES,ANDASSUMPTIONS

Universal to all plans is an identification of the goals,objectives, and assumptions of the plan. Reachingconsensus on these three components is often quitedifficult, if not impossible. Sometimes, agreement canbe reached only in the broadest of terms; often, par-ticipants reach “incremental” agreement usingnegotiation and compromise. Intensive communica-tion between those preparing the plan and thestakeholders is required here.

Goals A goal is a statement that describes, usually in gen-eral terms, a desired future condition.

Objectives A set of measurable objectives should accompany thegoals established for the plan. An objective is a state-ment that describes a specific future condition to beattained within a stated period of time. Typically,these objectives are more numerous than the goals,and they are organized according to the topics in thegoals statement.

Several questions can be asked at the outset of theplanning process to determine the objectives of thecommunity. Examples of such questions include:

• What type of development pattern do the stake-holders want?

• What type of transportation system and networkdoes the community want?

• What forms of housing do stakeholders want in thecommunity?

• What program of uses do stakeholders want for thedowntown area?

The effort to create and evaluate objectives foreach of the broader goals can be instructive for com-munities and planners, helping all to understand theimplications of goal setting as applied in a planningand implementation process.

Assumptions An assumption is a statement of present or futureconditions describing the physical, social, or eco-


that plans of a certain kind be prepared as a condi-tion for participation in the program. The table hereincludes examples of plans authorized or required bystate or federal statute.

For the most part, however, many types of plansare not expressly authorized or required in state orfederal statutes. Examples include many types of areaplans, such as neighborhood plans, corridor plans,and downtown plans, and some types of functionalplans, such as parks and open-space plans, bikeroute plans, and urban forest plans. The content andformat of these plans, and many others like them, areguided primarily by professional planning practice.They also represent the kinds of plans for whichthere is a great deal of variation in form and content.

PLAN INNOVATION

Although state planning statutes and federal and stateregulations provide general guidance about plan con-tent and process for some plans, plans can varygreatly from the prescribed themes. In recent years,planners have begun to break away from tradition byreinventing what plans look like and do, shaping theform of plans to fit the unique content and processrequirements of the community.

Moreover, some of the most exciting and effectiveplans in recent years take advantage of new ways ofthinking about what a plan should contain and how itcan be presented. Interactive electronic participation,benchmarking, Web-based plans, scenario analysisand modeling, and visualization techniques are a fewof the new components and techniques found inplans today. Many of these innovations are featured inthe plans described in the first part of this book.

An essential first step of any planning effort is todetermine the plan’s content, format, and process.The degree to which a planner crafts a plan to meetthe unique needs of a situation, time, and place willdetermine whether a plan results in positive out-comes in the real world. An appendix to this bookprovides a list of award-winning plans to illustrate thebreadth and scope of innovative plan making today.

SCOPING CONSIDERATIONSThe subsections to follow comprise a general check-list of some of the most basic considerations to keepin mind when determining the scope of any plan.

Time FrameWhat is the time period covered by the plan? Plansalmost always cover a time span of longer than ayear, and usually address a period between 5 yearsand 20 years. The time period may be determined bystatute or by the subject matter and process.

COMPREHENSIVE VERSUS STRATEGIC

Are all topics covered or just those important to thechosen strategy? Plans that employ a comprehensiveapproach consider a broad range of topics related tothe area or function of the plan, even if some topicsare only relevant in a minor way. Plans with a com-prehensive orientation are sometimes more generalin their treatment of a wide variety of subjects, pro-viding depth only when needed. Alternatively, planswith a strategic approach consider only the topics

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 4


Plan Making 5

PLAN MAKING

DOCUMENT STRUCTURE

Whether published on paper, as a series of posters,or on the Web, it is important to create a clear, usableplan document. When creating a plan document,consider the reader’s needs. The document shouldclearly reflect the planning process and serve as auseful tool for future users.

Name of the PlanIdentify a name for the plan that is simple, sensible,and incorporates the planning area or topic name.

Table of ContentsProvide a table of contents so that readers find theplan easy to use and can go directly to a topic of par-ticular interest. Include tables and figures in the tableof contents.

Time FrameProvide the dates of all pertinent planning milestones,such as initiation of the planning process, completionof the first draft, and when certain benchmarks mightbe achieved. This information gives readers a senseof the plan’s progression, shows investment in theplanning process, and provides the plan’s full timespan. Include the plan adoption date on the frontcover or title page.

AcknowledgmentsInclude an acknowledgments page that lists thenames, titles, and affiliations of individuals who con-tributed to the production of the plan.

Glossary/Terminology KeyA glossary can explain technical or local jargon andacronyms, and describe unfamiliar places.

See also:Analysis TechniquesImplementation TechniquesParticipation Types of Plans

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR BALANCEDGROWTH: NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS

Goal A: Open Space AcquisitionTo establish and manage a communitywide net-work of publicly and privately held open spacesintended to protect critical land and waterresources, habitat, and scenic vistas, while afford-ing reasonable access consistent with a policy ofwise stewardship.

Goal B: Protection of Water ResourcesTo protect the quality and quantity of the commu-nity’s groundwater and surface water resources.

Goal C: Growth ManagementTo better manage the design, location, and rate ofnew residential and commercial development in amanner that: protects important natural and cul-tural resources; encourages development in ornear village centers; promotes and preserves thevitality of the downtown; is compatible with thecommunity’s historic character; minimizes depen-dence on the automobile; and creates opportunitiesfor affordable housing.

Goal D:TransportationTo provide a transportation system that will movepeople and goods to, from, and through the com-munity in a way that is safe, convenient,economical, and consistent with the community’shistoric, scenic, and natural resources.

Goal E:Affordable HousingTo promote the development and retention ofaffordable housing for families, individuals, andthe elderly.

Goal F:The EconomyTo strengthen and diversify the local economy.

Goal G: Energy and UtilitiesTo provide energy and utility services to the com-munity in a manner that is affordable, efficient,effective, and environmentally safe.

Goal H: Human ServicesTo facilitate, sustain, and improve the health, edu-cation, and well-being of all persons in thecommunity by providing those public and privatehuman services that will improve the quality of lifefor all age groups.

Source: Nantucket Planning and Economic DevelopmentCommission, 1990.

TYPICAL DATA NEEDS FOR PLANPREPARATIONMAPS AND IMAGESBase maps Aerial photographsGIS map layers

NATURAL ENVIRONMENTClimate TopographySoilsVegetationWater featuresHabitat areasNatural hazards

EXISTING LAND USESResidentialCommercialIndustrialInstitutional Open-space landsVacant urban landsFarmlands

HOUSINGInventory of housingHousing conditionVacancy rateAffordability

TRANSPORTATIONStreet networkStreet capacityTraffic flow volumesParking supply and demandTransit facilities by modeBicycle networksPedestrian networks

PUBLIC UTILITIESWater supplyWastewater disposalStormwater managementSolid waste managementTelecommunication services

COMMUNITY SERVICES Administrative centersEducation facilitiesParks and recreation facilitiesHealth servicesPublic safety facilities

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENTPopulation size Population characteristicsVital statisticsLabor force characteristics

LOCAL ECONOMYEmploymentRetail salesCost of living

SPECIAL TOPICSHistoric sites and buildingsArchaeological sitesUrban design featuresExisting zoning

nomic setting within which the plan is to be used. Atthe outset of the process, it is necessary to identify thebasic assumptions concerning the planning area.

On the local level, these can include the acceptedboundaries of urban growth, the probable rate ofgrowth, and the desired general character of thecommunity, for example. At a larger scale, it is alsousually desirable to state assumptions concerningnational and regional economic trends. Where cur-rent research data are not available, it can be essentialto state and obtain agreement on a set of workingassumptions for the particular planning effort.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 5

6 Comprehensive Plans


The comprehensive plan is the adopted official state-ment of a local government’s legislative body forfuture development and conservation. It sets forthgoals; analyzes existing conditions and trends;describes and illustrates a vision for the physical,social, and economic characteristics of the commu-nity in the years ahead; and outlines policies andguidelines intended to implement that vision.

Comprehensive plans address a broad range ofinterrelated topics in a unified way. A comprehensiveplan identifies and analyzes the important relation-ships among the economy, transportation,community facilities and services, housing, the envi-ronment, land use, human services, and othercommunity components. It does so on a community-wide basis and in the context of a wider region. Acomprehensive plan addresses the long-range futureof a community, using a time horizon up to 20 yearsor more. The most important function of a compre-hensive plan is to provide valuable guidance to thosein the public and private sector as decisions are madeaffecting the future quality of life of existing andfuture residents and the natural and built environ-ments in which they live, work, and play.

All states have enabling legislation that eitherallow, or require, local governments to adopt com-prehensive plans. In some states, the enablinglegislation refers to them as general plans(California, Maryland, and Arizona, for example), ormaster plans (Colorado). Most state-enabling legisla-tion describes generally what should be included ina comprehensive plan. However, several states,including Oregon and Florida, detail the content ofplans through administrative rules promulgated by astate agency.

REASONS TO PREPARE ACOMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Local governments prepare comprehensive plans fora number of reasons, which are described in the fol-lowing subsections.

View the “Big Picture” The local comprehensive planning process providesa chance to look broadly at programs on housing,economic development, public infrastructure andservices, environmental protection, and natural andhuman-made hazards, and how they relate to oneanother. A local comprehensive plan represents a“big picture” of the community related to trends andinterests in the broader region and in the state inwhich the local government is located.

Coordinate Local Decision MakingLocal comprehensive planning results in the adoptionof a series of goals and policies that should guide thelocal government in its daily decisions. For instance,the plan should be referred to for decisions aboutlocating, financing, and sequencing public improve-ments, devising and administering regulations such as

zoning and subdivision controls, and redevelopment.In so doing, the plan provides a way to coordinatethe actions of many different agencies within localgovernment.

Give Guidance to Landowners andDevelopersIn making its decisions, the private sector can turnto a well-prepared comprehensive plan to get somesense of where the community is headed in termsof the physical, social, economic, and transporta-tion future. Because comprehensive planningresults in a statement of how local governmentintends to use public investment and land develop-ment controls, the plan can affect the decisions ofprivate landowners.

Establish a Sound Basis in Fact forDecisionsA plan, through required information gathering andanalysis, improves the factual basis for land-use deci-sions. Using the physical plan as a tool to inform andguide these decisions establishes a baseline for pub-lic policies. The plan thus provides a measure ofconsistency to governmental action, limiting thepotential for arbitrariness.

Involve a Broad Array of Interests in aDiscussion about the Long-Range FutureLocal comprehensive planning involves the activeparticipation of local elected and appointed officials,line departments of local government, citizens, thebusiness community, nongovernmental organiza-tions, and faith-based groups in a discussion aboutthe community’s major physical, environmental,social, or economic development problems andopportunities. The plan gives these varied interests anopportunity to clarify their ideas, better envisioningthe community they are trying to create.

Build an Informed Constituency The plan preparation process, with its related work-shops, surveys, meetings, and public hearings,permits two-way communication between citizensand planners and officials regarding a vision of thecommunity and how that vision is to be achieved. Inthis respect, the plan is a blueprint reflecting sharedcommunity values at specific points in time. Thisprocess creates an informed constituency that can beinvolved in planning initiatives, review of proposalsfor plan consistency, and collaborative implementa-tion of the plan.

PLAN ELEMENTS

The scope and content of state planning legislationvaries widely from state to state with respect to itstreatment of the comprehensive plan. The AmericanPlanning Association has developed model stateplanning legislation in its Growing SmartSM LegislativeGuidebook (2002).

Required and Optional ElementsThe guidebook suggests a series of required elementsand optional elements. Required elements include:

• Land use • Transportation• Community facilities (includes utilities and parks

and open space)• Housing• Economic development• Critical and sensitive areas• Natural hazards• Agricultural lands

Optional elements addressing urban design, publicsafety, and cultural resources, for instance, may alsobe included. Moreover, the suggested functional ele-ments are not intended to be rigid and inflexible.Participants in the plan process should tailor the for-mat and content of the comprehensive plan to thespecific needs and characteristics of their community.

According to the guidebook, comprehensive plansshould include two “bookend” items: an issues andopportunities element at the beginning in order to setthe stage for the preparation of other elements, andan implementation program at the end that proposesmeasures, assigns estimated costs (if feasible), andassigns responsibility for carrying out proposed meas-ures of the plan. The level of detail in theimplementation program will vary depending onwhether such actions will be addressed in specificfunctional plans.

Issues and Opportunities ElementThe issues and opportunities element articulates thevalues and needs of citizens and other affected inter-ests about what the community should become. Thelocal government then interprets and uses those val-ues and needs as a basis and foundation for itsplanning efforts.

An issues and opportunities element should con-tain seven items:

• A vision or goals and objectives statement• A description of existing conditions and character-

istics • Analyses of internal and external trends and forces• A description of opportunities, problems, advan-

tages, and disadvantages• A narrative describing the public participation

process • The legal authority or mandate for the plan • A narrative describing the connection to all the

other plan elements

Vision or Goals and Objectives StatementThis statement is a formal description of what thecommunity wants to become. It may consist solely ofbroad communitywide goals, may be enhanced bythe addition of measurable objectives for each of thegoals, or may be accompanied by a narrative or illus-

Stuart Meck, FAICP, American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois

TYPES OF PLANSCOMPREHENSIVE PLANS

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 6

Comprehensive Plans 7

TYPES OF PLANS

tration that sets a vision of the community at the endof the plan period.

Existing Conditions and CharacteristicsDescriptionThis description creates a profile of the community,including relevant demographic data, pertinent histori-cal information, existing plans, regulatory framework,and other information that broadly informs the plan.Existing conditions information specific to a plan ele-ment may be included in that element’s within the plan.

Trends and Forces DescriptionThis description of major trends and forces is what thelocal government considered when creating the visionstatement and considers the effect of changes forecastfor the surrounding region during the planning period.

Opportunities, Problems,Advantages, andDisadvantages The plan should include a statement of the majoropportunities, problems, advantages, and disadvan-tages for growth and decline affecting the localgovernment, including specific areas within its juris-diction. This is often referred to as a SWOTanalysis—a description of strengths, weaknesses,opportunities, and threats.

Public ParticipationThis summary of the public participation proceduresdescribes how the public was involved in developingthe comprehensive plan.

Legal Authority or MandateThis brief statement describes the local government’slegal authority for preparing the plan. It may includea reference to applicable state legislation or a munic-

ipal charter. Summaries of past planning activitiesmay be included here (if not included in existing con-ditions discussion).

Connection to Other ElementsThe implications of the local government’s vision onother required and/or optional elements of the local

comprehensive plan, including the potential changesin implementation measures, should be described inthis concluding section.

The Land-Use ElementThe land-use element shows the general distribution,location, and characteristics of current and future landuses and urban form. In the past, comprehensiveplans included color-coded maps showing exclusiveland-use categories, such as residential, commercial,industrial, institutional, community facilities, openspace, recreational, and agricultural uses.

Many communities today use sophisticated land-useand land-cover inventories and mapping techniques,employing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) andnew land-use and land-cover classification systems.These new systems are better able to accommodate themultidimensional realities of urban form, such as mixed-use and time-of-day/seasonal-use changes. Form andcharacter are increasingly being used as important com-ponents of land-use planning, integrating the manyseparate components into an integrated land-use form.

One example of a process that can be used to cre-ate such multidimensional mapping is the system ofLand-Based Classification Standards (LBCS), devel-oped by the American Planning Association (APA).This system creates a current land-use map using anumber of data sources, including orbital and subor-bital remotely sensed data, tax assessor records, U.S.Geological Survey quadrangle maps, soils maps, andother county or state mapping data, which are field-checked on the ground. See pages C-1 to C-6 of thecolor insert for the LBCS color codes.

Future Land-Use MapFuture land uses and their intensity and density areshown on a future land-use map. The land-use allo-cations shown on the map must be supported byland-use projections linked to population and eco-nomic forecasts for the surrounding region and tied tothe assumptions in a regional plan, if one exists. Suchcoordination ensures that the plan is realistic. Theassumptions used in the land-use forecasts, typicallyin terms of net density, intensity, other standards orratios, or other spatial requirements or physical deter-minants, are a fundamental part of the land-useelement. This element must also show lands that havedevelopment constraints, such as natural hazards. Seepages C-7 and C-8 of the color insert for examples.

Land-Use Projections The land-use element should envision all land-useneeds for a 20-year period (or the chosen time framefor the plan), and all these needs should be designatedon the future land-use plan map. If this is not done,the local government may have problems carrying outthe plan. For example, if the local government receivesapplications for zoning changes to accommodate usesthe plan recognizes as needed, the locations wherethese changes are requested are consistent with whatis shown on the land-use plan map.

The Transportation ElementThe modern transportation element commonlyaddresses traffic circulation, transit, bicycle routes,ports, airports, railways, recreation routes, pedestrianmovement, and parking. The exact content of a trans-portation element differs from community tocommunity depending on the transportation context


EconomicDevelopment

Critical andSensitive Areas

AgriculturalLands

Issues andOpportunities Implementation

NaturalHazards

LandUse Housing Community

FacilitiesTransportation

ComprehensivePlan

OptionalElements

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTSSource: American Planning Association.

SAMPLE VISION STATEMENT:OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

The Vision for OaklandIn the year 2015, Oakland will be a safe, healthy,and vital city offering a high quality of life through:

• a dynamic economy that taps into Oakland’sgreat economic potential and capitalizes on itsphysical and cultural assets;

• clean and attractive neighborhoods rich in char-acter and diversity, each with its own distinctiveidentity, yet well integrated into a cohesiveurban fabric;

• a diverse and vibrant downtown with around-the-clock activity;

• an active and accessible waterfront that is linkedto downtown and the neighborhoods, and thatpromotes Oakland’s position as a leading UnitedStates port and a primary regional and interna-tional airport;

• an efficient transportation system that serves theneeds of all its citizens and that promotesOakland’s primacy as a transportation hub con-necting the Bay Area with the Pacific Rim andthe rest of the United States; and

• awareness and enjoyment of Oakland’s magnif-icent physical setting—hills, views, water,estuary—in every district and neighborhood.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 7

8 Comprehensive Plans


of the community and region. Proposals for trans-portation facilities occur against a backdrop offederally required transportation planning at the stateand regional levels.

The transportation element considers existing andcommitted facilities, and evaluates them against a setof service levels or performance standards to deter-mine whether they will adequately serve futureneeds. Of the various transportation facilities, the traf-fic circulation component is the most common, and amajor thoroughfare plan is an essential part of this. Itcontains the general locations and extent of existingand proposed streets and highways by type, function,and character of improvement.

Street Performance In determining street performance and adequacy,planners are employing other approaches in additionto or instead of level-of-service standards that morefairly measure a street’s performance in movingpedestrians, bikes, buses, trolleys, and light rail, andfor driving retail trade, in addition to moving cars.This is especially true for urban centers, where sev-eral modes of travel share the public realm across theentire right-of-way, including adjacent privatelyowned “public” spaces. Urban design plans for theentire streetscape of key thoroughfares can augmentthe transportation element. In addition, it is becomingincreasingly common for the traffic circulation com-ponent of a comprehensive plan to include a streetconnectivity analysis. The degree to which streetsconnect with each other affects pedestrian movementand traffic dispersal.

Thoroughfare PlanThe thoroughfare plan, which includes a plan map, isused as a framework for roadway rehabilitation,improvement, and signalization. It is a way of identi-fying general alignments for future circulationfacilities, either as part of new private development oras new projects undertaken by local government.Other transportation modes should receive compara-ble review and analysis, with an emphasis on needsand systems of the particular jurisdiction and onmeeting environmental standards and objectives forthe community and region. Typically, surface andstructured parking, bikeways, and pedestrian waysshould also be covered in the transportation element.

TransitA transit component takes into consideration bus andlight rail facilities, water-based transit (if applicable),and intermodal facilities that allow transportationusers to transfer from one mode to another. The typesand capacities of future transit service should belinked to work commute and nonwork commutedemands as well as to the applicable policies and reg-ulations of the jurisdiction and its region.

The Transportation/Land-Use RelationshipThe relationship between transportation and landuse is better understood today and has become adominant theme in the transportation element. Forinstance, where transit exists or is proposed,opportunities for transit-oriented developmentshould be included; where increased densities areessential, transit services might need to beimproved or introduced. This would also be cov-ered in the land-use element.

The Community Facilities ElementThe term “community facilities” includes the physicalmanifestations of governmental or quasi-governmen-tal services on behalf of the public. These includebuildings, equipment, land, interests in land, such aseasements, and whole systems of activities. The com-munity facilities element requires the localgovernment to inventory and assess the conditionand adequacy of existing facilities, and to propose arange of facilities that will support the land-use ele-ment’s development pattern.

The element may include facilities operated bypublic agencies and those owned and operated byfor-profit and not-for-profit private enterprises for thebenefit of the community, such as privately ownedwater and gas facilities, or museums. Some commu-nity facilities have a direct impact on wheredevelopment will occur and at what scale—water andsewer lines, water supply, and wastewater treatmentfacilities, for example. Other community facilities mayaddress immediate consequences of development.For example, a stormwater management system han-dles changes in the runoff characteristics of land as aconsequence of development.

Still other facilities are necessary for the publichealth, safety, and welfare, but are more supportivein nature. Examples in this category would includepolice and fire facilities, general governmental build-ings, and elementary and secondary schools. A finalgroup includes those facilities that contribute to thecultural life or physical and mental health and per-sonal growth of a local government’s residents. Theseinclude hospitals, clinics, libraries, and arts centers.

Operation by Other Public AgenciesSome community facilities may be operated by pub-lic agencies other than the local government. Suchagencies may serve areas not coterminous with thelocal government’s boundaries. Independent schooldistricts, library districts, and water utilities are goodexamples. In some large communities, these agenciesmay have their own internal planning capabilities. Inothers, the local planning agency will need to assistor coordinate with the agency or even directly serveas its planner.

Parks, Open Space, and Cultural ResourcesA community facilities element may include a parksand open-space component. Alternatively, parksand open space may be addressed in a separate ele-ment. The community facilities element willinventory existing parks by type of facility and mayevaluate the condition of parks in terms of the pop-ulation they are expected to serve and the functionsthey are intended to carry out. To determinewhether additional parkland should be purchased,population forecasts are often used in connectionwith population-based needs criteria (such as arequirement of so many acres of a certain type ofpark within a certain distance from residents). Othercriteria used to determine parkland need mayinclude parkland as a percentage of land cover or aresident’s proximity to a park.

Open-space preservation may sometimes beaddressed alone or in connection with critical andsensitive areas protection and agricultural and forestpreservation. Here the emphasis is on the ecological,scenic, and economic functions that open space pro-vides. The element may also identify tracts of open

land with historic or cultural significance, such as abattlefield. The element will distinguish betweenpublicly held land, land held in private ownershipsubject to conservation easements or other restric-tions, and privately owned parcels subject todevelopment.

The Housing ElementThe housing element assesses local housing condi-tions and projects future housing needs by housingtype and price to ensure that a wide variety of hous-ing structure types, occupancy types, and prices (forrent or purchase) are available for a community’sexisting and future residents. There may currently bea need for rental units for large families or the dis-abled, or a disproportionate amount of income maybe paid for rental properties, for example. Becausedemand for housing does not necessarily correspondwith jurisdictional boundaries and the location ofemployment, a housing element provides for housingneeds in the context of the region in which the localgovernment is located. In some states, such asCalifornia, New Hampshire, and New Jersey, theremay be state-level or regional housing plans thatidentify regional needs for affordable housing, andthe local housing element must take these needs intoaccount as part of a “fair-share” requirement.

Jobs/Housing BalanceThe housing element can examine the relationshipbetween where jobs are or will be located and wherehousing is or will be available. The jobs/housing bal-ance is the ratio between the expected creation ofjobs in a region or local government and the need forhousing expressed as the number of housing units.The higher the jobs/housing ratio, the more jobs theregion or local government is generating relative tohousing. A high ratio may indicate to a communitythat it is not meeting the housing needs (in terms ofeither affordability or actual physical units) of peopleworking in the community.

Housing Stock The housing element typically identifies measuresused to maintain a good inventory of quality housingstock, such as rehabilitation efforts, code enforce-ment, technical assistance to homeowners, and loanand grant programs. It will also identify barriers toproducing and rehabilitating housing, includingaffordable housing. These barriers may include lackof adequate sites zoned for housing, complicatedapproval processes for building and other develop-ment permits, high permit fees, and excessiveexactions or public improvement requirements.

The Economic Development ElementAn economic development element describes thelocal government’s role in the region’s economy;identifies categories or particular types of commer-cial, industrial, and institutional uses desired by thelocal government; and specifies suitable sites withsupporting facilities for business and industry. It hasone or more of the following purposes:

• Job creation and retention • Increases in real wages (e.g., economic prosperity) • Stabilization or increase of the local tax base • Job diversification (making the community less

dependent on a few employers)


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 8

Comprehensive Plans 9

TYPES OF PLANS

A number of factors typically prompt a local eco-nomic development program. They include loss orattraction of a major employer, competition from sur-rounding communities or nearby states, the beliefthat economic development yields a higher quality oflife, the desire to provide employment for existingresidents who would otherwise leave the area, eco-nomic stagnation or decline in a community or partof it, or the need for new tax revenues.

An economic development element typicallybegins with an analysis of job composition andgrowth or decline by industry sector on a national,statewide, or regional basis, including an identifica-tion of categories of commercial, industrial, andinstitutional activities that could reasonably beexpected to locate within the jurisdiction. It will alsoexamine existing labor force characteristics and futurelabor force requirements of existing and potentialcommercial and industrial enterprises and institutionsin the state and the region in which the local gov-ernment is located. It will include assessments of thejurisdiction’s and the region’s access to transportationto markets for its goods and services, and its natural,technological, educational, and human resources.Often, an economic development element will havetargets for growth, which may be defined as numberof jobs or wages, or in terms of targeted industriesand their land use, transportation, and labor forcerequirements.

The local government may also survey owners oroperators of commercial and industrial enterprises,and inventory commercial, industrial, and institutionallands within the jurisdiction that are vacant or signif-icantly underused. An economic developmentelement may also address organizational issues,including the creation of entities, such as nonprofitorganizations, that could carry out economic devel-opment activities.

The Critical and Sensitive Areas ElementSome comprehensive plans address the protection ofcritical and sensitive areas. These areas include landand water bodies that provide habitat for plants andwildlife, such as wetlands, riparian corridors, andfloodplains; serve as groundwater recharge areas foraquifers; and areas with steep slopes that are easilyeroded or unstable, for example. They also caninclude visually, culturally, and historically sensitiveareas. By identifying such areas, the local government

can safeguard them through regulation, incentives,purchase of land or interests in land, modification ofpublic and private development projects, or othermeasures.

The Natural Hazards ElementNatural hazards elements document the physicalcharacteristics, magnitude, severity, frequency,causative factors, and geographic extent of all naturalhazards. Hazards include flooding; seismic activity;wildfires; wind-related hazards such as tornadoes,coastal storms, winter storms, and hurricanes; andlandslides or subsidence resulting from the instabilityof geological features.

A natural hazards element characterizes the hazard;maps its extent, if possible; assesses the community’svulnerability; and develops an appropriate set of mit-igation measures, which may include land-usepolicies and building code requirements. The naturalhazards element may also determine the adequacy ofexisting transportation facilities and public buildingsto accommodate disaster response and early recoveryneeds such as evacuation and emergency shelter.Since most communities have more than one type ofhazard, planners should consider addressing themjointly through a multihazards approach.

The Agriculture ElementSome comprehensive plans contain agriculture andforest preservation elements. This element focuses onthe value of agriculture and forestlands to the localeconomy, although it can also include open space,habitat, and scenic preservation. For such an element,the local government typically inventories agricultureand forestland, and ranks the land using a variety ofapproaches, such as the U.S. Department ofAgriculture’s Land Evaluation and Site Assessment(LESA) system. It then identifies conflicts between theuse of such lands and other proposed uses as con-tained in other comprehensive plan elements.

For example, if an area were to be preserved foragricultural purposes, but the community facilitieselement proposed a sewer trunk line to the area, thatwould be a conflict, which if not corrected wouldresult in development pressure to the future agricul-tural area. Implementation measures might includeagricultural use valuation coupled with extremelylarge lot requirements (40 acres or more), transfer ofdevelopment rights, purchase of development rights,

conservation easements, marketing programs to pro-mote the viability of local agricultural land, andprograms for agricultural-based tourism.

IMPLEMENTATION

A local comprehensive plan must contain an imple-mentation program to ensure that the proposalsadvanced in the plan are realized. Sometimes referredto as an “action plan,” the implementation programincludes a list of specific public or private actionsorganized by their scheduled execution date—short-term (1 to 3 years), medium-term (4 to 10 years), andlong-term (11 to 20 years) actions. Typical actionsinclude capital projects, changes to land developmentregulations and incentives, new programs or proce-dures, financing initiatives, and similar measures.Each listed action should assign responsibility for thetask and include an estimate of cost and a source offunding.

Some communities produce comprehensive plansthat are more broadly based and policy-driven. Theseplans will require a less detailed implementation pro-gram. The individual functional plans produced as aresult of the comprehensive plan address the assign-ment of costs or specific tasks.

REFERENCES

Meck, Stuart (gen. ed.). 2002. Growing SmartSM

Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planningand Management of Change, 2 vols. Chicago:American Planning Association.

See also:Community Facilities Plans Critical and Sensitive Areas Plans Economic Development PlansHazard Mitigation PlansHousing PlansLand-Based Classification StandardsMapping Parks and Open-Space PlansParticipationPlan MakingProjections and Demand AnalysisRegional PlansTransportation PlansUrban Design Plans


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 9

10 Urban Design Plans


Urban design is the discipline between planning andarchitecture. It gives three-dimensional physical formto policies described in a comprehensive plan. Itfocuses on design of the public realm, which is createdby both public spaces and the buildings that definethem. Urban design views these spaces holistically andis concerned with bringing together the different disci-plines responsible for the components of cities into aunified vision. Compared to comprehensive plans,urban design plans generally have a short time horizonand are typically area or project specific.

Key elements of an urban design plan include theplan itself, the preparation of design guidelines forbuildings, the design of the public realm—the openspace, streets, sidewalks, and plazas between andaround buildings—and the “public interest” issues ofbuildings. These include massing, placement, andsun, shadow, and wind issues.

Urban design plans are prepared for various areas,including downtowns, waterfronts, campuses, corridors,neighborhoods, mixed-use developments, and specialdistricts. Issues to be considered include existing devel-opment, proposed development, utility infrastructure,streets framework, open space framework, environ-mental framework, and sustainable developmentprinciples. Urban design plans require interdisciplinarycollaboration among urban designers, architects, land-scape architects, planners, civil and environmentalengineers, and market analysts. The central role of theurban designer is to serve as the one who can oftenintegrate the work of a diverse range of specialists.

REASONS TO PREPARE AN URBANDESIGN PLAN

An urban design plan must respond to the circum-stances under which the project will be conducted,including the goals of the sponsors of the plan, thepolitical or social climate in the community, andfinancial and marketing realities. Below are a fewexamples of reasons to prepare an urban design plan.

Forging VisionsUrban designers are often asked to provide a visionfor communities to attract investment and coordinatemany disparate and even discordant interests. Byproviding such a vision, urban designers can bringindividual efforts together to create a whole that isgreater than the sum of its parts. Creating such avision needs to be a public process, to cultivate wide-spread enthusiasm for the vision and build a“bandwagon” of support.

Devising StrategiesIn addition to an overall vision, an urban design planmust also include a strategic implementation plan,with both short- and long-range initiatives. To keepthe momentum going, it is also important to assignspecific tasks or projects to groups conducting imple-mentation.

Creating Good LocationsMany projects begin with sites that are compromisedor deteriorated. An urban design plan illustrates howa site is linked to surrounding strengths, and it canshow how the site can become a great location.

Marketing Sites or AreasUrban design plans often work to transform an area,creating a new image for an area once overlooked orblighted. Urban design documents, illustrations, andpublicity around the process all become part of theoverall marketing effort to attract development andresidents.

Forming “Treaties”Urban design plans are sometimes born as a result ofa conflict; for example, a proposed redevelopmentproject may result in displacing existing businesses orresidents. An urban design document can serve as a“treaty,” to bring about a truce among warring parties.By focusing on the issues, presenting thoughtfulanalysis, and urging parties to come forward withtheir concerns and ideas, urban designers can use anurban design plan to help resolve problems in a non-confrontational way.

THE URBAN DESIGN PLANNINGPROCESS

An urban design planning process has much in com-mon with a comprehensive planning process; bothinclude basic elements such as data collection and

analysis, public participation, and involvement of otherdisciplines. However, urban design differs in the use ofthree-dimensional design tools to explore alternativesand communicate ideas. Below are the essential attrib-utes of an urban design planning process.

Public OutreachBecause urban design plans usually involve multiplestakeholders, public participation in the planningprocess is essential. A representative steering com-mittee is one mechanism to ensure involvement of across section of interests. Among the various publicoutreach techniques used are focus groups and pub-lic meetings. Input from the public informs the urbandesign team about assets, liabilities, and visions forthe project area.

Involvement of Major StakeholdersIn addition to the public outreach process, one-on-one meetings with key representatives of the majorstakeholders, such as elected officials, communityleaders, and major institutions, are important for bothsides—the urban design team gains insight into thestakeholders’ concerns and goals, and the majorstakeholders develop confidence in the team and theplanning process.

URBAN DESIGN PLANS

Don Carter, AICP, FAIA, Urban Design Associates, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Raymond L. Gindroz, FAIA, Urban Design Associates, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania

Features such as waterways and adjacent land features influence street grid orientation.

EXISTING STREET PATTERNSSource: Urban Design Associates.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 10

Urban Design Plans 11

TYPES OF PLANS

ect area and the community’s vision for the future.The issues and opportunities that arise from thesemeetings are summarized in the report, in both nar-rative and diagrams.

Development ProgramMarket studies, forecasting demand for residentialand commercial development, are frequently doneconcurrently with the urban design planning process.These studies are summarized in the urban designplan. If such studies were not commissioned, theclient’s development program is described in thedevelopment program.

Urban Design PlanThe urban design plan is a color rendered plan show-ing existing and new buildings, parking, streets, trails,and landscape planting. The urban design plan pres-ents a two-dimensional vision of the final projectbuild-out. For an example of an urban design plan,see page C-9 of the color insert.

Streets Framework Plan and StreetSectionsThe streets framework plan identifies existing andnew streets. It includes cross sections of streets indi-cating sidewalks, parking, travel lanes, and medians.See page C-10 of the color insert for an example of astreet section.

Open Space Framework PlanThe open space framework plan illustrates parks;trails; “green streets,” which are streets designated forenhanced landscape planting and pedestrian ameni-ties; plazas; public space; and the connectionsbetween them.

Perspective DrawingsThree-dimensional perspective drawings are essentialin conveying the sense of place of an urban designplan. Often the general public cannot easily interpretplan drawings; however, eye level and bird’s eyeview perspectives are often more readily understand-able. See page C-10 of the color insert for anexample.

Design GuidelinesUrban design plan reports often contain a section ondesign guidelines, including massing, height, buildingsetbacks, architectural style, parking, streetscapes,signage, materials, and sustainable design.

Implementation and Phasing PlanThe implementation section details the mechanismsto make the plan a reality. Among the tools typicallyincluded are public and private partnerships, fundingsources, regulatory issues, conceptual budgets, and aphasing plan with early action and long-range proj-ects described.


Block patterns of an area, presented here as a figure ground map, show the building coverage of a site.

BUILDING COVERAGESource: Urban Design Associates.

Multi-Disciplinary TeamUrban design is a collaborative process involvingurban designers, architects, planners, and landscapearchitects. However, other disciplines are usuallyrequired, such as transportation planners and engi-neers, civil and environmental engineers, residentialand commercial market analysts, construction costconsultants, and public/private finance consultants.When such a team has been assembled, the individ-ual consultants should be coordinated so that theirexpertise permeates the planning process frombeginning to end.

Focus on ImplementationUrban design projects are often complicated planswith multiple projects and participants.Implementation can be difficult, even when all theforces are aligned properly. The process should beginwith implementation in mind. Develop a plan that istied to the realities of receiving funding, obtainingapproval, and getting the project built.

Design as a Tool for Decision-Making By exploring alternatives—the “what ifs” of a site ordistrict—the design process allows for speculation,brainstorming, and innovative thinking. Alternativescan be tested against various factors, including phys-ical constraints, regulatory controls, the market,overall costs and benefits, economic feasibility, prop-erty valuation, phasing, public input, and experienceelsewhere. The consensus vision will then reflectthose realities.

COMPONENTS OF AN URBANDESIGN PLAN REPORT

As a general rule, an urban design report should belight on text and heavy on graphics. Diagrams, charts,rendered plans and sections, and perspective draw-ings are often the most effective communicators ofthe plan’s elements. Below are brief descriptions ofthe typical sections of an urban design plan report.

Executive SummaryKey images from the body of the report and summarytext can convey the “big ideas” of the plan in just afew pages.

Existing ConditionsAssemble all existing conditions data related to theproject area, including streets, building coverage,land use, topography, vacant buildings and land, andenvironmental constraints. This information is docu-mented in the report as the existing conditions“portrait” of the area.

Analysis DrawingsAnalysis drawings can be some of the most influen-tial materials of an urban design initiative. Creatingthese drawings involves professional review of exist-ing conditions data and mapping, to translate thisinformation into findings that will influence the plan.More information on analysis drawings can be foundin The Urban Design Handbook (2003).

Summary of IssuesDuring the planning process, involve citizens andstakeholders in focus groups and public meetings tolearn about the strengths and weaknesses of the proj-

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 11

12 Urban Design Plans


THE ROLE OF URBAN DESIGN INIMPLEMENTATION

By translating general planning policies into three-dimensional form, urban design makes theconnection between planning and architecture, thismakes it possible to test the feasability of projectsthrough a variety of mechanisms, described below.

Public Support

If the community perceives the various images andthree-dimensional form of a development to be con-sistent with its goals and policies, then gainingsupport for the various public approvals needed forthe development will be strengthened. Developingthe urban design for a project in an open publicforum helps to facilitate this outcome.

Zoning Enforcement and RegulatoryApprovalsUse vivid and explicit representations of the proposeddevelopment to assist the various agencies responsiblefor zoning enforcement and regulatory approvals tosupport implementation. In many communities thereare a number of agencies, with different mindsets,involved in administering the approval and implemen-tation process The urban design plan, especially if

developed in a process that engaged the approval agen-cies as a group, can provide a common frameworkwithin which governmental decisions can be made.

Investment and FinanceUrban designs are often developed to a level of detailsufficient to determine the amount of space beingbuilt and to develop conceptual cost estimates forbuildings and public improvements. Therefore, theeconomic feasability and fiscal impact of develop-ments can be effectively evaluated.

MarketingA project’s feasibility is directly related to the effec-tiveness of its marketing program. The character andquality of its address is one factor in how successfullya development can capture the market potential of anarea. The products of an urban design project areoften used in marketing programs to communicatethe new image of the place and to promote the devel-opment.

Framework for Implementing AgenciesAn urban design project often serves as a “road map”for the implementing agencies. It becomes a standardreference for developing budgets, setting priorities,funding projects, and granting regulatory approvals.

EXAMPLES OF URBAN DESIGNPLANS

Described below are three of the most commonlyproduced urban design plans: neighborhoods, down-towns, and mixed-use developments.

Neighborhood PlansOn the neighborhood scale, urban design plans oftenaddress the location and design of infill housing, newparks, and community institutions; main street revi-talization; housing rehabilitation guidelines; andstreet reconfiguration. Sponsors of neighborhoodplans include cities, community development organi-zations, foundations, and private developers.

Downtown PlansDowntown urban design plans are usually part of alarger economic development strategy focused onattracting jobs, residents, and visitors to a downtown.The development scale is relatively dense and multi-story, which requires sensitive treatment of the publicrealm for pedestrians. Topics covered in downtownurban design plans include mixed-use buildings, his-toric preservation, adaptive reuse, height and density,setbacks, views, parking strategies, transit corridorsand nodes, streetscapes, waterfronts, street networks,highway access, redevelopment policies, zoning over-lays, incentive districts, new stadiums and conventioncenters, and entertainment and cultural districts.

Cities, downtown organizations, business improve-ment districts, and regional agencies all may sponsordowntown urban design plans.

Mixed-Use DevelopmentsMixed-use developments are typically one-owner,site-specific projects. Among the various types areinfill projects in downtowns, brownfield reclamationprojects, lifestyle centers (also called specialty retailcenters), and office/technology developments.Office, retail, and housing are among the typical usesin mixed-use developments. Project sizes can rangewidely, from a few acres to hundreds of acres. A cen-tral goal is to develop a pedestrian-friendly place tolive, work, and play. Sponsors of mixed-use devel-opments are often private developers, redevelopmentagencies, and large institutions, such as universitiesand medical centers.

KEY AND EMERGING ISSUES

Housing DensityAs the smart growth movement and rising housingcosts have become determining forces in residentialplanning and development, density has emerged as amajor issue. While there is still the great Americandesire for the single family home and the cul-de-sacsubdivision, regulatory controls and environmentalrestrictions have begun to limit available land forsuch development. Smaller lot sizes, attached hous-ing, and multi-family housing have becomecontentious issues in many communities. Urbandesign planning processes can help test different res-idential densities in the context of a holistic solutionthat includes housing, amenities, and place making.

Recognizing the Value of Urban DesignUrban design is a strong strategic planning tool.However, many cities and developers approach


The street framework is upgraded to follow the patterns that the existing street patterns, building coverage, and open spaceframework define for the place.

STREET FRAMEWORKSource: Urban Design Associates.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 12

Urban Design Plans 13

TYPES OF PLANS

development on a project-by-project basis, often inisolation from adjacent uses and without a compre-hensive view of all the forces impacting or impactedby the project. While urban design plans are notalways regarded as essential pre-development proj-ects, experience in the field has demonstrated that thenew ideas and approaches that emerge from anurban design planning process can add significantvalue to a development and appreciably ease andshorten the public approval process.

Urban Design EducationBecause of the three-dimensional building designand the physical transformation of the public realmaspect of urban design practice, an urban designershould have an architecture degree. Ideally, an urbandesigner has either received a master of architecturedegree in urban design or has completed an intern-ship in an urban design firm.

RESOURCES

Urban Design Associates. 2003. The Urban DesignHandbook: Techniques and Working Methods. NewYork: W.W. Norton and Co.

See also:Places and Place MakingViewshed Protection


The open space of a site shows the green network that helps define a place.

OPEN SPACE FRAMEWORKSource: Urban Design Associates

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 13

14 Regional Plans


Regional plans cover geographic areas transcendingthe boundaries of individual governmental units butsharing common characteristics that may be social,economic, political, cultural, natural-resource-based, ordefined by transportation. They often serve as theskeleton or framework for local government plans andspecial district plans, supplying unifying assumptions,forecasts, and strategies. The information that followsis adapted from the American Planning Association’sGrowing SmartSM Legislative Guidebook (2002).

DEFINING THE REGION

The following factors may define a region:

• Geographic and topographic features, especiallywatersheds

• Political boundaries, especially county boundaries• Transportation patterns, especially those related to

the journey to work• Region-serving facilities, such as hospitals, airports,

trail terminals, and wastewater treatment plants• Interrelated social, economic, and environmental

problems• Population distribution• Existing intergovernmental relationships, usually

expressed in the form of written agreements • Metropolitan area or urbanized area boundaries as

identified by the U.S. Census Bureau • Boundaries of existing regional or multijurisdic-

tional planning or service provision organizations,such as regional sewer districts

REGIONAL FUNCTIONAL PLANS

Regional planning agencies may prepare regionalfunctional plans to cover specific topics such as parksand open space, bikeways, water, sanitary sewerageand sewage treatment, water supply and distribution,solid waste management, airports, libraries, commu-nications, and others. For example, a regional sewerplan is a device used to ensure that disputes can beresolved over which jurisdiction will provide sewersand sewage treatment facilities to developing areas.The most typical regional functional plan is a regionaltransportation plan; see Transportation Plans in thischapter for more information.

The Regional Housing Plan A number of states, including California and NewHampshire, require the preparation of regional hous-ing plans. In general, regional planning agenciesprepare these plans to assess present and prospectiveneed for housing at the regional level, particularlyaffordable housing. Typically, they establish numeri-cal housing goals to be included in local governmentplans.

In New Jersey, regional housing planning is theresponsibility of a state agency, the Council onAffordable Housing, which prepares “fair-share”housing allocations for affordable housing for eachlocal government. Under New Jersey law, local gov-ernments then have an obligation to identify sites foraffordable housing and take necessary steps toremove barriers in order to provide a realistic oppor-tunity that such housing can be built or rehabilitated.

THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVEPLAN

The regional comprehensive plan is intended toaddress facilities or resources that affect more thanone jurisdiction and to provide economic, popula-tion, and land-use forecasts to guide local planning,so that local plans and planning decisions are madewith a set of common assumptions. Consequently, aregional comprehensive plan will propose a moreschematic pattern of development than provided in alocal comprehensive plan.

For example, in a regional comprehensive plan,the land-use pattern is generally simple, demarcatingland into urban and rural, with a general indication ofa hierarchy of activity centers. Such centers may betargets for more intensive residential, office, commer-cial, and industrial developments, supported bytransit, that are intended to serve a substantial portionof the region. Here, the intent is to use the regionalplan as an device to direct both public and privateinvestment to ensure that such development occurs.

Both public agencies and private organizationsmay prepare regional plans. Indeed, private groupsprepared the first true regional plans, one in 1909 forthe Chicago area and a second in 1929 for the NewYork City area. The Chicago plan was the work ofplanners Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennett, withfunding by the Commercial Club. The Committee forthe Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, aprivate group whose efforts were funded by theRussell Sage Foundation, produced a multivolumeregional plan for the New York metropolitan area,beginning in 1929.

Regional Comprehensive Plan Elements

Typical Plan Elements State statutes usually define which elements arerequired in a regional comprehensive plan. The fol-lowing list is for guidance only; to determine whichelements are required, consult state legislation.

• A narrative of planning assumptions, and their rela-tionship to state and local plans

• Population trends and projections• Regional economy• Existing land use • A transportation system overview • Regional housing trends and needs• Community facilities and services • Natural features and cultural assets• Agricultural lands• Natural hazards• Regional density study• Public involvement• Urban growth areas • Regional growth policy statements• Implementation recommendations

Urban Growth AreasSome regional plans delineate urban growth areas,which are land areas sufficient to accommodate pop-ulation and economic growth for a certain period,typically 20 years, and which will be supported byurban-level services. The purpose of an urban growtharea is to ensure a compact and contiguous develop-

ment pattern that can be efficiently served by publicservices while preserving open space, agriculturalland, and environmentally sensitive areas not suitablefor intensive development.

Special Resource AreasA regional comprehensive plan also identifies specialresources areas, such as farmland, aquifers, and majorwetlands. It may propose strategies for a particularwatershed or basin to ensure that groundwater andwatercourses are protected as supplies of potablewater. The plan can also include actions to protectareas of biodiversity. Depending on the nature of theregion, it may also identify the general location ofnatural hazard areas, such as earthquake zones orareas prone to wildfires.

Regional FacilitiesThe plan may contain proposals for new orupgraded regional facilities, such as multimodaltransportation centers, new highways, transit, air-ports, hospitals, and regional parks or open spacesystems that link together. Functional plan elementsmay examine details of such proposals, such as roadwidening, highway safety improvements, and opera-tional changes to mass transit systems, or the exactlocations of regional wastewater facilities and majortrunk lines.

Descriptive and Analytical StudiesIn order to prepare a regional comprehensive plan,the regional planning authority or other suitableauthority must undertake a series of descriptive andanalytical studies. Such studies may cover the follow-ing topics:

• The economy of the region, which may includeamount, type, general location, and distribution ofcommerce and industry within the region; the loca-tion of regional employment centers; and trendsand projection of economic activity, both in termsof income growth and changes in the number andcomposition of jobs

• Population and population distribution within the

REGIONAL PLANS


SAMPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS:THE METROPOLIS PLAN: CHOICES FOR THE CHICAGO REGION

Introduction: The Metropolis PlanPurpose of The Metropolis PlanBuilding The Metropolis Plan

The Metropolis Plan: Key ThemesOpportunities Close to Home: Housing Choices

for AllRegional Cities and CentersA Robust Transportation SystemGreat StreetsNature’s Metropolis

Implementing the Metropolis Plan How We Got HereGetting from Here to There

Source: Chicago Metropolis 2020, 2003

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 14

Regional Plans 15

TYPES OF PLANS

region, as well as its local governments, includingprojections and analyses by age, education level,income, employment, or similar characteristics

• Natural resources, including air, water, forests andother vegetation, and minerals

• Amount, type, quality, affordability, and geographicdistribution of housing among local governmentsin the region correlated with projected job andpopulation change

• Identification of features of significant statewide orregional architectural, scenic, cultural, historic, orarchitectural interest, as well as scenic corridors andviewsheds

• Amount, type, location, and quality of agriculturallands

• Amount, type, intensity or density, general locationof industrial, commercial, residential, and other landuses, and projections of changes in land use, corre-lated with projected job and population change

MAP COMPONENTS

The regional comprehensive plan provides a visualrepresentation of the plan’s objectives. The compo-nents of the map may include the following:

• Location of urban growth area boundaries• Existing and proposed transportation facilities • Other public facilities and utilities of extrajurisdic-

tional or regionwide significance• Potential areas of critical state concern (such as

areas of significant biodiversity, scenic beauty, his-toric significance, or archaeological value, or areasaround major facilities, such as military bases, air-ports, or national or state parks)

• Natural hazard areas• Urban and rural growth centers

• Any other matters of regional significance that canbe graphically represented.

See page C-11 of the color insert for an example.

THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A long-range implementation program for theregional comprehensive plan may include the fol-lowing components.

An Implementation Schedule The implementation program may include a scheduleof development for proposed transportation andother public facilities and utilities of extrajurisdictionalor regionwide significance. The schedule mayinclude a description of the proposed public facilityor utility, an identification of the governmental unit tobe responsible for the facility or utility, the year(s) thefacility or utility is proposed for construction or instal-lation, an estimate of costs, and sources of public andprivate revenue for covering such costs.

Development CriteriaThe program may include development criteria foruse in local government and special district plans.Performance benchmarks may be defined to measurethe achievement of the regional comprehensive planby local governments and special districts.

Monitoring and EvaluationA statement may be included to describe the criteriaand procedures the agency creating the plan will use inmonitoring and evaluating the plan’s implementationby local governments, special districts, and the state.

CoordinationThere may also be a statement of measures describ-ing the ways in which state and/or local programs

may best be coordinated to promote the goals andpolicies of the regional comprehensive plan

Legislative ChangesThe program may also include proposals for changesin state laws to achieve regional objectives, such asregional tax-base sharing or procedures to reviewlarge-scale developments with multijurisdictionalimpacts or to consolidate existing planning organiza-tions to improve services and coordination. Regionalplanning agencies may also propose interjurisdic-tional agreements to clarify responsibility for theprovision of urban services.

REFERENCES

Burnham, Daniel H., and Edward H. Bennett. [1909] 1970.Plan of Chicago. Reprint, New York: DaCapo Press.

Chicago Metropolis 2020. 2003. The Metropolis Plan:Choices for the Chicago Region. Chicago: ChicagoMetropolis 2020.

Committee for the Regional Plan of New York andIts Environs. 1929. The Regional Plan of New Yorkand Its Environs. The Graphic Plan. Vol. 1. NewYork: The Committee.

Meck, Stuart (Gen. Ed). 2002. Growing SmartSM

Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planningand Management of Change. 2 vols. Chicago:American Planning Association.

See also:Housing PlansPopulation ProjectionsRegionsTransportation PlansWatersheds


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 15

16 Neighborhood Plans


A neighborhood plan focuses on a specific geo-graphic area of a local jurisdiction that typicallyincludes substantial residential development, associ-ated commercial uses, and institutional services suchas recreation and education. Many of the same topicscovered in a local comprehensive plan are covered ina neighborhood plan.

REASONS TO PREPARE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN

The neighborhood plan is intended to provide moredetailed goals, policies, and guidelines than those inthe local comprehensive plan. Neighborhood plansoften emphasize potential partnerships among gov-ernment agencies, community groups, school boards,and the private sector—partnerships that can act toachieve neighborhood goals. These plans are oftendeveloped through highly collaborative processesinvolving citizens, business, nongovernmental organ-izations (NGOs), and the local government of theneighborhood.

Neighborhood plans describe land-use patterns inmore detail than do comprehensive plans. They mayeven approach the specificity required for amend-ments to a zoning district map or street classificationsystem. These descriptions and maps can be used forgreenfield or developing areas in a manner similar tothat used in sector or specific plans, an approachused in Florida and California.

These plans also often propose a program ofimplementation shorter in duration than is proposedin a comprehensive plan. For an established neigh-borhood, the plan may emphasize issues that can beaddressed in one to two years. They may includeactions to be taken by the local government, othergovernmental agencies, school boards, nonprofitorganizations, or for-profit groups. In many respects,this reflects the nature of the neighborhood planningprocess itself, which often focuses on visible andpoliticized problems that can be resolved quickly,such as trash cleanup, park improvements, or specificcode enforcement issues. For newer neighborhoods,the plan’s content may be more far-reaching andfunctional.

Neighborhood planning succeeds when theprocess is cyclical, small successes are emphasized,and the issue of identifying neighborhood leadersand legitimacy is addressed at the onset.

PLAN ELEMENTS

The American Planning Association conductedresearch in the mid-1990s that identified more than 36elements in neighborhood plans. This group of ele-ments, which appeared in various combinations,suggests a realm of possibilities for a particularneighborhood plan. While no definitive recommen-dation can be made about which specific elements aneighborhood plan should contain, the plan’s contentshould result from a process that assesses the neigh-borhood’s specific needs, resources, and ideals.

While there is no definitive list of required ele-ments for neighborhood plans, certain elementsappear to be common and essential. They can begrouped into five categories, based on their relative

purpose and sequence in the planning process:

• General housekeeping: Organizational items thatmake the plan readable and usable, and serve toencourage further involvement in the planningprocess

• Planning process validation: Elements thatdemonstrate the legitimacy of the research andconsensus-building processes that led to the devel-opment of the plan

• Neighborhood establishment: Elements that serveto create a community image or identity distinctfrom the jurisdiction as a whole

• Functional elements: Substantive items that mayvary widely from plan to plan (e.g., safety element,housing element)

• Implementation Framework: The goals, programs,actions, or schedules used to implement the plan

General HousekeepingThe elements in this category are used to create aclear, usable plan document. Because neighborhoodresidents may not be familiar with planning, this ele-ment is particularly important to include. Moreinformation on this element is covered in the PlanMaking section of this book.

Planning Process ValidationStakeholder participation is critical at the neighbor-hood planning level. Planning information must beaccessible and comprehensible to all involved parties.Certain information should be made public through-out the planning process. In addition, placing someof that information directly in the plan allows othercitizens to participate in the planning process moreintelligently at a later time. This makes the plan aworking reference document and validates theprocess that culminated in the plan.

The Neighborhood Organizational Structureand Planning ProcessAn important part of plan validation is how the plan-ning process is initiated and carried out. Flow chartsare often used to illustrate the sequence of events.This section may also reference the ordinance thatadopts the plan, the community feedback that sup-ported it, or the background information about whythe process was initiated. Many jurisdictions require aformal neighborhood organization to be in place as acondition for planning assistance or plan adoption.Neighborhood leadership should be made clear in aplan or at least emerge out of the planning process.A legitimate, publicly accessible power structuregives the neighborhood-city relationship credibility,encourages neighbors to act responsibly with publicresources, and facilitates a leadership developmentmechanism within the community.

The Mission/Purpose StatementThe mission/purpose statement establishes theimportance of the neighborhood planning process. Itshould convey that the process is all-inclusive and inaccordance with policies set forth in the jurisdiction’scomprehensive plan, if one exists. The statement canalso be linked to the municipal code or city charter.

The Participation ProclamationThis section documents the participation process as itactually happened for the plan. It should be locatedat the beginning of the plan, setting the stage for thepolicies and recommendations that follow. Localownership of the planning process must be evident.Both positive and negative feedback is important toinclude. Meeting minutes, survey results, or localnewspaper articles can document feedback.

Needs AssessmentA needs assessment for services and facilities is a fun-damental component of neighborhood planning,especially when it identifies underserved neighbor-hood groups. Needs assessments can measure socialservices, physical conditions, commercial resources,and cultural amenities. When assessing needs, it isimportant to take stock of existing communityresources. Evaluating the positive aspects of a neigh-borhood can reveal unexpected opportunities fordealing with the negatives.

Defining the Neighborhood In addition to securing the future, neighborhoodplans fortify the present by defining the neighbor-hood.

Boundary DelineationThe neighborhood and the city departments shouldagree to, or at least accommodate, each party’s per-ception of neighborhood boundaries. Boundaryidentification should involve representatives from thecommunity, pertinent city departments, and, if possi-

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS

Michelle Gregory, AICP, Soapbox Enterprises, Portland, Oregon

Boundary

0 .25 .5

Miles

NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARYDELINEATIONSource: Adapted from Upper Boggy Creek Neighborhood Plan,City of Austin,TX, 2002.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 16

Neighborhood Plans 17

TYPES OF PLANS

ble, social service providers. One method of deter-mining boundaries is to have participants draw lineson maps to define their own boundaries. Combiningthe maps can reveal the most common perception ofthe area that constitutes the neighborhood. Thewalkable distances to key community services, suchas elementary schools, public transportation, localgrocers, and health care resources, often defineneighborhood boundaries. Neighborhood definitionis also sometimes related to historic district designa-tion.

The Functional Elements Most neighborhood plans address functional ele-ments, such as housing, safety, land use, andrecreation as separate topics. Plans may treat thesetopics from start to finish, beginning with a descrip-tion of existing conditions and concluding withrecommendations, or they may simply list policy rec-ommendations and the implementation strategies forthose recommendations. Some neighborhood planshave required that elements be consistent with thosein the community’s comprehensive plan or, some-times, with the regional plan. These might includedensity targets or impact and mitigation requirementsfor new development.

ResidentialResidential development policies can include pro-moting owner-occupied housing or rental housing,code enforcement, and amending zoning and otherland-use controls to encourage more housing devel-opment and vacant property rehabilitation. Issuespertaining to private property maintenance, housingstock, affordability and demand, building conditions,safety, property values, infill, abandonment, anddesign standards can also be included.

Transportation/Circulation/Pedestrian AccessTransportation elements in neighborhood plans oftenidentify specific circulation problems at intersectionsand street corners. Plans can include recommenda-tions for improving sidewalks, reducing vehicles orvehicle speed, creating bicycle lanes, and improvingaccess to transit. Transportation elements and policiesshould promote the connection and flow of all trans-portation forms to serve people of all ages andabilities.

Land Use/ZoningCurrent land-use patterns and zoning classificationsare frequently presented in neighborhood plans,often as part of a needs assessment. To help residentsunderstand the information, land-use and zoning datashould be provided simply and clearly. Growth pro-jections and areas where growth is expected tohappen should be identified.

Infrastructure/UtilitiesInfrastructure quality is important to neighborhood res-idents and businesses. It is also perhaps the least

controllable aspect of neighborhood development,particularly where city officials have not been involvedin the neighborhood planning process. Public worksdepartments and private utility companies are notalways directly responsive to neighborhoods becausetheir agendas are usually tied to citywide capitalimprovement programs rather than to each neighbor-hood’s planning process. Plans may include actionssuch as petitioning public works departments and thecity council as a method of obtaining needed infra-structure improvements.

Implementation Framework Once a neighborhood plan has evaluated the existingconditions, the needs assessment, and the commu-nity’s desires for the future, generally the plan framesa set of goals and objectives. An implementation pro-gram sometimes follows the goals and objectives.

Goals, Objectives, and Other ResolutionsThe goals and objectives of the neighborhood planrepresent the community’s vision and values. Theymay be presented as vision statements or policy rec-ommendations.

Implementation ProgramThe schedule for achieving goals and objectives mustbe set, commitments must be made, and responsibil-ity for actually accomplishing them has to beassigned. Neighborhood plans should include animplementation element, either woven into the func-tional plan elements or at the end of the document,shown as a chart or matrix.

FundingCity capital improvements funds, special assessments,transportation funds, tax increment funds, communitydevelopment block grant (CDBG) funds, special stateor federal program grants (such as historic preserva-tion or urban forestry), donations, fund-raisers,private investors, and community development loansare viable funding sources to use in the implementa-tion of neighborhood plans.

See also:NeighborhoodsParticipation Plan Making

Michelle Gregory, AICP, Soapbox Enterprises, Portland, Oregon

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Park/Open Space

Boundary

0 .25 .5

Miles

GENERALIZED NEIGHBORHOODLAND-USE MAPSource: Adapted from Upper Boggy Creek Neighborhood Plan,City of Austin,TX, 2002.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 17

18 Downtown Plans


Downtown is a cultural icon of cities and towns.Everyone has their own definition of it, such as theheart of the city, the regional or town center, or thecentral business district. Geographers use the term“central business district” to define the area that isthe commercial core or economic heart of a city ortown and that contains the highest-density marketrents and service functions of commercial andoffice activities.

REASONS TO PREPARE ADOWNTOWN PLAN

The complexity of a downtown demands specialplanning attention. Downtowns often contain massiveinvestments found nowhere else, such as telecommu-nications lines, and key community facilities likelibraries, hospitals, judicial courts, and performancevenues. Downtown planning ensures that new invest-ment supports and maintains what is already in place.

Downtowns also consist of numerous publicly andprivately owned parcels of land and buildings. Unlikenewer shopping centers and business parks, which

are often owned and managed by a single entity,downtown has many owners and managers. A suc-cessful downtown depends upon cooperationbetween property owners, tenants, and their users tomeet their needs for transportation, utility service,market exposure, and public services. This need forcoordination underlies all the reasons listed here toprepare a downtown plan:

• Establish a vision for the future. The older buildingstock, affordable spaces, and pedestrian scale ofdevelopment make downtowns attractive areas fordining, entertainment, and, to a degree, housing. Adowntown plan serves to describe and reinforcethe worth, role, and future of the downtown to thecommunity. It gives guidance to existing and futureowners, developers, and users of downtown as tohow their property or service fits into the presentand future of the area.

• Coordinate improvement activities. Downtownis the result of many public and private actions.The plan helps to coordinate the investmentand use activities of the private sector with the

capital investment and service programs of thecommunity.

• Provide guidance to owners and developers. Theplan is the source of public policy regarding thedowntown. It identifies the capital, regulatory, andservice investments and policies to be followed bythe community owners, developers, and tenants inthe downtown.

• Market downtown investment and development. Asa compendium of a vision and policies for down-town development, the plan provides direction forthe common marketing of downtown as a center ofattraction and a place of investment by both thepublic and private sectors.

DOWNTOWN PLANNINGAPPROACHES

Two approaches are common to downtown plan-ning. They are often used in tandem:

• A framework approach• A strategic planning approach

DOWNTOWN PLANS

Leslie S. Pollock, FAICP, Camiros, Ltd., Chicago, Illinois

LincolnSquareMall

School

Residential

Mixed Office/Residential

Railroad Corridor

Auto-Oriented

Mixed Use

ParkDistrict

DowntownCore

Auto-OrientedMixed Use

DowntownSecondary Support

Park

Residential Highway-OrientedMixed Use

Residential

Medical

Industrial

Residential

ServiceGovernment

Industrial

Armory

Park

FUNCTIONAL ZONESSource: Camiros, Inc., 2000.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 18

Downtown Plans 19

TYPES OF PLANS

The Framework ApproachThe framework approach is a comprehensive plan-ning approach at the downtown level. It treatsdowntown as a series of subsystems—land use, tran-sit, streets, parking, urban design—and seeks toorganize the subsystems to meet overall developmentand design goals and objectives. Policies and projectsare then identified to achieve the subsystem plans.

This approach begins by assembling data aboutexisting and potential conditions to provide an under-standing of the issues to be addressed in the plan. Astakeholder group is often used to help identify thegoals and objectives and to help give form to the sub-system plans. Policy, capital, and regulatory actionsneeded to implement the plans are then identified.

The Strategic Planning ApproachThis approach seeks to develop strategies for achiev-ing a downtown vision, which will be implementedthrough a set of specific projects. The work begins

with an analysis to identify the strengths, weaknesses,opportunities, and threats (sometimes referred to as aSWOT analysis) facing downtown, which collects andaddresses data similar to those collected in the firststep of the framework approach.

A stakeholder group reviews this material to deter-mine the vision for downtown, which is often nomore than a short statement. This statement offers aunifying direction, or concept, for the preparation ofthe remaining plan components. Strategies—thematicdirections taken to achieve the vision—are estab-lished, and projects—actions that can beimplemented—are prepared to achieve the strategies.Where appropriate, subsystem plans are developedto flesh out strategies.

PLAN COMPONENTS

A downtown plan guides public and private invest-ment through a 10- to 20-year period. It establishes

precise directions for the short term, yet also conveysbroad policy directions that can be followed into thefuture. The plan addresses the physical form of thearea, the anticipated market demand for its uses, theorganization of these uses upon the land and withinkey buildings, the transportation systems required tofacilitate downtown access and operation, and thesources of economic investment to help bring thisabout.

Plan components include:

• An inventory of existing and potential conditions • A vision of the future• Policies, subsystem plans, and strategies and projects • Implementation programs

The Inventory of Existing and PotentialConditionsThe plan must be based upon existing conditions andforecast data, including land use, transportation,


To 1-74

To 1-74

To East Urbana

IndustrialPark

To Windsor Rd.

To Campustown

To DowntownChampaign Conrail R.R.

To Campustown

Arterial Street

Primary Collector

Secondary Collector

RailroadCIRCULATION MAPSource: Camiros, Inc., 2000.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 19

20 Downtown Plans


building conditions, land ownership and value, cur-rent user and occupant demographics, marketconditions and expectations, and a sense of commu-nitywide and downtown-specific attitudes regardingthe image, role, use, and future of downtown.

Data for a downtown plan should be collected at afiner “grain” than would be for a comprehensiveplan. Data assembly and mapping should be at theblock and parcel scale. Base maps should identifyland parcels and building footprints.

Key data maps should identify:

• The assessed value of land and buildings• Building conditions• Existing land use• Historic assets • Parking

• Patterns of ownership• Street traffic operations• Transit routes• Urban design features

Field surveys, the local chamber of commerce,building owners and managers associations, the U.S.Census, and information resources of the planningand building departments can provide much of thisdata. In many communities, the county or cityGeographic Information System (GIS) maintains thisinformation. Community surveys, focus group ses-sions with key stakeholders and users of thedowntown, and key-person interviews are othersources for determining attitudes about and potentialdirections for the present and future downtown so asto have a realistic vision statement.

The Vision Statement

The plan should provide a “vision” of what itintends to achieve for the downtown. The visionmight be a short statement offering a mental imageof the future downtown. For example, the Urbana,Illinois, downtown vision statement contains manyconcepts, including “a regional entertainment cen-ter that offers a host of shopping, dining andentertainment venues set within intimately scaleddevelopments and quality public spaces.” Sketchesthat help to depict its physical implications oftensupport this “vision,” which serves as a consensus-building statement. The vision is then furtherclarified by a set of goals and objectives, whichclearly depict what is to be achieved through theplan.


Conrail R.R.

Public Parking

Private Parking

On-Street Parking

Analysis Boundary

PARKING ANALYSISSource: Camiros, Inc., 2000.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 20

Downtown Plans 21

TYPES OF PLANS

Policies, Subsystem Plans, and Strategiesand Projects

PoliciesThe plan should include policy statements that setforth the rules and courses of action for achieving thearticulated vision. Many plan policies are presented inmaps. For example, it is often useful to divide thearea into geographic districts, based upon commonuses, patterns of development, or character of thearea. The organization of a downtown into shoppingdistricts, office districts, and entertainment districts isan example of mapping a policy for the geographicorganization of downtown. Current planning theoriesadvocate for creating mixed-purpose districts.

Subsystem PlansThe organization of downtown into districts also canprovide a way to organize subsystem plans, such as

land use, transportation, and urban design plans.Subsystem plans illustrate the policy basis for manydowntown implementation actions, such as trans-portation capital improvements and zoning. Even if astrategic approach is taken, it is useful to prepare sub-system plans to help direct the formulation ofstrategic approaches to downtown improvement.

Subsystem plans should respond to a general con-cept indicating how the downtown should bedeveloped to reflect the vision and goals. The land-use plan illustrates land-use policy, showing howexisting patterns might change to meet developmentobjectives. Transportation plans show street and tran-sit-related improvements. Parking plans show thelocation of new or improved parking facilities.Pedestrian and bicycle circulation plans show pro-posed bike routes and paths, public-privatepedestrian circulation routes, and new pedestrian

gathering places. Urban design plans suggest thelocation and character of public plazas, other areasfor public landscape, and the general pattern ofbuilding location and massing. Market plans listactions needed to attract desired downtown uses.

Strategies and ProjectsThe strategic component of a downtown plan directshow the plan’s objectives and the policies advocatedby the subsystem plans can be achieved. For exam-ple, a land-use proposal to redevelop an area into amixed-use, retail-residential redevelopment could besupported by a strategy that suggests a public-privatefinancing process. Key projects would be developedas part of that strategy, perhaps identifying specificblocks or building types as the actions best suited toinitiate that strategy, and suggesting an implementa-tion work program.


Focal Points

Key Intersections

Key Vistas

Vegetative Barrier

Boneyard Creek Site Barrier

Potential Pedestrian Connection

Trail to Carle

Potential R.R./Pedestrian

KeyIntersection

View

of C

ourt

Hou

se

Vie

w t

o Li

ncol

n Sq

uare

Pote

ntia

l Con

nect

ion

to C

ryst

al

Park

URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONSSource: Camiros, Inc., 2000.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 21

22 Downtown Plans


ImplementationThe strategic approach to downtown planning, withits specific projects, can be considered the beginningof implementation. Whether approached in a strategicmanner or as a series of programs and projects to becarried out by government or public interests, imple-mentation must be explicitly addressed in the plan.

Zoning, capital improvements, and developmentfinancing recommendations are the most traditionalcomponents of a downtown plan implementationprogram. Downtown plans also tend to include sug-gestions for marketing the plan, to increase popularand political support.

Many downtown plans suggest implementationactions related to maintenance services, marketing ofvacant or underused space, and, in certain cases, thecoordinated management of downtown activities. Aplan may also suggest creation of a special district, aBusiness Improvement District (BID), to direct andeven finance the implementation function, dependingon the extent of the state enabling legislation.Nonprofit corporations, special-purpose committees,public commissions, or boards may be established bylocal legislation or result from civic actions to createpublic-private partnerships to improve, manage, andmarket downtown.

Downtown plans should establish a program ofaction that gives direction to the management ofdowntown development, provides a clear picture ofthe community’s desires, and outlines how the citycan build public-private partnerships to realize fullythe potential of these unique entities.

See also:Physical Structure of DowntownsMain StreetsNeighborhood Centers


Industrial w/Commercial and

Housing (CE)

CulturalDistrict

Housing

SouthWaterfront

13th AvenueHistoric District

HousingChinatown

TransportationDistrict

Housing

Old Town/Skidmore

Office Core

Retail Core

McCall Waterfront Park

YamhillHistoric District

PortlandState

University

SouthAuditorium

Renewal

Pedestrianway

Pede

stria

nway

Ligh

t Rai

l

Government Center

0' 600'

Office Core

Retail Core

Landscaped Parks

Downtown Plan Boundary

Light Rail Transit

Transit Malls

Transportation Gateway

Pedestrianways

Greenway

Tran

sit M

all

Park

Blo

cks

Willa

met

te R

iver

PORTLAND, OREGON, DOWNTOWN PLAN (1972)

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 22

Corridor Plans 23

TYPES OF PLANS

A corridor is an area of land, typically along a linearroute, containing land uses and transportation sys-tems influenced by the existence of that route. Acorridor plan often focuses on a transportation route,but it can focus on any linear pattern—an openspace, a watercourse, or a continuous linear patternof similar land uses. Corridor planning is the coordi-nation of land-use activity within a linear area.

The scale of corridor planning areas varies. Thearea extending between Boston and Washington, DC,is often thought of as a corridor of urbanization.Many metropolitan area plans organize anticipatedgrowth in corridor form. For example, suburbangrowth along Interstate-88 in the Chicago area is con-sidered a “technology corridor,” referring to the largequantity of businesses along that route. Developmentthat draws access and identity from a major arterial isoften referred to by the name of that street. Forexample, the University Avenue Corridor connectsdowntown Minneapolis with downtown St. Paul.Corridors can exist at the pedestrian scale, such as anentertainment corridor within a downtown.

REASONS TO PREPARE A CORRIDOR PLAN

Corridor plans focus on the impact of a linear publicinvestment or linear land-use policy. Most commonlyassociated with transportation investment, corridorplans are often prepared to coordinate developmentwith other public improvements or land-use activities.Examples include greenway corridor plans to createcontinuous open-space environments that structurethe overall land-use pattern and facilitate access torecreational and open-space environments. Theseplans often establish connections between existinglinear open-space or recreation lands, such as park-ways, rivers, and associated lands, and pathways,bike trails, and parkways.

Corridor plans can serve as organizing elements foroverall community planning. The logic of using linearpublic investments or land-use policies as a basis forland-use organization is so compelling that manygovernmental planning requirements are based uponthis model. This includes the requirement to identifycorridors for potential transportation alignments inmany federal transportation planning processes.Similar requirements can be found in state and localplanning legislation.

Reasons to prepare corridor plans include the fol-lowing:

• To respond to a legal mandate. A corridor plan maybe a requirement in order to receive federal fundsfor a project. For example, the Federal TransitAdministration’s New Starts capital investment pro-gram requires a corridor analysis to determine thelocation of transitways or high-occupancy vehicle(HOV) lane alignments.

• To establish a vision for the future. The plandescribes the anticipated role of the public initiativeas it affects the image of the corridor. It providesguidance to the local governments through withthe corridor runs as well as existing and futureproperty owners, developers, and users of the landin the corridor. It also describes infrastructure

improvements in the corridor and how they fit intothe vision for the corridor.

• To coordinate improvement actions. Corridor plan-ning may involve many public jurisdictions andaffect many citizens. The plan is a key tool for coor-dinating the actions of all parties. For example, theplan might coordinate local road improvementswith a state highway project.

• To provide guidance to land owners and developers.The plan coordinates capital improvements loca-tion and phasing, or public land purchase andprotection. It identifies access and land-use policy,which affects all parcels in the corridor. Therefore,property owners and developers look to it tounderstand how best to make use of and accesstheir properties.

• To respond to local transportation improvement.Changes to a corridor may affect the existing usesalong it and have an influence on the future usesthere. The plan can help reduce the effect ofchange on existing uses and provide the types ofimprovements to attract new uses. It can alsohelp to address long-term access and circulationproblems.

APPROACHES TO THE PLAN

There are three approaches common to corridorplans, which are often used together:

• The framework approach• The strategic approach• The project approach

The Framework ApproachThe framework approach is a comprehensive planningapproach that identifies how best to organize land-useand related services within a continuous linear area,based upon the influence of the public improvementor policy initiative. It considers that initiative’s effect onmarket demand, land use, feeder transportation routesand systems, utility provision, and urban design. Itseeks to organize these subsystems to meet overalldevelopment and design goals and objectives. Policiesand projects are then identified to achieve the land-useand related subsystem plans.

The Strategic ApproachCorridors are often conceptualized as a series of“beads on a necklace.” The beads might be consid-ered the focus of corridor activities, and the spacebetween the beads as a passive area of connection.This approach tends to focus more attention on thebeads, or nodes, within the corridor and less uponthe connecting portions, or links. This can lead toembellishing the details of a framework approach atcertain nodes or to focusing the corridor planningeffort within all or specific nodes. The strategicapproach is useful to refine the vision for overall cor-ridor improvement into detailed projects focused onspecific key nodes.

The Project ApproachThe project approach focuses on planning to addressthe impact of the specific project proposal that gaverise to the corridor planning activity. Most often, this

is a highway or transit improvement project that maychange the patterns of access to adjacent land and thepatterns of land use within this area. Examples of proj-ect-based corridor planning include the following:

• Highway widening projects, which may drive cer-tain land-use and related feeder access planning

• Rail or busway transit projects, which influence siteaccessibility and induce changed patterns of land use

• Greenway or rails-to-trails improvements, whichencourage changes in adjacent land uses, arearecreation patterns, and facilities

The project approach is most often used torespond to specific local planning requirements..Often, the scope of the investigation is limited to adesignated project area containing only the land adja-cent to the improvement.

PLAN COMPONENTS

A corridor plan is often prepared to organize land-useand related subsystems in response to a pendingpublic policy initiative. The nature of that initiativedrives the plan’s time horizon. A plan developed fora highway or transit expansion program, or a cityredevelopment initiative, may have a 15- to 20-yeartime horizon. A plan developed to improve an exist-ing roadway may have a 5- to 10-year horizon.

Regardless of the time frame and the initial pur-pose, most corridor plans include the followingactions:

• Conduct an inventory of conditions• Provide a vision of the future• Establish a development policy• Coordinate public investment• Identify implementation activities

The Inventory In preparing a corridor plan, a planner must firstunderstand the pattern of existing and anticipatedland use, transportation, land ownership, area demo-graphics, and market conditions. This is best done bycollecting, tabulating, and mapping a range of dataexplaining conditions within the corridor, including:

• corridor boundaries;• existing land uses;• the highway and street circulation system;• patterns of land ownership;• population distribution;• proposed land uses (if any);• transit routes; and• urban design features.

It is also important to understand communitywideattitudes regarding development expectations withinthe corridor and the corridor’s role in the commu-nity’s fabric, which means how the corridor helps toestablish the community’s identity, link major por-tions of the community, serve a major economicfunction (such as shopping), or accommodate keycommunity resources (such as open space).

The community or entity responsible for imple-menting the proposed initiative and the U.S. Census

CORRIDOR PLANS


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 23

24 Corridor Plans


are both potential data sources. In a growing numberof communities, the county or city GeographicInformation System (GIS) has data sets regarding landand infrastructure information. Conducting commu-nity surveys and holding focus group sessions withkey corridor stakeholders, corridor users, and thoseresponsible for the underlying public policy initiativeare other methods of determining community expec-tations and the anticipated role of the corridor.

The scale and purpose of the endeavor defines, inpart, the required level of detail for the data. A plan toguide future highway expansion may require land-useand transportation information only somewhat moredetailed than what is used in a comprehensive plan.A plan to guide redevelopment along an existingroadway must look to a finer grain of data, such asparcel-based land use, building conditions and own-ership, the location of existing utilities, and thelocation of curb cuts. Data collection can be an expen-sive and time-consuming part of the planning process,hence planners should identify the level of requireddetail based on the questions to be answered.

The VisionPlans are designs to achieve agreed-on ends or pur-poses. Thus it is important that the plan provide animage of what it intends to achieve. This is oftenbroadly articulated in the form of a “vision” for thecorridor. The vision might be in the form of a shortstatement providing a mental image of the contentand operations within the corridor. For example, “Thecorridor serves as a highly accessible and imageablelocation for major office development and associatedsupport activities serving the entire region.” This typeof “vision,” which serves as a consensus-buildingstatement, is often supported by sketches and/or dig-ital graphics, which help to depict its physicalimplications. The vision is then further clarified by aset of goals and objectives, which clearly depict whatis to be achieved through the plan.

Often the vision can best be explained through theintroduction of a concept for corridor development.This concept should identify the location of the pro-posed public improvement or components of thepolicy initiative and the general organization of landuse and infrastructure proposals related to it. It shouldestablish an image of what the plan seeks to achieve.

The Development PolicyIn order to achieve the vision, the plan must providethe tools necessary to coordinate private developmentor redevelopment activity with the policy initiativeunderlying the plan. Subsystem plans illustrate the pol-icy basis for these actions. They describe transportation,land use, and urban design proposals within the corri-dor in response to the general organizing concept forthe corridor. If the corridor has been strategicallydivided into a series of nodes and links, the detail of thesubsystem plans will reflect the complexity of thenodes and the extent of anticipated change.

The transportation plans indicate how streets, tran-sit alignments and stops, and pedestrian and bicycleroutes should be configured to ensure access to theland uses along the corridor. The land-use plandescribes how existing patterns might changethrough redevelopment, and how new developmentcould be organized to reflect the concept. The urbandesign plan suggests how land use might best beorganized, buildings sited and scaled, landscapedesigned, and transportation improvements detailedto fulfill the role and the public image of the corri-dor as described by the corridor goals and objectives.

Public InvestmentBecause corridor planning often is driven by publicinvestment initiatives—the need to build a road, locatea transit alignment, or secure open space—strategiesfor public investment are frequently a key componentof the plan and guide the program of implementationactivities. A corridor plan should identify and locatethe major capital improvements necessary to bringabout the desired level of service and pattern ofdevelopment. Public investment strategies are the keyto implementing these improvements. These strategiesneed to address infrastructure phasing, coordinationof multiple systems, such as land use, utilities, andtransportation, and the areas where detailed planningis required to implement these investment strategies.

These strategic considerations and the realities ofanticipated effects often suggest that plan proposalsshould vary from the general to the detailed, appro-priate to the issues at hand. Corridor plans often focuson points of interchange, such as key intersections,transit stops, and pedestrian precincts. Investmentstrategies for these areas should emphasize principles

for land use/transportation coordination. Illustrativeplans may be prepared to demonstrate the principlesto be employed and the character of the desired out-come. This helps to more clearly explain the projectsthat are key to successful corridor improvement andto guide the implementation decisions.

Implementation and PhasingImplementing the corridor plan can be a complexendeavor, involving many public agencies and prop-erty owners. Most difficulties in realizing the corridorplan result from a lack of information or misconcep-tions during the planning process related to intent,resource availability, approvals, scheduling, or marketassumptions. Coordination is critical in corridor planimplementation. Those who design and phase keycorridor improvements and those responsible fororganizing and implementing infrastructure and land-use activities adjacent to or influenced by thoseimprovements need to establish a strong relationshipto understand their respective goals.

Major infrastructure improvement phasing shouldbe linked to support infrastructure activities withinthe community’s capital improvements program.Land-use regulations should be adjusted to reflect theplan’s goals. This may include development of over-lay zones to coordinate land-use planning, includingdevelopment intensity and building location andmassing, with the location of parking, curb cuts, andpedestrian access to transportation improvementsproposed within the corridor. Other zoning consider-ations may be developed to ensure the preservationof historical assets, view protection, access to openspace, or other corridor-based policy initiatives. All orcertain portions of a corridor may be best addressedby a coordinated development, maintenance, andmanagement program similar to that used in down-towns or other activity centers.

See also:Commercial Corridors Greenways and TrailsMultiuser TrailsOn-Street BikewaysSidewalksTransportation Plans


Poorly Defined Transition- Unincorporated Area

Commercial Node

StableResidential

Weak Residential-Unincorporated Area

StableResidential

New "Town Center"Opportunity

Under-Utilized Land

Stable Residential

New Single/ Multifamily Residential

Stable Residential

South SuburbanHospital Anchor

Key "Grayfield" Redevelopment Sites (Build Upon Strength of Hospital Anchor)

Stable ResidentialRacquet ClubStrong Local Attraction

CommercialNode

CommercialNodes

Strong DowntownAnchor

Downtown Gateway Features

StableResidential

Awkward Intersection

StableResidential

CORRIDOR ANALYSIS MAPSource: Camiros, Ltd.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 24

Redevelopment Area Plans 25

TYPES OF PLANS

Supporting StudiesIn preparing the redevelopment area plan, the localplanning agency should conduct supporting studiesthat may include the following:

• Analyses of socioeconomic conditions of the rede-velopment area

• A description and analysis of existing land uses, ahistorical overview of land-use change in the rede-velopment area, and a discussion of currentland-use issues

• Opinion surveys of property owners, businessowners, employees, and residents within the rede-velopment area

• Surveys and assessments of the conditions of prop-erties, buildings, and structures

• An evaluation of conditions of public infrastructure• Analyses of tax and special assessment delinquency

of properties within the redevelopment area • Assessments and site investigations to characterize

the extent and location of environmental contami-nation of properties within the redevelopment area

• Assessments and site investigations characterizingthe extent and location of properties susceptible tothe effects of natural hazards or describing dam-ages from actual disaster events

• Assessments of historic, cultural, and scenicresources in the redevelopment areas

• Market analyses for residential, commercial, andindustrial uses

• Analyses of parking supply and demand• Studies of traffic circulation and traffic signalization

PLAN COMPONENTS

The redevelopment area plan, which should bebased on the supporting studies and analyses, shouldinclude the following:

• Statement of the community’s goals, policies, andguidelines regarding the revitalization and reuse ofthe redevelopment area, including a statement of

the relationship of the plan to the local compre-hensive plan

• A plan map drawn to an appropriate scale thatdelineates the boundaries of the redevelopmentarea and that may show:• The location and characteristics of permissible

types of development • The location and characteristics of streets, other

rights-of-way, public utilities, and other publicimprovements

• The dimensions and grading of parcels• The dimensions and siting of structures • Areas where rehabilitation of buildings is to occur • Parcels to be acquired or on which demolition is

to occur • Parcels on which environmental contamination

or susceptibility to natural hazards is to be reme-diated (if applicable)

• Design guidelines or controls• The public investment plan

• Illustrations showing the general configuration ofbuilding heights and volumes

• The legal description of the redevelopment area• Any other planning matters that contribute to the

redevelopment and use of the area as a whole.

If a redevelopment plan is carried out as a functionof a state law, the state statute may contain additionalrequirements that must be satisfied (for example, thecreation of a project area committee consisting of res-idents and property owners).

IMPLEMENTATIONSeveral actions can be taken to implement the goalsand objectives of a redevelopment plan. Theseinclude the following:

• Creation or designation of a public or nonprofitagency to oversee and administer the implementa-tion of the plan

• Land development regulations that apply to theredevelopment area

REDEVELOPMENT AREA PLANS


Community Redevelopment Area

River

REDEVELOPMENT AREA MAP Source: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission.1999. Community Redevelopment Plan: Old Tampa PoliceDepartment Site. City of Tampa, FL.

Vacant LandsCommercial Uses

Residential

CRA

River

Government/Utilities

REDEVELOPMENT AREA, EXISTINGLAND-USE MAPSource: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission.1999. Community Redevelopment Plan: Old Tampa PoliceDepartment Site. City of Tampa, FL.

Redevelopment areas are those identified as requiringspecific action by the local government for revitaliza-tion to occur. A jurisdiction typically plans for severaltypes of areas needing redevelopment, each of whichcalls for a different set of planning strategies, such as:

• business districts that are experiencing loss of retail,office, and related residential activity;

• residential areas where dwelling units are in amarked state of deterioration or dilapidation; and

• industrial areas where plants and facilities are aban-doned, idled, or underused, and the sites themselvesare environmentally contaminated and must beremediated before they can be reused

REASONS TO PREPARE A REDEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN

According to the American Planning Association’sGrowing SmartSM Legislative Guidebook (2002), aredevelopment area plan provides detail to andrefines proposals in the local comprehensive plan. Italso encourages reinvestment in and revitalizationand reuse of areas of the local jurisdiction character-ized by certain conditions or circumstances:

• Loss of retail, office, and industrial activity, use, oremployment

• Predominance of deteriorating or deteriorated structures • Abandonment of structures • Environmentally contaminated land • Existence of unsanitary or unsafe conditions that

endanger life, health, and property• Damage from disasters• Defective or inadequate street or lot layout• Vacant land that has remained so for a period of

years and is not likely to be developed through theinstrument of private capital

• Deterioration in public improvements, such asstreets, street lighting, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, andrelated pedestrian amenities

• Tax or special assessment delinquency exceedingthe fair market value of the land

• Any combination of such factors that substantiallyimpede growth or affect public health and safety


Redevelopment area plans tend to be highly specificbecause the community may want to acquire proper-ties to join together in a new lot pattern, to build publicimprovements, or to carry out a design theme. Localgovernments acquire land either through a negotiatedpurchase or through the use of eminent domain.Individual parcels may be resubdivided, a process inwhich previously existing lots are combined ordivided, existing street rights-of-way are eliminated,and new streets are created; in addition, new water,sewer, and related facilities are constructed, if neces-sary, to create a plat with different lot and streetconfigurations. If the property is environmentally con-taminated—a brownfields site—the private propertyowner will be responsible for cleaning up the site andfor satisfying state and federal regulations.

Moreover, the local government may want to imposespecial controls on all new development so that theredeveloped area carries out a unified design theme.See page C-12 of the color insert for an example.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 25

26 Redevelopment Area Plans


• Enactment, amendment, and enforcement of prop-erty maintenance and housing codes

• Business retention and technical assistance pro-grams and grant and loan programs to encouragethe rehabilitation of buildings, improve the appear-ance of building façades and signage, stimulatebusiness start-ups and expansions, and otherwiseattract private investment to the area

• Use of tax increment financing to pay for publicimprovements

• Special assessments• Capital improvements that may include the installa-

tion, construction, or reconstruction of streets,lighting, related pedestrian amenities, public utilities,parks, playgrounds, and public buildings and facilities

• Programs of site remediation to remove environ-mental contamination

• Programs to minimize the effects of natural hazardson property

• Acquisition of property• Demolition and removal of structures and

improvements• Programs of temporary and permanent relocation

assistance for displaced businesses and residents,including an estimate of the extent to which safeand sanitary dwelling units affordable to displacedresidents will be available to them in the existinglocal housing market

• Assembly and replatting of lots or parcels

• Disposition of any property acquired in the rede-velopment area, including the sale, leasing, orretention by the local government

• Programs to market and promote the redevelop-ment area and attract new businesses

Redevelopment AgencyIf one does not already exist, a redevelopment agencymay be created to oversee the redevelopment project.It may administer temporary or permanent relocationof existing residents and businesses. The local gov-ernment or the redevelopment agency may thenestablish business retention, technical assistance, andgrant and loan programs to encourage the rehabilita-tion of buildings, to improve the appearance ofbuilding façades and signage, to stimulate businessstart-ups and expansions, and to otherwise attract pri-vate investment to the area.

Financing for RedevelopmentFinancing for redevelopment can include specialassessments to property owners, tax incrementfinancing, federal grants, and tax abatements. Checkwith applicable state statutes to determine whichfinancing tools can be used.

Special AssessmentsA special assessment is a charge imposed upon theproperty owner to pay for an improvement that bene-

fits the property. The amount of the special assessmentis typically a pro rata share of the cost of installing theimprovement. For example, the redevelopment planmay require the replacement of all sidewalks in theredevelopment area. The local government wouldimpose the special assessment, as in the manner of aproperty tax, to recover the cost of designing andinstalling the sidewalks. The property owner wouldtypically be assessed on the amount of streetfrontage—each foot of frontage would be multipliedby the cost of installing one lineal foot of sidewalk ofa certain width. However, the local government wouldbe responsible for installing improvements in the pub-lic right-of-way—for example, the cost of replacingcurbs, gutters, and sidewalks at street intersections.

Tax Increment FinancingTax increment financing taps into the increase in taxrevenue from a redevelopment project to finance theimprovements and activities that make redevelopmentoccur. Under tax increment financing, the local gov-ernment determines the property tax revenue it iscollecting in a given area before redevelopmentoccurs. The local government then borrows moneywith loans or by the sale of bonds. The funds are usedin various ways to improve the developmentprospects of the area: loans to new businesses, capi-tal improvements, new services (such as morefrequent street cleaning and security patrols), adver-tising, and marketing. As development occurs in thearea, tax revenue increases, and the excess above pre-redevelopment property tax revenue in the area—thetax increment—is used to pay off the loans or bondsand to finance further redevelopment activities.

Federal GrantsFederal grants, notably the federal CommunityDevelopment Block Grant (CDBG), can be used forland acquisition, clearance, and redevelopment. Thosewho use federal monies must follow federal regulationswith respect to environmental protection, fair laborstandards, relocation, bidding, and other requirements.

Tax AbatementsProperty owners may receive tax abatements for acertain period of years to induce investment in theredevelopment area. Under tax abatement, theassessed valuation of real property in the redevelop-ment area is frozen as of a specified date, and the realproperty taxes are levied against the property accord-ing to the assessed value on the specified date insteadof the current value of the property. Therefore, anyincreases in the value of real property, whether dueto capital improvements to the property or to the gen-eral economic improvement of the neighborhood,will not result in a higher tax bill that could act as adisincentive to further investments or improvements.

REFERENCES

Meck, Stuart (Gen. Ed). 2002. Growing SmartSM

Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planningand Management of Change. 2 vols. Chicago:American Planning Association, Chapters 7 and 14,esp. Sections 7-303 (Redevelopment Area Plan), 14-301 (Redevelopment Areas), 4-302 (Tax IncrementFinancing), 14-303 (Tax Abatement).

See also:BrownfieldsRevitalization and Economic Development


River

E

Medium-Density Residential

Open Space

Medium- to High-Density Mixed Uses: Residential, Office, and Retail

CRA Boundary

High-Density Mixed Uses: Office, Hotel, Retail, ResidentialMedium-Density Mixed Uses: Residential, Office, and Retail

Open Space Connections to Surroundings

C

B

High-Density ResidentialD

E

A

F

F

C

D B

A

REDEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN Source: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. 1999. Community Redevelopment Plan: Old Tampa Police DepartmentSite. City of Tampa, FL.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 26

Transportation Plans 27

TYPES OF PLANS

Effective transportation systems are central to main-taining the productivity, health, and safety ofcommunities and regions. A transportation planguides the investment in, and timing of, improve-ments to the transportation network to meetcommunity mobility, accessibility, safety, economic,and quality-of-life needs.

REASONS TO PREPARE A TRANS-PORTATION PLAN

Transportation plans are typically prepared to addressthe following items in a systematic, coordinated, andcomprehensive manner:

• Management of existing systems• Maintenance of previous investment• Realignment of existing services • Introduction of new services• Construction of new facilities • Identification of ways to finance system mainte-

nance and improvements

The process of preparing various transportationplans gives government agencies, elected officials,and the public the opportunity to assess the ade-quacy of the existing system and to plan to meetfuture needs while maintaining local and regionaltransportation systems in good condition. The out-come of the process should be a transportation planthat defines existing problems and issues, predictsfuture deficiencies and problems, defines solutions,and identifies where to find the resources needed tomanage and implement plan recommendations.

The goals of a particular transportation plan areusually determined by comparing existing transporta-tion system performance to projected future demandsand by considering the particular social, economic,and environmental circumstances of the community.Given the importance of effective transportation sys-tems to the health and vitality of a community,transportation plans often provide a “blueprint” forfuture development and redevelopment in support ofregional and comprehensive land-use plans.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The development of a successful transportation planrequires the insights of those entities responsible forvarious components of the transportation system,working in concert with those who will use and beaffected by the transportation service and improve-ments, to develop solutions responsive to diverseconsiderations. Those responsible for plan develop-ment must create an effective forum for evaluatingsystem deficiencies, assessing alternatives, and select-ing the most effective course of action. Developmentof some plans is a highly structured process, com-plete with formal committees. Others are lessstructured and rely more heavily on exiting commit-tees or informal communication networks to solicitparticipation.

Whether structured or informal, because trans-portation plans affect so many interests and a widerange of people, broad and meaningful participation

in plan development is essential. The developmentstage of transportation planning should include rep-resentatives from the following constituencies:

• U.S. Department of Transportation• State departments of transportation• Metropolitan planning organizations• Local governments• Public transit providers• Resource and regulatory agencies• Citizens and communities

U.S. Department of TransportationThe modal administrations of the U.S. Department ofTransportation, including the Federal HighwayAdministration, the Federal Transit Administration, andthe Federal Railroad Administration, administer, grant,and oversee funds for the planning, development,implementation, and operation of transportation serv-ices and infrastructure. In transportation planning effortsfunded by the federal government, such as corridorplans, direct involvement of the federal agency is advis-able during key decision points, at a minimum. In thedevelopment of a local transportation plan where thereis no clear federal interest, there may be no involvementof the federal government, or the involvement might belimited to consultation regarding the availability andapplicability of federal programs and funding.

State Departments of TransportationThrough their departments of transportation, statesare responsible for the construction, maintenance,and operation of designated state highways. As partof this responsibility, state departments of transporta-tion (DOTs) are responsible for provision andadministration of funds for construction, mainte-nance, and operation of transportation facilities andservices. State DOTs are also responsible for leadingthe preparation of statewide plans. Like metropolitanplanning organizations (MPOs), they may haveresponsibility in the development and maintenanceof regional travel demand forecasting models. StateDOTs provide technical assistance and support to awide range of transportation plans. They are therepositories for much of the data required to assessexisting transportation systems.

Metropolitan Planning OrganizationsThe federal government charges MPOs to preparemetropolitan area long-range plans for urbanizedareas. In some instances, MPOs will also lead thepreparation of corridor plans. In addition, MPOs areoften in charge of developing and maintaining theregional travel demand forecasting models used as abasis to support many transportation planning func-tions, including the development of employment andpopulation forecasts and administration and dis-bursement of transportation funds. Consequently, inaddition to their leadership role in preparing metro-politan regional long-range transportation plans,MPOs also provide technical assistance in support ofother transportation planning efforts.

Local GovernmentsLocal governments play a major role in constructing,operating, and maintaining surface transportation net-

works, often including transit service and roadways.Consequently, their involvement in the developmentof transportation plans is essential. In some cases, suchas for a local transportation plan, the city, county, ortown public works departments or transportation divi-sions might take the lead in preparing thetransportation plan or the transportation element of acomprehensive plan. For other plan types, such asmetropolitan area long-range transportation plans,local governments might provide technical supportand knowledge specific to their jurisdictions. In eithercase, the insights of those engaged in the day-to-dayoperations of the system are an invaluable asset to anyplan. In addition, since local government might becharged with implementing particular recommenda-tions of the plans, it is essential that there be consensusfor action and an understanding of the basic needs andtechnical analysis supporting the action.

Public Transit ProvidersWith respect to public transportation services, the roleand responsibilities of public transit providers is sim-ilar to that described for local governments. However,because transit providers may not have a dedicatedfunding source for operations and may be dependentupon local governments for funding, early consulta-tion regarding the availability of resources is evenmore critical.

Resource and Regulatory AgenciesTransportation plan recommendations can affect abroad range of natural and social resources.Consequently, early involvement of resource and reg-ulatory agencies in transportation plan developmentcan help identify constraints that could potentiallyprohibit implementation of future projects because ofregulatory requirements, schedule impacts, or finan-cial requirements.

Citizens and CommunitiesCitizens and communities are an important resourcein the development of transportation plans, as boththe “customers” of the system and those who mightbe affected by proposed changes. Statewide plans,metropolitan area long-range transportation plans,and corridor plans specifically require public involve-ment to inform plan development. Involvementshould range from the average resident to neighbor-hood or civic associations, community leaders, andbusiness community representation, such as cham-bers of commerce. For larger transportation plans, itis advisable to establish a formal citizens advisorygroup.

TYPES OF TRANSPORTATIONPLANS

Transportation plans vary widely in approach, con-tent, and scope as determined by geographiccoverage, scale, and time frame. There are four basictypes of transportation plans:

• Statewide transportation plans• Metropolitan area long-range transportation plans• Local transportation plans• Corridor plans

TRANSPORTATION PLANS

Diana C. Mendes, AICP, DMJM+Harris Planning, Fairfax, Virginia

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 27

28 Transportation Plans


Statewide Transportation PlansStatewide transportation plans, which are prepared bystate DOTs, provide the basis for coordinating datacollection and analyses to support planning, program-ming, and project development decisions. A basicrequirement of plan development is coordination withthe public and other entities with jurisdiction. Theextent of coordination required with other transporta-tion planning entities in developing the plan is basedon the scale and complexity of many issues, includingtransportation problems; safety concerns; and landuse, employment, economic, environmental, andhousing and community development objectiveswithin the state. The plans typically reference, summa-rize, or contain information about the availability offinancial and other resources needed to implement theplan, although state plans, unlike metropolitan arealong-range transportation plans, are not required todetermine the likely availability of funding and thesources of funding to carry out the plan. State plans areevaluated on a regular basis and updated periodicallyto reflect changing statewide priorities and needs.

Statewide plans are intermodal in nature. Theyaddress passenger, goods, and freight movement for aminimum 20-year planning horizon. These plans arefederally mandated to consider the following issues:

• Economic vitality• Safety and security• Accessibility and mobility• Environmental quality• Quality of life• System connectivity• System efficiency• System preservation

In addition, state DOTs are all obligated to considerthe opinions of elected officials representing local gov-ernments and the concerns of Native American tribalgovernments and federal land management agenciesthat have jurisdiction over land within the boundaries ofthe state. The plan is coordinated with adjacent statesand counties and, where appropriate, international bor-ders. It is conducted in a manner consistent with themetropolitan area planning process conducted by MPOs.By federal mandate, statewide plans are coordinatedwith air quality planning, and provide for appropriateconformity analyses as required by the Clean Air Act.

Metropolitan Area Long-RangeTransportation PlansMetropolitan area long-range transportation plansfocus on evaluating alternative transportation andland-use scenarios to identify major travel corridors,assess potential problems, and provide a basis forplanning and programming major improvements.These plans cover multiple jurisdictions and aretherefore “regional” in emphasis. Prepared under thedirection of a federally designated MPO, they typi-cally cover a 20-year planning horizon. Under federalrequirements, the adopted plans must be “fiscallyconstrained.” In other words, the plan must demon-strate the likely availability of funding sources neededto implement proposed programs and projects. Seepage C-13 of the color insert for an example.

Local Transportation PlansLocal transportation plans are prepared either asstand-alone documents or as an element of a com-

prehensive plan. Local governments or regional tran-sit providers typically prepare these plans, but theyare coordinated closely with MPOs and state DOTs.The plans provide the basis for the programming andimplementation of local transportation actions. Theyaddress small-scale improvements and projectsrequiring major capital investments. The typical planconsists of an inventory of existing facilities and adescription of existing conditions, an assessment ofsystem deficiencies, a projection of future needs, adescription of the proposed plan, discussion of costimplications, and a summary of actions required forplan implementation. These plans usually addresssome short-range early action items (1 to 5 years),some midrange actions (5 to 10 years), and longer-term activities in a 20-year time horizon. In addition,the land-use implications of the plan are addressed.As with the other plans discussed, public and agencycoordination during plan development is essential tosuccessful plan implementation.

Corridor PlansCorridor plans that focus on transportation are pre-pared for high-priority areas showing signs ofcongestion or predicted for significant future travel vol-

ume, or for transportation facilities of historical or nat-ural significance. The entity responsible forimplementing the improvements most frequently pre-pares these plans; therefore, state DOTs and transitproviders often undertake them, although MPOs, localgovernments, and resource agencies such as theNational Park Service also conduct such studies.Coordination of corridor plans with the general publicis required, as well as with federal, state, and localagencies with an interest in the plan’s outcome.Corridor plans usually have a 20-year planning hori-zon. The degree of federal or state DOT participationis often governed by the proposed funding for theplan’s implementation.

Corridor plans involve the definition of the corridorto be studied, along with a clear presentation of theproblem to be solved, both of which form the basisof the purpose and need for action. Consideration ofa wide range of alternative means to solve the iden-tified transportation problem or resourcemanagement objectives should be at the core of plandevelopment. These alternatives can involve differentlevels of investment or different types of corridorimprovements. They are systematically evaluatedusing a set of stakeholder-developed evaluation crite-


Implement, Evaluate,and Monitor Plan

EvaluateSystem

Establish Goalsand Objectives

Prepare andAdopt Plans

Develop, Evaluate, and Select

Potential Solutions

Define andPrioritize Future

Needs

Public andAgency

Coordination

TRANSPORTATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT CYCLESource: Diana C. Mendes, AICP.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 28

Transportation Plans 29

TYPES OF PLANS

ria. These criteria typically include land use, environ-mental effects, community concerns, cost, capacity,and effectiveness. The analysis results are shared anddiscussed publicly prior to making a decision on apreferred course of action. The final plan documentsummarizes both the planning process and theresults, explaining how the decision was made, andthe actions necessary to implement the plan and rec-ommended improvements.

For additional details concerning other types ofcorridor plans, please see the section on CorridorPlans in this part of the book.

PLAN COMPONENTS

Transportation plans should include the followingelements:

• An overview of the planning process• A description of existing conditions (transportation

network and land use)• A forecast of future conditions (transportation net-

work and land use)• A summary of transportation needs• Goals and objectives• An assessment of transportation system capacity• A series of alternative scenarios for future and pro-

posed improvements• A description of cost implications and funding

sources• Guidelines for implementation and performance

monitoring• A program for ensuring public involvement

TRANSPORTATION PLANDEVELOPMENT

There are six basic steps in the development of atransportation plan:

1.Evaluate system capacity, deficiencies, and needs.2. Establish goals and objectives.3. Define and prioritize future needs.4. Develop, evaluate, and select potential solutions.5. Prepare and adopt the plan, including public

review and comment.6. Implement, monitor, and evaluate plan perform-

ance.

The development of responsive and effective plansis predicated on the active involvement of the publicand appropriate federal, state, and local agencies intransportation decision making at each step of trans-portation plan development.

Evaluate System Capacity, Deficiencies,and Need Evaluation of the current system begins with aninventory of the existing facilities and services andtheir capacity, including the roadway network, transitsystems, freight systems, as well as the interrelation-ships to air and waterborne transportation. Thisevaluation should establish where the transportationnetwork is performing well and where deficienciescurrently exist or are predicted to exist in terms ofaccessibility, mobility, and efficiency relative to com-munity aspirations. Both quantitative and qualitativemeasures, including evaluation of population andemployment characteristics, land-use trends, travel

markets and patterns, and user surveys, are oftenused in the plans to describe the transportation prob-lems to be solved and to establish a need for action.

Establish Goals and Objectives The goals and objectives, which are developed inresponse to the analysis of system capacity, deficiencies,and needs, form the foundation upon which differentalternative transportation scenarios and investments areevaluated during plan development. The goals andobjectives vary and are dependent upon context (rural,suburban, and urban), trends in population andemployment, and planning horizon (short term or longterm). Transportation plans are increasingly becomingmore context-sensitive, incorporating more goals relatedto land-use compatibility, economic considerations,energy, environmental management, and communityquality. Criteria by which the performance of differentpotential actions can be measured against these goalsand objectives should be clearly articulated to facilitatepublic understanding of the decision-making process.

Define and Prioritize Future NeedsOnce planners have established the plan’s goalsand objectives, the next step involves defining and

prioritizing future needs. This analysis uses theinformation gained during the initial system evalua-tion in combination with population andemployment projections, regional and local land-use plans, and the results of public and agencycoordination.

Transportation ModelsPlanners employ transportation models to conductregional travel demand forecasting and to simulatetraffic impacts to assess and evaluate the capacity ofexisting and future transportation networks to accom-modate projected demand. Regional models arefocused on the large-scale “macro” travel movementsin aggregate, while traffic simulation is focused onthe smaller-scale, or “micro,” travel movements on anindividual basis.

The regional travel demand forecasting models aredeveloped, maintained, and operated by MPOs andstate DOTs, and can vary in size and scope depend-ent upon the area they are designed to serve. Theseregional models characterize the transportation sys-tem networks, as well as the demand for the systemin terms of its users, travel patterns, and how changesto the system might affect demand. These regional


Community Residents

Business Community

Alleviate Congestion

Enhance System Safety

Reduce Travel Times

Support Economic Development Initiatives

Maintain/Repair Existing System

Provide Travel Choices

Reduce Transportation Costs

Provide Additional Parking Capacity

Enhance Quality of Life

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

63%

44%

44%

40%

46%

39%

90%

42%

31%

31%

21%

55%

34%

38%

17%

15%

74%

36%

TRANSPORTATION GOALS BY PARTICIPANT PREFERENCESource: Diana C. Mendes, AICP.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 29

30 Transportation Plans


Develop, Evaluate, and Select PotentialSolutionsFollowing a clear understanding of and agreement onpriorities, alternative scenarios or solutions can bedefined and developed. These scenarios consist ofadjustments to the transportation system based onchanges to services or investments in new programsor infrastructure. While planners may evaluate eachof the transportation modes (e.g., rail, air, auto)addressed in the plan independently, the results ofthis initial assessment can be used ultimately todevelop and to test potential combinations of invest-ment among different modes to best meet needs.

It is during this iterative process that alternativesolutions can be evaluated and compared basedupon their performance and effectiveness in achiev-ing stated goals and objectives and meeting needs. Toassist elected officials, community leaders, and thepublic in making decisions among alternatives, plan-ners need to explain and document the potentialbenefits and impacts, and the trade-offs of each alter-native. They need to pay special attention to whichpopulations benefit from a particular set of actionsversus which may experience adverse impacts toanticipate support for and resistance to the plan.

Prepare and Adopt the PlanThe plan should document the public decision-mak-ing process and provide the technical rationale for itsconclusions. It should also describe future imple-mentation of proposed programs and improvements,including a clear delineation of action to be taken, thesequencing of improvements, responsibility forimplementation, and cost.

A brief executive summary of the plan should beprepared for the public. Because transportation planscan be quite technical, the summary should be writ-ten for the lay reader. Adoption of the plan shouldfollow a public review process that includes a num-ber of public outreach activities, including formalhearings. During the project review process, it maybe necessary to revise the plan. Particular attentionshould be paid to the financial element of the plan interms of cost, revenues, shortfalls, and options forusing current and potential new sources.

Implement, Monitor, and Evaluate PlanPerformancePlan implementation requires clear direction onresponsibilities, schedule, and funding. Successfulplan implementation also depends on ongoing mon-itoring and performance evaluation. This systematic,regular assessment of the effectiveness of imple-mented actions should provide the foundation for theevaluation phase of the next planning cycle. The per-formance measures should be the same as or a subsetof the evaluation criteria used to assess and select theadopted plan.

See also:Air QualityClean Air Act Comprehensive Plans Corridor Plans Environmental Impact AssessmentParticipationTransportation


City Collector

Major City Street

Major City Street — Proposed

Regional Street

Enhanced Streetscape

Street Conservation Area44th St

28th St East

Pas

s

Lake Michigan

Leonard

Knapp

East

Bel

t Li

ne

TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK PLAN: STREETSSource: Adapted from City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2002, Plan for Grand Rapids.

$1.5 Billion

$1 Billion

$500 Million

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Anticipated Revenues

Estimated Funding Needswith Growth and Inflation

NEEDS VERSUS FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURESource: Diana C. Mendes, AICP.

models provide insights about where trips are gener-ated and attracted, how trips are distributed, the likelychoice of modes, and the routes to be traveled inorder to predict the future volume of use.

In cases when regional models either are not avail-able or may not be appropriate, such as when smallchanges in the transportation network need to beanalyzed for a specific site, traffic simulation modelsare used. Traffic simulation models can be valuablenot only in determining future conditions and level ofservice, but also in identifying appropriate mitigation

measures such as changes in signal timing or addi-tional street improvements to address degradation ofcapacity. A number of software packages are com-mercially available, and the models are typicallydeveloped and applied by the project sponsor on acase-by-case basis to address specific project needs.Irrespective of the type of modeling tools andprocesses applied, priorities should be based uponthe results of the technical analysis, overlaid with theopinions of the public and agencies participating inplan development.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 30

Housing Plans 31

TYPES OF PLANS

More than 70 years ago planning pioneer PatrickAbercrombie (1933) wrote, “The subject of housingenters into planning continuously, whether under theheading of density, of the living conditions of the pop-ulation, of slum clearance or suburban growth.” Thosesame issues remain central to the planning processtoday. To address them, jurisdictions with the author-ity to prepare and implement housing plans areincreasingly likely to prepare and adopt housing plansor housing strategies, either as a part of their compre-hensive plan, or as a separate freestanding document.

REASONS TO PREPARE A HOUSINGPLAN

Municipalities have many different reasons forpreparing housing plans.

To Address Legal RequirementsSome states require a housing plan as part of themunicipal comprehensive plan or master plan.Washington State, for example, mandates a housingelement, which must “make adequate provision forexisting and projected needs of all economic seg-ments of the community” (Laws of State ofWashington, RCW 36.70A.070(2)). Other states,including California and New Jersey, require that themunicipality address its fair share of regional housingneed, as defined by a state or regional agency.Municipalities that receive HUD CommunityDevelopment Block Grant or HOME funds must pre-pare a Consolidated Plan, which delineates themunicipality’s overall housing needs and strategy andshows how their federal funds will be used.

To Address Affordable Housing NeedsEven with no formal legal requirement, many munici-palities undertake housing plans when they recognizethat rising housing costs or loss of existing housingunits is making the community unaffordable to manyof its present and prospective residents. As describedin the Cary, North Carolina, affordable housing plan,when the town realized that the “escalating price ofhousing was excluding many people from livingwithin the city limits…including Town staff, police-men, teachers, retail clerks, and service people,” itadopted an affordable housing plan, which included adetailed action-oriented “affordable housing tool kit.”

To Encourage Economic and SocialIntegration, and to Build StrongerNeighborhoodsAffluent suburbs may develop affordable housingplans to ensure that less affluent people can continueto live in, or move into, the community. At the sametime, many older urban centers—for example,Baltimore and Norfolk—have begun to develophousing strategies designed to expand their eco-nomic diversity by attracting middle- andupper-income residents into their neighborhoods anddowntowns. Such strategies can be citywide or canfocus on creating economic diversity in a specificneighborhood, such as Fall Creek Place inIndianapolis. HUD’s HOPE VI and HomeownershipZone programs have funded effective neighborhood-oriented housing strategies.

FORMS OF MUNICIPAL HOUSINGPLANS

The form that a municipal housing plan takes flowsfrom the reason it is being prepared. Where a hous-ing element is part of a comprehensive plan, itsfeatures will usually be spelled out in the state plan-ning statute. These typically include inventories, needassessments, and goal statements, as well as actionplans. The New Jersey Fair Housing Act describes thecontents of a fair-share plan, including “a considera-tion of the lands that are most appropriate forconstruction of low and moderate income housingand of the existing structures most appropriate forconversion to, or rehabilitation for, low and moderateincome housing…” (New Jersey Statutes 52:27D-310(f)). Washington State requires each city or countyto identify “sufficient land for housing, including butnot limited to government-assisted housing, housingfor low-income families, manufactured housing, mul-tifamily housing, and group homes and foster carefacilities.”

A municipality is driven to prepare a plan for inter-nal reasons, such as the need for more affordablehousing, but the scope of the plan may vary widely.Recognizing that housing needs far exceeded thecommunity’s ability to address them, the Stamford,Connecticut, Affordable Housing Strategy concen-trated on a detailed strategy to assemble land andfinancial resources for affordable housing.

Housing strategies in communities seeking toattract middle- and upper-income residents tend tofocus much more on the real estate market, ratherthan on housing needs. These plans may includeidentifying potential target markets, such as empty-nesters or young professionals, focusing on how toattract them into the city’s housing market, whetherby developing new housing oriented to their prefer-ences or by highlighting particular features of thecity’s existing housing stock.

A housing plan is fundamentally a strategic actionplan, which emphasizes those parts of the housingmarket unlikely to be adequately reached by the pri-vate market unaided by public intervention. The

HOUSING PLANS

Alan Mallach, FAICP, National Housing Institute, Montclair, New Jersey

Num

ber

of U

nits

Aut

hori

zed

Multifamily

Single-FamilyManufactured Housing

2-4-Family

500

400

300

200

100 x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

HOUSING PRODUCTION TRENDS BY TYPE, 1990–2000Source: Alan Mallach.

assessment of conditions and analysis of trends is notan end in itself but should be designed to lead to spe-cific strategies and programs designed to achieve thecommunity’s housing goals.

MUNICIPAL HOUSING PLANELEMENTS

Although housing plans vary widely, a series of ele-ments are common to most plans. As noted, in somecases, state law will mandate that certain elements beincluded, while in others local officials and commu-nity stakeholders must determine which are mostrelevant to local concerns.

An Inventory of Existing Conditions andTrendsIn order to understand existing housing conditions inthe municipality, most plans begin with an inventory,including the distribution of housing in the commu-nity by cost and by type (for example, single-family,two-family, or multifamily housing), for both owner-occupied and rental housing. It should also identifyspecialized housing types, such as manufacturedhousing or single-room occupancy (SRO) housing. Itshould both provide a profile of current housing con-ditions and analyze trends to determine how thoseconditions are changing—increases in house prices,for example, or movement from ownership or rental,or vice versa, in the housing stock.

Regional conditions and trends should also be pre-sented, to show how the municipality relates to thelarger regional context. Job growth trends, importantas an indicator of potential housing needs, shouldalso be measured. Information on substandard orabandoned housing should be included where sounddata is available. Census data should be used as astarting point, but, particularly as the end of eachdecade approaches, it must be supplemented byother data sources. A property information system, ashas been developed in many cities (e.g., Los Angelesor Minneapolis), can be used to identify buildings atrisk of abandonment by tracking code violations, taxarrearages, and crime complaints.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 31

32 Housing Plans


Housing Need AnalysisMost housing plans are designed to focus primarilyon affordable housing. Affordable housing is defineddifferently in different jurisdictions. In New Jersey, itrefers to households earning no more than 80 percentof the regional median income, while elsewhere itmay include households earning as much as 120 per-cent of regional median or as little as 50 percent. Atpresent, households earning less than 50 percent ofregional median income are most likely to have defi-cient housing conditions and are least likely to seetheir housing needs addressed by the private market.

The housing plan should attempt to quantify hous-ing needs wherever possible, using census data toidentify the number of households living in over-crowded housing or suffering undue cost burdens inthe community. Where feasible, a community surveyshould be used to identify households living in sub-standard housing. The sum of these needs is oftenreferred to as the community’s present, or indige-nous, housing need.

Prospective affordable housing needs are those oflow- and moderate-income households who shouldhave the opportunity to move into the community inthe future. This is where the fair-share principlebecomes most relevant since, by definition, a sub-stantial percentage of all new households are lowand moderate income. Since “low and moderateincome” is defined relative to regional medianincome rather than as a set dollar amount, it will rep-resent a consistent share of all households over time,with the share depending on where the cutoff isplaced. Where low and moderate income is definedas 80 percent of regional median, roughly 40 percentof all households will fall below that line. Where it isdefined as 50 percent of regional median, it willinclude roughly 25 percent of all households. (Seetable.) A fair-share plan, or regional fair-share alloca-tion, identifies the share of the region’s householdgrowth that should appropriately be accommodatedwithin the municipality and defines how housing forthose households will be provided.

See Housing Needs Assessment elsewhere in thisbook for more detail on conducting such a study.

Market AnalysisUnderstanding the workings of the housing market,at the regional level and within the municipality—andin large municipalities, within individual neighbor-hoods—is a critical step toward framing effective,achievable goals and strategies, and determining real-istic targets. Enacting a successful inclusionaryprogram, for example, requires an understanding of

how the market will respond to incentives, such asdensity bonuses, or the extent to which market priceswill support internal subsidies. In an older city, themarket analysis may be used to identify those house-holds that may be attracted to redevelopingneighborhoods or downtown loft districts.

Goals and TargetsA strategic plan must be grounded in a body of cleargoals and, to the extent feasible, realizable targets.Goals should be well focused, such as those inDenver’s 1999 housing plan, listed here:

• Reduce the regulatory costs of housing.• Expand the resources available for housing pro-

grams and services.• Preserve the existing housing stock.• Address the needs of low-income and special-

needs populations.• Attract and retain middle-income families.• Undertake housing efforts to support economic

development strategies.Each of these goals is expressed in a way that caneasily be translated into specific strategies and actionprograms.

Strategy AnalysisA vast number of potential housing strategies are avail-able. Before settling on the specific strategies to pursue,a valuable part of the planning process is to conduct astrategy analysis to evaluate the available options todetermine which are most likely to respond effectivelyto the community’s conditions. The strategy analysisshould look at removing impediments and establishingaffirmative steps to reach affordable or other housinggoals. Systems—including barriers created by thetown’s own regulations and administrative proce-dures—that affect the affordability or availability ofhousing should be examined, as should the means andresources the town can use to affirmatively promote itshousing goals. Each strategy should be assessed withrespect to its potential impact if implemented and therelative ease or difficulty of implementing the strategy.

Implementation PlanThe worth of a housing plan ultimately depends on itsimplementation. The implementation plan shouldbegin with a description of the strategies and pro-grams the town has selected to carry its goals forward.It should follow with specific information about howeach strategy will be carried out, including:

• the financial resources that will be assembled;• the sites, buildings, or target areas that will be the

focus of the strategy;• the design and planning standards to be followed;• the key players or participants in implementing the

strategy;• identification of entities responsible for implement-

ing each part of the strategy; and • specific targets and timetables for each strategy or

program.

The implementation plan should be specific. Itshould identify both specific areas to be rezoned andthe specific standards that will ensure that the siteswill be used as intended. It should include an assess-ment of the municipal, state, federal and privatefunds realistically available to carry out the plan.

Some productive implementation strategies munic-ipalities use include:

• rezoning of areas for higher density;• inclusionary zoning;• creating infill opportunities;• creating opportunities for specialized housing

types, such as accessory apartments, SRO housing,or group homes;

• incentives for housing preservation and rehabilita-tion, including adaptive reuse projects;

• assembly strategies and land banking;• removing regulatory barriers, including creating

simpler and expedited approval procedures;• financial assistance to developers of affordable

housing; and• housing trust funds.

Some housing strategies can be carried out within theexisting structure of town or city government, but otherswill entail new responsibilities and may require newmanagerial entities or partnerships to carry them out.Partnerships with community development corporations,developers, employers, and others are critical. Few, ifany, towns or cities are capable of implementing a hous-ing strategy without strong private sector partners.


DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND RENTAL UNITS BY INCOME AND AFFORDABILITYPERCENT OF

MAXIMUM PERCENT OF ALL RENTAL UNITSMAXIMUM AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLDS AT/BELOW

CATEGORY INCOME RENT IN COUNTY AFFORDABLE RENTLow income $25,000 $625/month 25% 3% (<50% of median)Moderate income $40,000 $1,000/month 40% 32% (<80% of median)Middle income $60,000 $1,500/month 60% 74% (<120% of median)Countywide Median $50,000 IncomeCountywide Median $1,200/month Rent

Source: Alan Mallach.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

Under$100K

$100-$149K

$150-$249K

$250-$399K

$400Kor More

1995

2000

DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSE SALE PRICES,1995 AND 2000Source: Alan Mallach.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 32

Housing Plans 33

TYPES OF PLANS

KEY AND EMERGING ISSUES

Housing is a complex, multidimensional subject, bothin itself and in its relationship to other planning anddevelopment issues. Changes in economic conditionsand housing needs, as well as new thinking abouthow best to plan towns and cities, have led to theemergence of a series of important issues, many aris-ing from smart growth principles, that a community’shousing plan should address.

Integrating Housing with Other PlanningActivitiesAs planning moves away from a history of separateduses and disconnected plans to a more holistic viewof a community, the importance of linking housingwith other uses and other planning processes hasbecome apparent. The recognition of the advantagesof mixed-use development, in which housing andnonresidential uses complement each other, as well asrecognition of the links between housing and open-space or major community facilities, such as schools,are important considerations for building stronger,healthier communities. The creation of transit-orienteddevelopment, for example, which combines housingand other uses around transit hubs, is but one ofmany such available strategies.

Housing and JobsThe extent to which a community provides housingopportunities for a diverse workforce is not just amatter of creating a more balanced community; it isessential for the community’s economic vitality.

Housing plans should not only evaluate the commu-nity’s economic base and job growth as a basis forplanning future housing, but should also activelyexplore opportunities for direct linkages betweenmajor employers and workforce housing strategies.

PreservationHousing plans are not only about what should be builtin the future, but also about how to preserve whatalready exists. Housing strategies are a key element inpreserving the fabric of existing neighborhoods andhistoric areas, particularly with respect to affordablehousing. As the loss of the affordable housing stock,either through disinvestment or through price appreci-ation, becomes a critical issue in many communities,housing strategies must incorporate activities to pre-serve that stock as well as produce new affordablehousing.

Downtown and NeighborhoodRevitalizationHousing development grounded in market-buildingstrategies has turned out to be one of the most pow-erful tools available to urban centers to spurreinvestment and revitalization in their downtownsand older residential neighborhoods. Cities such asCleveland and Baltimore have reinvented their down-towns by drawing upon the regional pool of youngprofessionals and empty-nesters, while attracting adiverse body of homebuyers to buy and rehabilitatehomes in the city’s neighborhoods. Strategiesdesigned to maximize private sector reinvestmentand revitalization activities are important parts of the

housing plans of the many cities and towns seekingto rebuild.

Resolving Conflicts over AffordableHousingCertainly, any development is potentially controversial,but few areas are as likely to trigger conflict as afford-able housing. Despite widespread public support formeeting housing needs in general, a specific affordablehousing proposal will often become a lightning rod fora variety of community concerns. Indeed, even theterm “affordable housing” can become a matter of con-tention, prompting some advocates to refer to theirefforts as “workforce housing” or “affordable home-ownership.” The framers of an affordable housing planmust recognize the reality and depth of communityconcerns, and incorporate into the planning process amethod for building support and, to the extent possi-ble, consensus around the plan’s specific strategies,beginning well before the plans are finalized.

REFERENCES

Abercrombie, Patrick. 1933. Town and CountryPlanning. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.

See also:Downtown PlansFederal Housing and Community Development LawsHOPE VIHousing Needs Assessment NeighborhoodsResidential Types


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 33

34 Economic Development Plans


An economic development plan guides a local orregional effort to stimulate economic growth and topreserve existing jobs. Economic development mayalso be aimed at ensuring increases in real wages, sta-bilization or increase of the local tax base, and jobdiversification—making the community or region lessdependent on a few employers and thus insulating itfrom economic downturns in specific industries.

In most places economic development has broad-ened from job creation and retention and provisionof land and infrastructure for business to promotionof prosperity and quality of life—the idea that witheconomic growth should come broader societal well-being. Thus, economic development is increasinglylinked with education, culture, affordable housing,and preservation of the environment.

REASONS TO PREPARE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN

A number of factors typically prompt a local orregional economic planning effort. They include thefollowing:

• Loss of a major employer or the attraction of a newemployer

• Competition from surrounding communities orregions

• Belief that the community should take an activerole in promoting itself

• A desire to provide employment for existing resi-dents

• Economic stagnation or decline in a community, orpart of it

• Need for new tax revenues, especially to financethe concurrent costs of residential growth

Economic development efforts may also simplyreflect an innate entrepreneurial spirit, a desire toexperiment and to grow.


All economic development plans should include aseries of background studies intended to identify thestrengths and weaknesses of the community or theregion and make some assessments about the typeand extent of desired economic growth. If the analy-sis is for a community, the larger frame of referenceshould be the region. If the analysis is for the region,the state or a substantial subregion of it should be thecontext. Trends that dominate the larger unit of analy-sis will in some way affect the subunit.

The planners preparing the plan should seek outor conduct background studies of a number of eco-nomic factors, especially the following:

• Economic base and shift-and-share analyses • Job composition and growth or decline by industry

sector on a national, statewide, or regional basis• Tax structure of the community• Existing labor force characteristics and future labor

force requirements of existing and potential com-mercial and industrial enterprises in the state orregion

• Locational characteristics of the community or

region from the standpoint of access to markets forits goods and services

• Patterns of private investment or disinvestments• Commercial, industrial, and institutional lands

within the community that are vacant, significantlyunused, or environmentally contaminated

• Projected employment growth by industrial sectorfor the state or region

• Regulations and permitting procedures imposed bythe local government on commercial and industrialenterprises and their effects on the costs of doingbusiness

• Existing businesses• Quality of life and lifestyle

PLAN COMPONENTS

An economic development plan will use these back-ground studies and data to draw inferences about thestrengths and weaknesses of the regional economy ofwhich the community is part. From that analysis thelocal government can begin to define goals, policies,and guidelines for economic development. Thisanalysis should, at a minimum, reveal the following:

• The community’s role and responsibilities in theregion’s economy

• Categories or particular types of commercial, indus-trial, and institutional uses desired by the community

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS


University of

California

Dwight

Ashby

Emeryville

San Pablo

Aquatic Park

Sacramento

Fulton

Telegraph

Martin Luther K

ing Jr. Way

University

CedarHopki

nsGilman

Albany

Spruce

Bancroft

College

Grizzly Peak

Marist

Tilden Park

The A

lameda

Solano

Hearst

Clar

emon

t TunnelH

Freeway

Oakland

Downtown

Manufacturing and Mixed Use

Commercial Corridors

Commercial Districts

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT AREAS, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIASource: Berkeley, California, General Plan, 2003.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 34

Economic Development Plans 35

TYPES OF PLANS

• The adequate number of sites of suitable sizes,types, and locations for such uses

• The community facilities that should be included inthe community facilities element of the local com-prehensive plan to support the economicdevelopment plan

The economic development plan may also includegoals, policies, and guidelines to maintain existing

categories, types, or levels of commercial, industrial,and institutional uses.

RELATED ACTIONS

Housing for EmployeesProviding housing to accommodate new employeesis an important part of economic development. Theeconomic development plan must be closely coordi-

nated with the housing plan and its implementationto provide reasonable opportunities for new employ-ees to obtain housing. If that is not done, the localgovernment will effectively export the need for hous-ing and its associated costs to other nearbycommunities. The local government should takeaggressive steps to ensure that sufficient housing isavailable for the expected or desired type of busi-nesses and job growth.

Public/Private CoordinationIn some cases, the economic development plan willinvolve the orchestration of a number of public andprivate actors to bring about economic change in acertain part of the local jurisdiction. For example, acommunity may decide to attract conventions.Thus, a convention and tourism authority may needto be established and funded, a convention centerbuilt, hotels and restaurants enticed to locatenearby, and transportation improvements of varioustypes (some the responsibility of the state, others ofthe county) built.

IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation of the goals and objectives of an eco-nomic development plan can involve several actions:

• Setting aside or making available, through clear-ance and land assembly, land for business andindustry through zoning, environmental remedia-tion of contaminated sites, urban renewal, andother techniques for land assembly

• Underwriting risks though grants, loans, and taxabatement

• Providing amenities and infrastructure through avariety of capital investments

• Creating an ongoing economic developmentfinancing, attraction, and promotion entity

• Focusing attention on other quality-of-life factorssuch as colleges and universities, local schools, andenvironmental, recreational, and cultural amenities

• Attracting “creatives”—painters, writers, sculptors,musicians—to encourage a diverse cultural scene

• Establishing a joint economic development zone• Instituting job training and placement• Refining local, regional, or state permitting proce-

dures and regulations to make them friendlier tobusiness

• Establishing programs that monitor the needs ofexisting businesses and institutions, to ensure theirretention

• Adopting design guidelines for commercial, indus-trial, and institutional areas

Implementing actions or strategies will be sched-uled, with responsibility assigned to different actorsor institutions, and costs estimated. An economicdevelopment plan should assume the private sectormay need to take certain actions, either on its own orthrough formal public-private partnerships. Moreover,such a plan may contain measurable benchmarks interms of job growth or retention, desired levels of pri-vate investment, and changes in real wages.

See also:Housing PlansRevitalization and Economic Development


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES: DIRECT BUSINESS ASSISTANCE—PROJECTSLOCATION FACTOR

PROJECTS ADDRESSED PROS CONS Land or building • Land availability and cost • Puts ownership of key property • Risk of holding undesirable propertypurchase and in hands of public job-creating • Expensiveassembly authority.

• Overcomes fragmented ownership and scarcity of large developable sites.

Industrial park • Land availability and cost • Prepares land for development. • Land can remain vacant and creation • Access to markets • Designed for multiple users and underused while waiting for

many jobs. desired firms.Business • Land availability and cost • Focuses on job creation. • High initial costs for space andaccelerator • Workforce • Nurtures companies of the future. program management.(incubator) • Business formation • Need to have management

expertise to provide technical assistance.

• Small businesses do not lead to employment and tax base growth immediately.

Evaluation of the pros and cons of a discrete set of strategies and the locational factors they address as a way of sorting through actions for aneconomic development plan.

Source: ECONorthwest, Eugene, Oregon, 2003.

EXCERPT FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH, STRATEGIC PLAN1. RETAIN AND EXPAND BUSINESS Goals Measure of Success Critical Strategies Implementation Agent Retain and expand existing Employment in existing 1.1 Facilitate incentive program for [Omitted] businesses with the County that County businesses will existing businesses equivalent to whatare consistent with the core expand by 5% per year. is offered to new businesses.economic values. 1.2 Increase the education and training

opportunities of the existing workforce to prepare employees to better meet customer needs.

1.3 Provide an outreach effort to directlycontact and assist existing businesses.

1.4 Develop and provide financing packages to assist in financing growth of existing businesses.

1.5 Facilitate conflict resolution between businesses and government.

A series of goals and strategies that Washington County, Utah, has established for ensuring the retention and expansion of local businesses.

Source:Washington County, Utah, 2003.

SELECTED GOALS AND BENCHMARKS IN THE WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH,STRATEGIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANGOALS MEASURE OF SUCCESS Diversify and strengthen our economy and increase our wage scale Locate 750 new value-added jobs within the next five years.by attracting value-added business.

Increase the per capita wage of the county to the level of the Utah State average.

Develop improved industrial sites, which are affordable and Monitor the industrial market to ensure that at least 100,000attractive to new and expanding value-added businesses. square feet of industrial high cube inventory is available.Encourage the construction of spec buildings for use by Maintain sufficient fully developed land and available building value-added companies. space to service existing and new value-added business.Expand existing infrastructure to maintain and improve Increase private and public funding for key infrastructure andservice levels. services by 25% over the next five years.Increase the county’s economic development capability such that it Fully fund economic development organization with sufficientfully utilizes the strengths and resources of both the public and cash reserves.private sectors.Increase the advanced degree, technical, and professional skills Annually increase the number of courses available for advancedtraining provided within the county through Dixie State College technical skills training.of Utah and Dixie Applied Technology Center.

Benchmarks that Washington County has set for monitoring success for the plan’s goals.Source:Washington County, Utah, 2003.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 35

36 Community Facilities Plans


Community facilities are generally considered to bebuildings, land, interests in land, and equipmentowned and operated by a local government agencyand used to provide services on behalf of the public.They may include facilities operated by public agen-cies as well as those owned and operated by private(for-profit or nonprofit) enterprises for the benefit ofthe community. A table of various examples of com-munity facilities is included here.

REASONS TO PREPARE A COMMU-NITY FACILITIES PLAN

The purposes of a community facilities plan are to:

• provide for necessary or desirable community facil-ities to support the future land-use patternproposed in the land-use element of the local com-prehensive plan, and over which the localgovernment exerts control or authority in theirlocation, character, extent, and timing;

• establish levels of service for such community facil-ities so they will meet the needs and requirementsof the local government and its residents;

• ensure that such community facilities are providedin a timely, orderly, and cost-effective manner,including the optimization of the use of existingfacilities as an alternative to expansion or new con-struction; and

• coordinate with other local governments, specialdistricts, school districts, and state and federal agen-cies on the provision of community facilities withmultijurisdictional impacts.


Most state planning statutes address in some mannerthe provision of community facilities. The approachpresented here draws on statutes and administrativerules from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon, RhodeIsland, Washington, and Vermont. In creating the com-munity facilities plan, the local government should:

1. identify which community facilities are to be cov-ered by the plan;

2. inventory and assess the facilities’ condition andadequacy;

3. propose a range of facilities to support the devel-opment pattern contemplated in the land-useelement; and

4. adopt level-of-service requirements and locationalguidelines to help in responding to growth andchange in the community and to aid in siting facilities.

Facilities Controlled by the LocalGovernmentSome community facilities have a direct impact onwhere development will occur and at what scale;water and sewer lines are good examples of this.Others may address immediate consequences ofdevelopment; a stormwater management system, forexample, deals with the impact of changes in therunoff characteristics of land as a consequence ofdevelopment. Still other facilities are necessary for thepublic health, safety, and welfare, but are more sup-portive in nature. Examples include police and fire

facilities, general governmental buildings, parks, andelementary and secondary schools. A final groupincludes those facilities that contribute to the culturallife or physical and mental health and personalgrowth of a local government’s residents (e.g., hospi-tals, clinics, libraries, museums, and arts centers).

Facilities Controlled by Other PublicAgenciesSome community facilities may be operated by pub-lic agencies other than the local government. Suchagencies may serve areas that are not coterminouswith the local government’s boundaries. Independentschool districts, state government, library districts,and water utilities are good examples of this. Thesearrangements can vary widely, even within the samestate. In some communities, these agencies may havetheir own internal planning capabilities; in others, thelocal planning agency will need to assist or coordi-nate with the outside agency or even directly serve asits planner to meet the requirements of the model.Moreover, facilities owned and operated by othergovernmental units, such as state or county govern-ment, may be either exempt from local governmentland-use control or subject to a limited review; statelaws must be consulted to determine the status ofsuch facilities.

Privately Owned and Operated Facilities Certain community facilities, such as private hospitals,universities, colleges, and privately operated publicutilities, may have an impact on the local government,even though they are not operated by a public agencyor by the local government itself. In any case, a localgovernment should take into account the interests ofthese institutions while the community facilities plan isbeing prepared through direct contact and consulta-tion with the affected governmental unit. This processenables the local government to begin discussionswith the private operator or owner or state agencybefore it expands facilities or builds new ones.

PLAN COMPONENTS

A community facilities plan should contain the fol-lowing information:

• An inventory and general assessment of all the sig-nificant existing community facilities that supportthe land-use element of the comprehensive plan orover which the local government exerts regulatoryauthority• The inventory should identify:

• the entity with operational authority for eachfacility;

• geographic service area of each facility;• design capacity of each facility, as appropriate;• current demand on each facility capacity, as

appropriate; and • level of service provided by each facility

(Where community facilities are shared, eachlocal government shall indicate the propor-tional capacity of the systems allocated to serveits jurisdiction.)

• The general assessment should include: • an evaluation of the performance of existing

COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANS


EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY FACILITIESEDUCATIONALElementary schools (K-6)Junior high schools or middle schoolsHigh schoolsCommunity collegesVocational training centers

SOCIAL SERVICESDay-care centers for preschool childrenDay-care centers for the elderlyShelters for homeless peopleShelters for battered womenHalfway houses for drug addict rehabilitationHalfway houses for prisoner rehabilitationHalfway houses for the mentally disturbed Halfway houses for the developmentally disabled

CULTURALLibrariesMuseumsAuditoriums

RECREATIONALParksActive participant sports areasRecreation centersSports centers (such as stadiums for spectator sports)Small boat harborsRiding, hiking, and bicycle trails

GOVERNMENT BUILDINGSGovernment office buildingsPost offices“Corporation yards” (for the storage of materials and equipment)

HEALTH CARELocal health clinicsCommunity hospitalsRegional hospitalsEmergency health services

PUBLIC SAFETYPolice stationsFire stationsJailsCourt buildingsCivil defense facilitiesEmergency preparedness centers Military installations

PUBLIC UTILITIESWater supply systemsElectrical distribution station Water treatment plantsReservoirsElevated storage tanksStorm drainage facilitiesChannelsDetention and retention basinsFlood protection facilitiesDikesFlood basins

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT LandfillsTransfer stationsIncineratorsWaste-to-energy plantsWastewater treatment plantHazardous waste depositoriesResource recovery centers

OTHEROpen-space preservesCemeteriesHarborsAnimal shelters

Source: Adapted from Anderson, Larz. 1995. Guidelines for PreparingUrban Plans. Chicago: Planners Press.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 36

Community Facilities Plans 37

TYPES OF PLANS

facilities, based on best available data, of thecondition and expected life of the facilities,and of facility capacity surpluses and deficien-cies for each facility’s service area;

• to the extent possible, measures of optimizingthe use of existing facilities as an alternative toexpansion and/or new construction; and

• an evaluation of the annual energy consump-tion of significant existing community facilitiesand measures for reducing such energy con-sumption that may be included in the programof implementation.

• A statement of goals, policies, and guidelinesregarding the general distribution, location, andcharacteristics of community facilities within thelocal government’s jurisdiction, including a state-ment of levels of service for each type or categoryof community facility

• A description of existing community facilities orproposed capital improvement projects for com-

munity facilities, including a map that shows theproject’s general location or service area and astatement of the entity that will or may have oper-ational authority over the community facility

• A summary map showing the general location ofexisting or proposed community facilities at thesame scale as the future land-use map. See pageC-14 of the color insert for an example.

IMPLEMENTATION A wide variety of community facilities may be pres-ent in a community, and the local government maytreat each type differently through a specific set of sit-ing requirements or separate, specific planningapproach. However, a generic implementationapproach may be used as a starting point for imple-menting needs identified in the plan. The necessaryactions to implement the community facilities shouldbe incorporated into the long-range program ofimplementation in the comprehensive plan.

Generic Community FacilitiesImplementationThe implementation of the community facilities plan,in a generic approach, would include these steps.

1. Appraise the scope of the project, based upon theneeds assessment presented in the plan

2. Review design standards, location criteria, and expe-riences of other communities or facility operators

3. Conduct a preliminary economic analysis4. Identify potential sites and screen out unsuitable

ones5. Prepare sketch plans and make preliminary

assessments of these sites6. Review studies with the organization that will

operate the facility7. Prepare a program for the facility, establishing build-

ing square feet and site acreages needed, estimatingsize of key use components, and diagramming rela-tionships among physical components

8. Prepare preliminary development plans, schematicdesigns, cost estimates, impact analyses, and eco-nomic analyses of sites remaining in consideration

9. Review plans and analyses with the organizationthat will operate the facility and with other inter-ested parties

10. Request that the facility operator reach a decisionconcerning site selection and development plans,including the setting of an initial budget for theproject

11.Authorize the completion of architecture, land-scape architecture, and engineering designs forbuilding and site development, and preparation ofa specific financing program.

FinancingFor each community facility described in the plan, thecommunity facilities plan should include:

• an analysis of the local government’s capability tofinance the project, including existing as well asprobable alternative funding sources and mecha-nisms, such as grants, taxes, and bonding;

• a multiyear financing plan based on the needs of,the timing for, and the rough cost estimates of,planned community facility projects; and

• an analysis of how additional funding will beobtained or an appraisal of other means by whichlevel-of-service standards will be met, if probablefunding falls short of meeting identified needs.

See also:Elementary, Middle, and High Schools Parks and Open Space Utilities


Signal Lights

Street Signs

Sanitary Sewer Manholes

Storm Sewer Manholes

Street Lights

Water Meters

Parks

Curb Stops

CatchBasins

SanitarySewer Lines

Water Lines

Fire Hydrants

Lakes and Ponds

Gate Valves

StormSewer Lines

WaterTreatmentPlant

Sidewalks and Trails

Cul-De-Sacs

StreetsWater Towers

Aquifer

Wells

BoulevardTrees

EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURESource: Burnsville, Minnesota, 2003.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 37

38 Parks and Open-Space Plans


A parks and open-space plan outlines a systematicapproach to providing parks and recreation servicesto a community. Parks and open-space resourceswithin a community include environmental, recre-ational, scenic, cultural, historic, and urban designelements. Planning for parks and open space takesplace at national, state, and local levels.

REASONS TO PREPARE A PARKSAND OPEN-SPACE PLAN

Jan Gehl (1987), the Danish urbanist and architect,states, “The proper hierarchy of planning is life,space, and buildings, not buildings, space, life.”Therefore, communities need to plan for open spacesthat provide a multitude of public functions beforedevelopment occurs. These functions are numerousand may include:

• protection of natural resources and biodiversity;• creation of places for recreation;• support for economic development opportunities;• development of neighborhood gathering places;• promotion of public health benefits;• creation of civic and cultural infrastructure; and• shaping patterns of development through open

spaces.


Many forms of park and open-space systems exist.Some communities have an interconnected system,linked by green corridors, while others have a dis-connected system scattered throughout theneighborhoods of a community. Communities thatare largely built out have new parks and open-spaceopportunities created primarily from redevelopment;communities with available land should concentrateon identifying and protecting park space in areasbefore development occurs.

Whatever the park system configuration, park andopen-space plans are influenced by the followingfactors:

• Agency or departmental mandate and mission• Parks and open-space definition• Park classifications• Parks standards• Development and management policies

Agency or Departmental Mandate andMissionThe organization with authority over parks planningmay need to meet the statutory requirements for theplan’s contents. The mission should be reaffirmed atthe beginning of the planning process and explicitlystated in the beginning of the plan document.

Definition of Parks and Open SpaceCommunities often have different definitions ofwhat constitutes a park. The definition may list spe-cific resources, such as plazas, greenways, and evencemeteries. Some communities may use a broaderapproach, defining open space as “any land that isfree of residential, institutional, commercial, orindustrial use”; and others may restrict the defini-

tion to include only conservation areas protected bylaw. Planners should define terms at the outsetbecause they will influence demand and supplyinventories.

Park ClassificationsA park classification system is a way of creating orderto and providing a common language for the parkand open-space system. Park types are oftenarranged by service area, size, population served, andtypical facilities. Park classifications may also addressfunctions, such as serving recreation, social gathering,and green infrastructure functions.

Parks StandardsTo quantify their demand for park space and facili-ties, in addition to a variety of public participationactivities, many communities use a set of nationalpark standards developed in the 1970s and 1980s bythe National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA).However, in 1996, NRPA replaced those standardswith a locally determined set of facility guidelines,following its publication, Park, Recreation, OpenSpace and Greenway Guidelines. Communitiesshould complete a level-of-service (LOS) study toquantify the number of necessary recreational facili-ties to meet specific community needs as well as theminimum acreage to support those facilities. The LOSstudy and the standards that it produces are impor-tant tools in projecting the effect of residential growthon necessary facilities and space. This study is criticalfor both sound park planning and for addressing therational nexus test in mandatory dedication andimpact fee programs should there be legal challengeto those programs.

That said, LOS and assessment studies resultsreflect only the recreational facility function of thepark spaces. They do not include other functions,such as resource conservation, cultural enrichment,or urban design. And though no LOS formula cur-rently exists for those functions, it is important that aplan address them.

PoliciesBoth development and management policies canshape the park and open-space plan. For instance, ifthe department normally pursues nongovernmentalorganization partnerships for service delivery, theplan inventories and implementation strategiesshould reflect that.

PLAN COMPONENTS

The majority of parks and open-space plans includethe following elements. Consult applicable statutesand agency mandates to determine required plancomponents.

Goals and ObjectivesTypical expressions of parks and open space goalsand objectives consider the following:

• Quantity: Targeting a total percentage of the juris-diction’s acreage to be set aside for parks, orprotecting a total percentage of the land in any newdevelopment as open space

• Proximity: Locating a park within a certain numberof blocks of every resident, or providing a facilitywithin a specific driving time of every resident

• Accessibility: Assuring that parks are located to bephysically accessible by foot, bicycle, or publictransit, and visually accessible for the greater pub-lic

• Distribution: Arranging park locations to ensurebalanced service across geographic areas

• Equity: Providing facilities and programs evenlyacross socioeconomic populations

• Environmental protection: Assuring the protectionof specific natural resources

• Coordination: Combining park objectives withother functional or jurisdictional plans

• Balance: Offering a mix of places and activitiesthroughout the system

• Shaping: Identifying ways that the open space willpromote or contain growth

• Sustainability: Determining physical and financialmethods to support the park and open-space sys-tem

• Urban design: Addressing the way the park orspace relates to the structures around it

• Connections: Identifying places and ways to linkparklands and associated resources

Legal RequirementsThe plan should include a review of laws that mightbe applicable to the lands or facilities included in theplan. These typically include:

• federal, state, and local environmental protectionregulations;

• federal, state, and local parkland preservation reg-ulations;

• historic buildings and landscapes regulations; and• the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regula-

tions

Supply InventoryA park and open-space plan contains a set of inven-tories related to the park plan elements and functions.This includes a list of park sites, their size, the facili-ties and equipment at each site, the function each siteserves, site photos, and an assessment of the condi-tion of the site. In addition to sites typicallyconsidered part of the parks inventory, the followingmay be included:

• Endangered species habitats• School sites with playgrounds• Public and private golf courses• Waterways and floodplains• Vacant lots• Trails• Private recreational facilities (e.g., ice rinks, tennis

clubs)• Bike lanes on highways• Historical sites• Cemeteries• Gravel mines• Private campgrounds• Scenic viewsheds• Country clubs• Boulevards

PARKS AND OPEN-SPACE PLANS

Mary E. Eysenbach, American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 38

Parks and Open-Space Plans 39

TYPES OF PLANS

• Parks in concurrent and adjacent jurisdictions(including county, state, and national)

• Industrial park open space

Demand AssessmentMost demand assessments are a combination of gen-eral data, such as demographic trends orphysiographic resources, and specific communityinformation gleaned from public participation mech-anisms. The needs assessment for parks and openspaces can be initially organized by function:

• Recreation function• Conservation function • Community shaping function

• Additional functions, such as public health, eco-nomic development, and green infrastructure.

See Parks, Recreation, and Open-Space NeedsAssessment elsewhere in this book for more detail.

Surpluses and Deficiencies AnalysisA comparison of the demand and supply data yieldsa surpluses and deficiencies analysis. The resultsmay be expressed in terms of acreage, facilities, orother forms dictated by the various functions of thesystem.

The analysis should also consider how other plansaffect the park and open-space plan goals Planners

should consult the comprehensive plan, other func-tional plans, neighborhood plans, and those ofpartner stakeholders to determine those effects.

Alternatives and Draft PlanAfter completion of the surpluses and deficienciesanalysis, planners should generate a number of planalternatives to correct the deficiencies identified bythe analysis. The scenarios should address the cre-ation of new park areas, the renovation of existingpark areas, the linking together of parks, and therequired connections to other plans to achieve parkand open-space goals.

Following further review and revision, the adoptedplan should include:


Determine Plan Elements

Create Vision Statementand Preliminary Goals

Analyze Functions of Parksin Community

Analyze Supply

Final GoalsStatement

Mission or Mandate

Analyze Demands Compare with Other Plans

Public Participation


Alternative Scenarios

Adopted Plan

Implement Plan

Evaluate Results


PARK PLANNING FLOWCHARTSource: Mary Eysenbach.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 39

40 Parks and Open-Space Plans


• a prioritized list of land protection areas (futureparks, green infrastructure);

• a prioritized list of improvements for existing parkareas;

• a rioritized list of opportunities for linkages;• a list of site selection and acquisition criteria;• the identification of opportunities for integration

with other plans and processes; and • a map summarizing these items.

IMPLEMENTATION

For each objective in the plan, a park and open-spaceplan should have an implementation strategy thattakes the following actions.

1. Identify what will be accomplished.

2. Identify the party responsible for accomplishingthe goal.

3. Identify any partners involved in implementation.4. Establish timing or phasing for achieving the goal. 5. Set cost estimates and identify funding sources for

the goal. 6. Prepare maintenance and operational impact state-

ments for new land or facilities.7. Define methods for evaluating success and set a

schedule for conducting the evaluation.

The parks and recreation plan should be updatedat a regular time interval, preferably every five years.Although that frequency may outpace the schedulefor the comprehensive plan, the need for identifyingand preserving parks and open space is an urgentbusiness, especially in rapidly urbanizing areas.

EMERGING ISSUES

Green InfrastructureGreen infrastructure is a green space network of nat-ural ecosystem functions. Instead of investing inman-made “gray” infrastructure, some communitiesare using their existing system or creating new parksas way to manage stormwater, reduce the urban heatisland effect, and create wildlife habitat.

Design Guidelines for Park SystemsSome jurisdictions are producing design guidelinesfor parks. The guidelines help create an aesthetic andnatural resource management standard for parkdevelopment while visually connecting the park withits surroundings. They may address:

• park siting;• pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access;• utilities;• site furnishings such as fencing, seating, and play-

ground equipment;• landscaping;• building materials;• signage; and• environmental sustainability.

LinkagesMuch like the park and parkway systems designed inthe late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,there is growing recognition that a good parks systemis one where individual park nodes are connected bylinear green corridors. Linkages may be achievedthrough riparian buffers, street design, transit paths,utility rights-of-way, or any other linear corridor. Seepage C-15 of the color insert for an example.

Special Use Parks A number of recent cultural and technological trendshave created new demands on today’s park systems.These can include dog parks, skateboard parks, off-road vehicle (ORV) parks, mountain bike trails, watertrails, parks designed to meet the needs of an agingpopulation, and wireless technology availability inparks. Planners should conduct specific research todetermine the planning needs of these types of parksand park functions.

Partnerships An increasing number of communities are workingwith other governmental agencies, nonprofit agencies,and even private providers to create interconnectedparks systems within their communities.

REFERENCES

Gehl, Jan. 1987. Life Between Buildings: UsingPublic Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Mertes, James D., and James R. Hall. 1996. Park,Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines.Washington, DC: National Recreation and ParkAssociation.

See also:Green InfrastructureParks and Open-Space PlansParks, Recreation, and Open-Space Needs AssessmentTypes of Parks


Railroad

Parks

Railroad Link

Riparian Link

Streetscape Link

Links

River

Open-space connections can be created with a variety of linear corridors.

OPEN-SPACE CONNECTIONSSource: Mary Eysenbach.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 40

Critical and Sensitive Areas Plans 41

TYPES OF PLANS

Critical and sensitive areas are generally defined aslands or water bodies that provide protection to orhabitat for natural resources, living and nonliving, orare themselves natural resources that require identifi-cation and protection from inappropriate or excessivedevelopment. In some communities, critical and sen-sitive areas may also include historic structures orarchaeological features. These latter elements areoften protected by state and federal regulations.

REASONS TO PREPARE A CRITICALAND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN

When acting to protect critical and sensitive areas,planners often have to make choices as to whichresources should be protected and to what degree.These choices often include deeming some naturalresources more or less “critical” and “sensitive” thanothers. The process of preparing a critical and sensi-tive areas plan or an element for a comprehensiveplan provides a framework for identifying theresources, determining what will be protected, andidentifying mechanisms for protecting them.

PLAN COMPONENTS

The components of critical and sensitive areas planstypically include the following:

• Descriptions of the identified critical and sensitiveresource areas

• GIS maps of critical and sensitive resource areas,based on field surveys

• An analysis of the carrying capacity of the resourcesidentified or, if not known, mechanisms for deter-mining the carrying capacity of each resource

• A description of the public involvement used todetermine which resources are critical and sensitiveand the level of degradation deemed acceptable foreach

• Policies to protect the resources• Implementation strategies


Whether you are preparing an element of a compre-hensive plan or a separate plan, the same overallprocess applies, namely:

1. identify the resources;2. evaluate their value; 3. determine their carrying capacity;4. map the location of resources;5. create policy to protect the resources; and6. identify regulatory and nonregulatory tools to

implement the plan and help ensure protection.

Identification of Resources The first step in the analysis of critical and sensitiveareas is the identification of these resources. APA’sGrowing SmartSM Legislative Guidebook identifies thefollowing as resources that should be considered:

• Aquifers• Watersheds• Wellhead protection areas

• Inland and coastal wetlands• Other wildlife habitats, including animals, birds,

fish, and plants, along with habitats for federal- andstate-listed endangered and threatened species

• Hillsides and steep slopes• Any other areas considered to be critical or sensi-

tive areas, including built resources such as historicstructures, and, where relevant, the open spacesthat accompany these built resources

Federal, state, and local government agencies, non-profit organizations, and the private sector preparingdevelopment applications for public review have alsocreated sources that can be used to identify criticaland sensitive areas.

For example, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA) has mapped major aquifer systemsthroughout the nation. State agencies have mappedsignificant wildlife habitats and wellhead protectionareas throughout their respective states. Local gov-ernments have often mapped wetlands, watersheds,and historic structures throughout their corporateboundaries. Developers seeking permits from federal,state, and local agencies often provide these agencieswith details relating to critical and sensitive areas inpursuit of development permits.

Evaluation After planners have identified these resources, theyoften evaluate the critical and sensitive areas accord-ing to the value they have to the community. Thereare three types of value:

• Utility value: How the resource is used by the com-munity

• Economic value: How much dollar value theresource provides

• Aesthetic value: How the resource is valued for itsqualitative importance, notwithstanding its eco-nomic value

For example, aquifers provide a utility value—drinking water for the community (if that is thedrinking water source); an economic value—theprice imposed by the water utility on water usage;and an aesthetic value—providing recharge to wet-lands, surface water bodies, or coastal embayments(if a coastal community).

This placement of value on a resource, which maybe difficult in some circumstances—how do you“value” a wildlife habitat?—nevertheless is an impor-tant step to undertake in determining what should beprotected.

The protection of critical and sensitive areas hasadditional, obvious (albeit not always quantifiable)benefits. For instance, the regulations prohibiting con-struction within floodplains can benefit landowners byminimizing threats of flooding to real property; regula-tions limiting impervious coverage within watershedscan protect waters used for shellfishing; and regula-tions limiting the clear-cutting of forested lands canalso protect abutting properties from erosion.

Carrying Capacity Carrying capacity analysis determines the point atwhich a resource’s function will be reduced to an

unacceptable level. (A resource’s carrying capacity isoften also referred to as its “assimilative capacity.”)Establishing the carrying capacity of a resourcerequires an objective analysis. The goal is to establishthe point at which the resource ceases to function asnature “intended” or the point at which the resourcebe used as intended by the community (its utilityvalue is undermined).

Carrying capacity analysis provides a factual basisfor a community’s comprehensive plan provisionsthat promote resource protection. In other words,through this analysis the community gives itself arational and logical basis for the adoption of man-agement controls designed to limit development tothe assimilative capacity of a resource.

Federal and state environmental protection agen-cies (e.g., U.S. EPA and state counterparts), the U.S.Geologic Survey, state and local universities, andnongovernmental environmental organizations are allreliable sources of information for completing a car-rying capacity analysis.

Thresholds Identifying carrying capacity first requires establishingthresholds for the resource (e.g., a coastal waterbody’s assimilative capacity for nitrogen) and, sec-ond, the carrying capacity of the specific resource(e.g., the carrying capacity of the specific water bodyin California or Maine).

General Resource Thresholds. The federal gov-ernment regulates many critical resources, and localgovernments can use these regulations as a basis fordetermining the resources’ carrying capacity. Forexample, the federal Clean Air Act establishes maxi-mum pollutant levels for air quality; the Safe DrinkingWater Act establishes maximum contaminant levelsfor drinking water quality; and the Clean Water Actestablishes maximum contaminant levels for coastalwater quality. Similar thresholds are defined in statelaw.

Specific Resource Thresholds. Federal and statecarrying capacity thresholds define the point at whichthe carrying capacity of the air, land, or waterresources is threatened. They do not establish if theparticular air, land, or water resource in the commu-nity will reach or exceed its assimilative capacity. Aspecific calculation for the specific resource at issueneeds to be determined.

For example, while the quality of coastal waterbodies begin to decline as nitrogen inputs increase—a result of the acceleration of the natural agingprocess (eutrophication)—the carrying capacity ofsuch a water body in California can vary greatly com-pared to a coastal water body in Maine. This variationis a result of differences in water and air temperature,flushing cycles, depth of water, extent of the respec-tive watersheds, and the presence of othercontaminants in the water.

MapsPlanners should identify critical and sensitive areas onmaps. Map makers should prepare these maps as over-lays so that all resource areas can be identifiedindividually (e.g., separate maps for watersheds, well-

CRITICAL AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLANS

Jon D.Witten, AICP, Daley and Witten LLC, Duxbury, Massachusetts

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 41

42 Critical and Sensitive Areas Plans


head protection areas, wetlands resources, and historicstructures) and cumulatively (by overlaying the sepa-rate maps) as the aggregate critical and sensitive areas.Maps should be based on field surveys and preparedwith a geographic information system (GIS). Whilethere is no required scale for the maps, it is stronglyrecommended that the scale chosen be practical anduseful. For example, a scale of 1 inch = 100 feet is farmore useful than a scale of 1 inch = 2,000 feet, but willrequire a greater level of precision and cost more. Seepage C-16 of the color insert for an example.

Policies The plan should contain a statement of the local gov-ernment’s goals, policies, and guidelines with respect

to the protection of critical and sensitive areas. Thisportion of the plan may also include a map or mapsshowing the areas to be protected.

IMPLEMENTATION

Regulatory Tools

Zoning, subdivision controls, health regulations, andwetland regulations can all be used to protect criticaland sensitive areas. Traditional regulatory toolsinclude adopting overlay zoning districts for criticalareas, requiring permits for uses that may negativelyaffect critical resource areas, adopting appropriatesetbacks from resource areas, and employing related

regulatory controls on private property. More innova-tive regulatory tools include transfer of developmentrights, impact fees, development agreements, andmandates that development not exceed defined car-rying capacity thresholds set for critical and sensitiveresource areas.

Nonregulatory ToolsNonregulatory tools include fee and less-than-feeacquisition of critical and sensitive resource areas;public education programs, to inform the generalpublic about the importance of the resources; andrelated programs, such as citizen monitoring of waterand air resources and consistent attendance at localmunicipal board meetings to act as “watchdogs” andadvocates for critical and sensitive resource areas.Nonregulatory tools have the advantage of avoidingthe regulation of private property and the attendantpotential negative political and legal consequences.

A community’s capital improvement program pro-vides an additional nonregulatory means to protectcritical and sensitive resource areas. The outlay oflocal dollars to expand public water, sewer, and roadaccess is a catalyst to new growth, and often conflictswith preserving these areas. Public improvementsshould not be built in critical and sensitive areas. Thecapital improvements plan and the comprehensiveplan should both address such restrictions.

REFERENCES

Meck, Stuart ed. 2002. Growing SmartSM LegislativeGuidebook: Model Statutes for Planning andManagement of Change, 2 vols. Chicago: AmericanPlanning Association.

See also:Environmental Management

Jon D.Witten, AICP, Daley and Witten LLC, Duxbury, Massachusetts

SAMPLE CARRYING CAPACITY THRESHOLD ASSESSMENTNitrogen is a common water pollutant that can degrade water resources significantly. A carrying capacity thresholdassessment can be used to determine the amount of nitrogen a water body can assimilate, thereby establishinga water quality standard. Data needed for this assessment include the surface area, volume, and flushing rateof the water body. A sample calculation follows:

L = Critical loading rate (lbs/yr) = (TN � V � f )/454,000 mg/lbwhere:

A = Aread = Water depth (mean low water, or MLW)r = Average tidal rangeV = Bay volume at mean tide = (A)(d+r/2)f = Flushing rate (time per year)

TN = Total nitrogen standard or threshold (mg/m3/R).

The equation can also be rearranged to calculate what the loading will be under a given development scenario:

TN (mg/m3/yr) = (L � 454,000 mg/lb)/(V � f).

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 42

Hazard Mitigation Plans 43

TYPES OF PLANS

Hazard mitigation plans serve to reduce or eliminatethe long-term risk to human life and property fromidentified hazards. They can target existing develop-ment or seek to protect future development. Mitigationmeasures in the plan that can reduce impacts includestructural measures (e.g, protecting buildings and infra-structure from the forces of wind and water), andnonstructural measures (e.g., development regulationsand appropriate land-use policy). Local governmentsare most effective at implementing mitigation meas-ures because they can make regulatory developmentdecisions to achieve the plan’s goals..

REASONS TO PREPARE A HAZARDMITIGATION PLAN

The Stafford ActFederal legislation has provided funding for disasterrelief, recovery, and hazard mitigation planning. InNovember 1988, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Reliefand Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) waspassed. This act provided a framework for continueddisaster relief. It also legislated a minimum 75 percentfederal and 25 percent state and local cost sharing forthe public assistance program. It refocused assistancefor nonnatural disasters, unless caused by fire, flood,or explosion, to a more limited scope, confirmed theimportance of individual assistance, and emphasizedmitigation as the way to limit future losses.

Congress amended the Stafford Act in October 1993to expand the mitigation scope to include acquisitionof properties in floodplains. An October 1994 amend-ment incorporated most of the former Civil DefenseAct of 1950 into the Stafford Act. The amendmentallows the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) to implement an all-hazards approach to pre-paredness, which includes man-made as well asnatural hazards.

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2K) is themost recent legislation to improve this planningprocess. It reinforces the importance of mitigationplanning and emphasizes planning for disastersbefore they occur. DMA 2K requires local govern-ments to address natural hazards, such as tornadoes,flooding, wildfires, and severe thunderstorms. All-hazards mitigation plans, which also includeman-made hazards, such as hazardous material spills,civil disturbances, terrorism, transportation, andnuclear power plant hazards, are encouraged but notpresently required.

DMA 2K is intended to facilitate cooperationbetween state and local authorities. It encourages andrewards local and state predisaster planning and pro-motes sustainability as a strategy for disasterresistance. To implement DMA 2K, FEMA preparedan Interim Final Rule, published in the FederalRegister on February 26, 2002, at 44 CFR Parts 201and 206, which establishes planning and funding cri-teria for state and local governments.


The development of a good hazard mitigation plan isbased on three processes:

• A hazard vulnerability analysis • Development of a strategy to mitigate disasters • Integration with comprehensive plans and other

plans

The Hazard Vulnerability AnalysisA hazard vulnerability analysis identifies all hazardsthat potentially threaten a jurisdiction and analyzesthem in the context of that jurisdiction, to determinethe degree of threat each poses. The vulnerabilityanalysis consists of the following three steps:

1. Identify the hazards.2. Profile the hazards and their potential conse-

quences.3. Weigh and compare the risks.

Identify HazardsPlanners need to determine the kinds of emergenciesthat have occurred or could occur in the jurisdiction.The Hazards section of this book provides a resourcefor examples of types of hazards.

Profile Hazards and Their PotentialConsequencesPlanners will need to compile historical and predic-tive information about each hazard. They should mapthis data and overlay it on community data, such as acurrent land-use map, to estimate the hazard’s poten-tial impact. Planners should seek to answer thefollowing questions:

• What can occur• How often it is likely to occur• How bad it is likely to get• How it is likely to affect the jurisdiction• How vulnerable the jurisdiction is to the hazard

Weigh and Compare RisksRisk is the predicted impact a hazard would have onpeople, services, and specific facilities. For example,in an earthquake, a specific bridge might be at risk.The predicted impact of an earthquake on that bridgecould be collapse, leading to restricted access to acritical facility.

Planners need to determine the relative threatposed by the hazards, using qualitative or quantitativeratings. With this information, they can decide whichhazards merit special attention in planning and otheremergency management efforts. By conducting a sur-vey of risk-related factors for each hazard in thejurisdiction, they can develop a composite picture ofoverall risk.

Risk-related factors include:

• geographic features;• infrastructure lifelines;• essential facilities;• special facilities;• hazardous materials storage facilities and/or trans-

portation routes;• property characteristics;• population densities and shifts;• availability of response resources; and • potential hazards in neighboring jurisdictions (such

as a dam break upstream).

Quantifying Risk. After compiling hazard and juris-diction information, it is helpful to quantify thejurisdiction’s risk, so the focus can be on the hazardsthat present the highest risk. Quantifying riskinvolves:

1. identifying the elements of the jurisdiction (popula-tions, facilities, and equipment) that are potentiallyat risk from a specific hazard;

2. developing response priorities;3. assigning severity ratings; and4. compiling risk data into jurisdiction risk profiles.

No set standards exist for assigning severity ratings.These are typically determined on the local levelbased on current perceptions and past experiences.Ratings systems typically quantify risk as:

• high, medium, or low;• often, sometimes, rarely, or never; or • within a numerical range (e.g., 1 to 5).

The Mitigation StrategyAfter characterizing the specific risk and determiningmore precisely how the harm to people, property, orfunction could occur, planners need to select thepotential range of mitigation options. The communitycan identify a range of options and determine whichare likely to be most effective in reducing or eliminat-ing the risk. The effectiveness of a mitigation optioncan include the extent to which it eliminates or lessensthe damages, the feasibility of its implementation, theimpact of its implementation on other valuableresources, and the expense of putting it into effect, aswell as operation and maintenance over time.

The local mitigation strategy is documented in oneor more plans that identify:

• specific steps the community will be undertaking tolessen the impacts of disasters;

• when those steps will be taken;• how they will be or could be funded;• what priority they should have; and • who will be responsible for each.

For most communities, the local mitigation strategywill cite which existing programs are important tohazard mitigation efforts. The process of developinga mitigation strategy is also likely to result in new mit-igation initiatives. By developing this strategy, theplanner establishes an ongoing process that makeshazard mitigation a routine part of the daily function-ing of the entire community.

Integration with Other PlansIn the mitigation strategy development process, twoplans are likely to be highly influential: the emer-gency operations plan and the comprehensive plan.Planners must consult each of these, as well asrelated plans, databases, and analyses, when draftingthe mitigation strategy so that there is coordinationwith the provisions of those plans, data, and analyses.

The Emergency Operations PlanIn the past, the primary focus of emergency opera-tions management has been on how to prepare for

HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS

William D.Wagoner, AICP, PEM, Livingston County Planning Department, Howell, Michigan

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 43

44 Hazard Mitigation Plans


and respond to disasters, not on how to manage thehazards that can sometimes cause disasters. A shift inemphasis from disaster or emergency management tohazards management can help ensure that planningactivities are broadened to address the hazards com-munities always face rather than just the disasters thatsometimes strike them.

The community should also use the hazard vulner-ability analyses document to establish the prioritiesfor funding and implementing the mitigation strategy.The analyses will have indicated where the most

severe disaster-related damages could occur, andhow often. By ranking the risk on a relative scale,planners can objectively justify the community’s pri-orities in implementing mitigation initiatives.

The Comprehensive PlanThe integration of hazard mitigation with the com-prehensive plan can occur through the integration ofmitigation strategies into each element of the com-prehensive plan or as a separate element of thecomprehensive plan.

There are many benefits to integrating hazard mit-igation into the community’s comprehensive plan:

• Enhances both the comprehensive plan andprocess and the local mitigation strategy.

• Reduces the community’s vulnerability to disasters.• Supports effective pre- and postdisaster decision

making.• Creates a new and effective planning tool.• Speeds up the return of the impacted community

to normalcy.


Potential Hazard Mitigation MeasuresAcquisition/RelocationAdequate MaintenanceAdequate Roads/Vehicular AccessAdequate Water SupplyAuxiliary Heat SourceAuxiliary Power SourceAvailable All-Terrain VehiclesBetter Building Design, Engineering, MaterialsBetter Facility Design, Engineering, Materials, LocationsBetter Container DesignBreakwaters, Bulkheads, Revetments, SeawallsBrush ClearanceBuffer Spaces Around BuildingsBuilding Codes/Safety CodesBuilding OrientationBurn PermitsCapital Improvements PlanningCoastal Zone ManagementComprehensive Planning/Zoning OrdinancesContinuity of GovernmentDams/Dikes/LeveesDecentralized Fire FacilitiesDeconcentration of Critical FacilitiesDesign Standards/Construction StandardsDetention Ponds/Retention BasinsDeed Restrictions/DisclosureDrainage SystemsElevation of StructuresEmergency Broadcast SystemsEmergency CommunicationsEmergency Operations PlansEmergency Plans for Critical FacilitiesEmergency Plans for "Hydraulic Shadow" of DamEmergency SheltersEmergency WaterEmergency Water, Sewer, and PowerEvacuation Plans/Evacuation RoutesEvacuation Plans for Elderly, Disabled, etc.Exercise of Plans/SystemsFire Extinguishers/Smoke DetectorsFire-Resistant LandscapingFire SprinklersFloodproofingFoundations Closed/Masonry

Potential Hazard Mitigation MeasuresGreenbeltsGroinsHazard Analyses/Hazard Information SystemsHazardous Materials Container Tie-DownsHazardous Materials Training/Enhanced EquipmentHousing DensityIncreased Insulation/Increased Roof PitchIn-House ShelterInsurance/Disaster InsuranceInterconnected Network DesignLitigationManufactured Home Tie-downsMinimal Roof OverhangMinimal Storage of Flammable LiquidsMonitoringMutual Aid AgreementsNoncombustible Building MaterialsProper Building DesignProper EgressProper Signage for Hazardous MaterialsPublic Education/Emergency Public Information MaterialPublic Health RegulationsPublic/Private PartnershipsRail Safety ImprovementsReduced Use of GlassResearch Risk and Vulnerability MappingRoof BracingRoof SprinklersRoute RestrictionsSite/Community Warning SystemsStaffing and Training of Response PersonnelStrengthened Electrical/Phone InfrastructureSubdivision RegulationTax IncentivesTransfer of Development RightsUnderground Utility LinesUrban ForestryUse of Structural Connectors and Storm ShuttersVegetation Warning SystemsWatershed ManagementWindbreaks

A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E F G H I J

A=Tornado B=Windstorm C=Winter Storm D=Structural Fire E=Forest Fire F=Hazardous Materials G=Riverine Flooding H=Shoreline Flooding I=Dam Failure, Infrastructure Disaster J=Civil Disorder

= Structural= Nonstructural

POTENTIAL HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURESSource:William Wagoner.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 44

Hazard Mitigation Plans 45

TYPES OF PLANS

• Provides a forum for analysis of potentially sensi-tive issues.

• Enhances credibility for hazard mitigation programsand projects.

An up-to-date hazard mitigation strategy and com-prehensive plan will be very helpful in the immediatepostdisaster period, particularly for soliciting state andfederal mitigation funding and assistance. The avail-ability of an up-to-date strategy can mean that duringthe chaotic times following a disaster, planners willnot have to gather new information and data or con-duct extensive new analyses.

IMPLEMENTATION

Many, if not most, mitigation initiatives require ade-quate funding for implementation. For larger

projects, the community is very likely to pursue stateand federal funding. Successful implementationhinges on securing funds when they are available.For some funding sources, the local governmentmay need to make significant matching funds avail-able. Other projects, especially construction, arelikely to need a range of regulatory permits andapprovals.

Some mitigation initiatives will be suitable forimplementation before a disaster, including projectsthat can be fully funded locally or by the private sec-tor. Mitigation initiatives, such as plan maintenance,continuation of the hazard and vulnerability analyses,promulgation of codes and ordinances, and adoptionof local agency policies and procedures, can also befully implemented prior to a disaster.

Other projects, particularly costly construction, willneed to wait for the substantial state and federal

funds that may become available after a disaster. Thestrategy should provide for implementation of bothpre-and postdisaster mitigation measures.

REFERENCES

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2002.Developing the Mitigation Plan: IdentifyingMitigation Measures and Implementation Strategies.Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2001.Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazardsand Estimating Losses. Washington, DC.

See also:Federal Disaster LawHazards


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 45

46 Role of Participation


Community participation is the involvement of peo-ple in the creation and management of their built andnatural environments. Its strength is that it cuts acrosstraditional professional boundaries and cultures. Theactivity of community participation is based on theprinciple that the built and natural environmentswork better if citizens are active and involved in itscreation and management instead of being treated aspassive consumers (Sanoff 2000).

The main purposes of participation are:

• to involve citizens in planning and design decision-making processes and, as a result, make it morelikely they will work within established systemswhen seeking solutions to problems;

• to provide citizens with a voice in planning anddecision making in order to improve plans, deci-sions, service delivery, and overall quality of theenvironment; and

• to promote a sense of community by bringingtogether people who share common goals.

Participation should be active and directed; thosewho become involved should experience a sense ofachievement. Traditional planning procedures shouldbe reexamined to ensure that participation achievesmore than simply affirmation of the designer’s orplanner’s intentions.

CHARACTERISTICS OFPARTICIPATION

Although any given participation process does notautomatically ensure success, it can be claimed thatthe process will minimize failure. Four essential char-acteristics of participation can be identified:

• Participation is inherently good.• It is a source of wisdom and information about

local conditions, needs, and attitudes, and thusimproves the effectiveness of decision making.

• It is an inclusive and pluralistic approach by whichfundamental human needs are fulfilled and uservalues reflected.

• It is a means of defending the interests of groups ofpeople and of individuals, and a tool for satisfyingtheir needs, which are often ignored and domi-nated by large organizations, institutions, and theirbureaucracies.

Experiences in the participation process show thatthe main source of user satisfaction is not the degreeto which a person’s needs have been met, but thefeeling of having influenced the decisions.

CATEGORIES OF PARTICIPATION

Participation can be classified into four categories, or“experiences,” with the goal of achieving agreementabout what the future should bring (Burns 1979):

• Awareness. This experience involves discovering orrediscovering the realities of a given situation sothat everyone who takes part in the process speaksthe same language, which is based on their experi-ences in the field where change is proposed.

• Perception. This entails going from awareness ofthe situation to understanding it and its physical,social, cultural, and economic ramifications. Itmeans sharing with each other so that the under-standing, goals, and expectations of all participantsbecome resources for planning and design.

• Decision making. This experience concentrates onworking from awareness and perception to a planfor the situation under consideration. Here partici-pants propose plans, based on their priorities, forprofessionals to use as resources to synthesizealternative and final plans.

• Implementation. Many community-based planningprocesses stop with awareness, perception, anddecision making. This can have significant detri-mental effects on a project because it ends people’sresponsibilities when the “how-to, where-to, when-to, and who-will-do-it” must be added to whatpeople want and how it will look. People must stayinvolved throughout the processes and takeresponsibility with their professionals to see thatthere are results (Hurwitz 1975).

DETERMINATION OF GOALS ANDOBJECTIVES

The planning that accompanies the design of any par-ticipation program should first include adetermination of participation goals and objectives.Participation goals will differ from time to time andfrom issue to issue. In addition, participation is likelyto be perceived differently depending on the type ofissue, people involved, and political setting in whichit takes place. If differences in expectations and per-ception are not identified at the outset, and realisticgoals are not made clear, the expectations of thoseinvolved in the participation program will likely notbe met, and people will become disenchanted.

Related to this, to address participation effectively,the task should conceptualize what the objective isfor involving citizens. For example, is the participa-tion intended to:

• generate ideas?;• identify attitudes?;• disseminate information?;• resolve some identified conflict?;• measure opinions?;• review a proposal?; or• provide a forum to express general feelings?

PLANNING FOR PARTICIPATION

Once planners have identified the overall goals andobjectives for the participation process, planning for par-ticipation requires the following steps (Rosner 1978):

• Identify the individuals or groups that should beinvolved in the participation activity being planned.

• Decide where in the process the participantsshould be involved, from development to imple-mentation to evaluation.

• Articulate the participation objectives in relation toall participants who will be involved.

• Identify and match alternative participation methodsto objectives in terms of the resources available.

• Select an appropriate method to be used to achievespecific objectives.

• Implement chosen participation activities.• Evaluate the implemented methods to see to what

extent they achieved the desired goals and objec-tives.

Henry Sanoff, AIA, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

PARTICIPATIONROLE OF PARTICIPATION

Citizen Control

Degrees of Tokenism

Nonparticipation

Degrees of Citizen Power

Delegated Power

Partnership

Placation

Consultation

Informing

Therapy

Manipulation

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

The ladder of citizen participation presents a typologyof eight levels of participation. Each rung of the laddercorresponds to the degree to which stakeholders hadpower in determining the outcome.The gradations rep-resented go from nonparticipation to token participationto various degrees of citizen power.While the ladderwas conceived in the context of federal programs ofthe late 1960s, planners and urban designers today stillshould strive to ensure that they are working near thetop of the ladder in their public participation activities.

LADDER OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONSource: Reprinted with permission from Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association, copyright July 1969 by the AmericanPlanning Association, Suite 1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue,Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 46

Role of Participation 47

PARTICIPATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE

The theories and practices of participation can besynthesized into the following five statements:

There is no “best” solution to design and planningproblems.

Each problem can have a number of solutions,based traditionally on two sets of criteria:

• Facts. The empirical data concerning materialstrengths, economics, building codes, and so forth

• Attitudes. Interpretation of the facts, the state of theart in any particular area, traditional and customaryapproaches, and value judgments.

“Expert” decisions are not necessarily better than“lay” decisions.

Given the facts with which to make decisions, citi-zens can examine the available alternatives andchoose among them. In a participation process, plan-ners and designers should work along with citizensto identify possible alternatives, discuss conse-quences of various alternatives, and state opinionsabout the alternatives (not decide among them).

A planning task can be made transparent.

Professionals often consider alternatives that areframeworks in their minds. They should be presentedfor users to discuss. After understanding the compo-nents of planning decisions and exploring alternatives,citizens in effect can generate their own plan rather

than react to one provided for them. The product ismore likely to succeed because it is more responsiveto the needs of the people who will use it.

All individuals and interest groups should cometogether in an open forum.

In this setting, people can openly express theiropinions, make necessary compromises, and arrive atdecisions acceptable to all concerned. By involving asmany interests as possible, the product is strength-ened by the wealth of input. In turn, learning moreabout itself strengthens the citizens’ group.

The process is continuous and ever changing.

The product is not the end of the process. It mustbe managed, reevaluated, and adapted to changingneeds. Those most directly involved with the product,the users, are best able to assume those tasks.

The professional’s role is to facilitate the citizengroup’s ability to reach decisions through an easilyunderstood process. Most often this will take the formof making people aware of alternatives. This role alsoincludes helping people develop their resources inways that will benefit themselves and others.

INDICATORS OF THE VALUE OFPARTICIPATION

A review of the public involvement literature, con-ducted by Lach and Hixson (1998), revealed thatparticipants valued such issues as public acceptabil-ity, accessibility, good decision making, education

and learning, time commitments, and trust. To iden-tify value and cost indicators of public involvement,they conducted interviews with people who hadbeen involved in participatory projects. Combiningthe literature review, interviews, and expert judg-ment, they identified these key indicators of the valueof participation:

• Opening the process to stakeholders• Diversity of viewpoints• Meaningful participation• Integrating stakeholder concerns • Information exchange• Saving time• Saving and avoiding costs• Enhanced project acceptability• Mutual learning• Mutual respect

Lach and Hixson also developed direct and indirectcost indicators of the public involvement effort.Certain costs can be linked to traditional accountingpractice, such as preparation and participation time,facilities, materials, and services. Other indirect costs,such as participants’ time commitment, lack of oppor-tunity to participate in other projects, and heavyemotional demands on participation, cannot be eas-ily measured. The intent of their research was todevelop prototype indicators to be tested in ongoingand completed public involvement programs. Resultsfrom project participants indicated that the positiveaspects of their involvement were twofold: (1) adiversity of viewpoints in the participation process


GenerateSpace

PlanningAlternatives

Acquire Site

GenerateImage

Alternatives

DevelopDatabase

EvaluateCommunity

Facilities

CommunityDiscussion

DesignSchematics

EvaluateSite

Alternatives

IdentifyAvailable

Sites

DevelopActivity

Requirements

IdentifyActivities

Workshop

Media

CommunityGoal

Setting

Workshop

Media

Survey of Community

Needs

IdentifyCommunityResources

Client/DesignerPlanningStrategy

Workshop Workshop

Design Research Design Participation Design Development

DESIGN RESEARCH, PARTICIPATION,AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSSource: Henry Sanoff.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 47

48 Role of Participation


was valuable; (2) project savings occurred in the formof saving and of avoiding costs.

Informing a large audience about proposals, gen-erating interest, or securing approval can take theform of a community meeting, also referred to as apublic hearing or a public forum. Public meetingsallow community leaders to present project informa-tion at any time during the process. The tightstructure of such meetings does not, however, permitample time for discussion. Although referred to ascommunity participation, only the most aggressivepersonalities tend to participate and often dominatethe discussion (Creighton 1994). Public reactions inopen meetings are often taken by a vote through ashow of hands. The key to making community designwork effectively is to incorporate a range of tech-niques for enabling professionals and citizens tocreatively collaborate, where voting is replaced byconsensus decision making.

A wide range of techniques is available to design-ers and planners. Some of these techniques have

become standard for use in participatory processes,such as interactive group decision-making techniquesthat take place in workshops. At the same time,designers and planners have effectively used fieldtechniques, such as questionnaires, interviewing,focus groups, and group mapping, to acquire infor-mation. In general, many of the techniques facilitatecitizens’ awareness of environmental situations andhelp activate their creative thinking. The techniquescan be classified as awareness methods, group inter-action methods, and indirect methods.

REFERENCES

Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. “A Ladder of CitizenParticipation.” AIP Journal 35, no. 4:216-224.

Burns, J. 1979. Connections: Ways to Discover andRealize Community Potentials. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Creighton, J.L. 1994. Involving Citizens inCommunity Decision Making: A Guidebook.

Washington, DC: Program for Community ProblemSolving.

Hurwitz, J.G. 1975. “Participatory Planning in anUrban Neighborhood. Soulard, St. Louis, MO: ACase Study.” DMG Journal 9, no. 4:348-357.

Lach, D., and P. Hixson. 1996. “DevelopingIndicators to Measure Values and Costs of PublicInvolvement Activities.” Interact: The Journal ofPublic Participation 2, no.1:51-63.

Rosner, J. 1978. “Matching Method to Purpose: TheChallenges of Planning Citizen ParticipationActivities.” In Citizen Participation in America,edited by S. Langton. New York: Lexington Books.

Sanoff, Henry. 2000. Community ParticipationMethods in Design and Planning. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

See also:Plan Making


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 48

Stakeholder Identification 49

PARTICIPATION

Stakeholder is a term commonly used in planningand public policy. A stakeholder is defined as some-one with a “stake,” or interest, in the issues beingaddressed. In practice, this means anyone could be astakeholder because a resident, taxpayer, and con-cerned citizen could all have an interest. Because thedistinction between the public and stakeholders canbe confusing, it is important to consider why stake-holders should be involved, and how they should beselected. People who convene a collaborative plan-ning effort—conveners—need to plan this stepcarefully.

CATEGORIES OF STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholders can be broadly classified into four cate-gories. First, there are people who are representativeof a certain sector of society. This sector may be abroad category, such as farmers or homeowners, or itmay be a specific category, such as “Orchard Streetresidents” and park users. These stakeholders usuallyspeak for themselves. Conveners choose thembecause their views may be “typical” of other peoplein their sector or because they have personal knowl-edge. However, because these people cannot beasked to speak on behalf of people they do not for-mally represent, the involvement of this category ofstakeholder is not a substitute for public involvement.

Second, there are individuals who represent organ-ized interests, which can range from an informallyorganized neighborhood coalition to a formallyorganized nonprofit interest group. Such an individ-ual is expected to represent the views of theorganization. However, this requires the person toconfer with others in his or her organization. This isoften referred to as the “two-table” problem becausethe individual may have to negotiate at the stake-holder table and the decision-making table within hisor her organization.

Third, there are those who represent governmentorganizations, such as city departments and state

agencies. They must also work with both the stake-holder process and their organization’s process, butthey tend to operate under more specific administra-tive rules and policies. Individuals higher in theorganization may have more discretion, but they alsotend to have more demands on their schedule.

Finally, there are elected officials who are formallyvoted upon as representatives. Their elected positiongives them a unique status because they are account-able to the public for their decisions. However, likestaff in government organizations, they often havemany demands on their time. Furthermore, membersof local government councils and legislatures cannotspeak for the entire legislative body.

REASONS FOR SELECTINGSTAKEHOLDERS

Before starting a stakeholder selection process, a con-vener needs to consider the reasons for selectingstakeholders, to determine the potential pool of par-ticipants.

Jurisdiction over an IssueOne common reason is to include people or organi-zations that have jurisdiction over an issue. Thisincludes organizations with the power to make deci-sions as well as individuals with the power to vetodecisions. For example, an open-space plan thatinvolves city land, county parks, and state forestsshould include a representative from each jurisdiction.

Particular Information or Knowledge BaseAnother reason for selecting a stakeholder is becausehe or she has information or knowledge that will leadto a comprehensive understanding of a problem orissue. A group composed of people with differenttraining, different data, and different perspectives candevelop a much more complete picture of an issuethan if they each considered the issue individually.For example, information about watershed healthmay be spread among a range of different state agen-cies, local governments, and landowners.

Party to an Actual or Potential ConflictA stakeholder process offers an informal and flexibleforum for bringing participants together to try toresolve their differences. For example, a city proposalto annex land could involve county officials,landowners, and local residents in an effort to cometo a mutually agreeable solution.

Connected to Community NetworksA fourth reason for choosing a stakeholder is becausehe or she is connected to community networks. Suchpeople are important because of their informal net-works of influence and the respect that they garner inthe community. For example, an influentiallandowner who participates in an ecosystem man-agement process could help convince otherlandowners to help protect critical habitat.

DETERMINING GROUP SIZE

Because a collaborative planning process may needstakeholders for many of the reasons listed above, thelist of potential stakeholders could be lengthy. Thereare different views about the optimum size of a stake-holder group. Some facilitators argue that groupsshould not be larger than 10 to 12, but some multi-party collaboration processes have successfullyinvolved 20 or 30 stakeholders.

STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION

Richard Margerum, Ph.D., University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon

Interest Group

Sector of SocietyElected Officials

Government Organization

TYPES OF STAKEHOLDERSSource: Richard Margerum.

LIST OF POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERSSECTORS OF SOCIETYPeople living adjacent to a proposed activityNeighborhood residentsResidents LandownersRentersMinoritiesUsers (park users, boaters, etc.)Neighborhood business owners

INTEREST GROUPSChamber of commerceEnvironmental groupsRacial or ethnic groupsIndustry organizationsReligious organizationsCivic groups Social groups (Kiwanis, Optimists)Neighborhood associations

AGENCIESSpecial districts (water, sewer, park, etc.)School districtsPlanning commission membersLocal government (city manager, department head, staff)Council of governmentState agenciesFederal agencies

ELECTED OFFICIALSCity and county councilorsMayorsSchool board membersState representatives and senators

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 49

50 Stakeholder Identification


One way to reduce this number is to consider addi-tional personal criteria in the selection process:

• Does the person work well in groups?• Is the person interested in being involved?• Does the person have the time to participate?• Will the person help provide gender, racial, or eth-

nic balance?• Does the person have additional skills that will help

the group?

A process involving a large number of stakehold-ers may need to be broken into smaller groups. Thisincreases the complexity of the process and increasesthe need for communication between groups, but itmay be appropriate for large, complex, or controver-sial issues.

Some of the common categories include the fol-lowing:

• Steering committee (to make the primary decisions)• Technical advisory committee (to respond to tech-

nical questions) • Citizens advisory committee (to provide broader

public access) • Geographic-based committees (to obtain input

from different parts of a region)

Specific Selection StrategiesWith these background issues in mind, a convenerwill have a better idea of the types of stakeholders toinvolve in a collaborative process. The next step is todetermine the specific strategy for choosing a groupof stakeholders. The perception of how the stake-holders are chosen can be just as important as who ischosen.

Collaborative processes that involve organizationsadd an additional level of complexity to the selectionprocess. Some organizations want to appoint theirown representatives, rather than have an externalparty choose one. In this case, the convener may sim-ply designate a seat at the stakeholder table to aspecific organization. This strategy may also be usedto ensure that certain types of organizations are rep-resented. For example, a group may havestakeholder slots designated for an environmentalinterest group, an industry organization, and alandowner.

Convener-PickedThere is no one correct way to select stakeholders,but different strategies are better suited for certain sit-uations than others. One approach is for theconvener to handpick the participants. This approachtends to work well if the convener is viewed as being

neutral and if it is relatively clear who should beselected. It is an efficient strategy that also allows theconvener to add other criteria for selection, such asgroup composition, group skills, and working rela-tionships. That said, there will be some bias in thisprocess because it will be defined by the knowledgeof the convener.

Selection CommitteeAnother approach is to use a selection committee tochoose the stakeholders. This approach tends towork well if the issues are politically charged orinvolve conflict. Each step of the collaborationprocess will be scrutinized. Any concerns about biasin stakeholder selection could lead people to ques-tion the decisions of the group. As with thehandpicked approach, a committee can also incorpo-rate additional criteria into the selection process. Theprimary disadvantages to this process relate to theadditional time, resources, and participants required.

Self-NominationA third approach is to form a committee through self-nomination. This approach works well when thecomposition of the committee is not critical and whenit is important to involve motivated stakeholders. Self-nomination is often linked to a public participationprocess. People are mailed newsletters, surveyed, orinvited to public meetings; those who are interestedare invited to participate in a stakeholder group. Thereis less opportunity or potential perception for biaswith this process; however, the resulting group maylack diversity, may not include key stakeholders, ormay overrepresent certain interests or organizations.

SnowballA final strategy for stakeholder selection is the“snowball” strategy. This is an important strategy forall stakeholder selection efforts, regardless of how itis initially established. The strategy involves askingthose involved, Who is not at the table that shouldbe? As the list of people expands, the new people areasked the same question, until a full set of partici-pants is involved. This can improve the breadth ofparticipants and ensure that stakeholder membershipis adjusted as new issues arise. The disadvantage ofthis process is that stakeholders coming late to theprocess may have less ability to influence outcomesand therefore may be less inclined to support theeffort. Furthermore, if not done carefully, it couldlead to an ever-expanding list of stakeholders.

See also:Plan Making Types of Plans

Richard Margerum, Ph.D., University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon

REASONS FOR STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENTREASON DESCRIPTION EXAMPLES OF STAKEHOLDERS Jurisdiction An organization or individual has jurisdiction over an issue. Local government

State and federal agenciesPrivate landowner

Information An organization or individual has information and knowledge. Technical expertsPeople with first-hand knowledgeAgencies with data

Conflict An organization or individual is party to an actual or . People with legal standingpotential conflict Existing parties to a dispute

Decision makers Networks An individual is connected in the community or has People involved in community groups

local influence. People in social groups and clubsLong-term residents

STAKEHOLDER SELECTION STRATEGIESSTRATEGY POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGES Convener-picked Compatible personalities Perception of bias

Can meet expertise needs Limited range of participants Selection committee Diverse committee can reduce bias More time-consuming

Can choose for expertise and personalities Requires additional participants Self-nominating Motivated participants Representation problems

Open process May only attract strongly opinionated Snowball Flexible Initial participants have more power

Allows participants to expand with issues Later participants may have concerns about earlier decisions

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 50

Surveys 51

PARTICIPATION

Planners looking to make good decisions need solid,reliable information. The survey is a widely acceptedtool for gathering information from the peopleinvolved in any planning action. Good-quality sur-veys are doable even for the novice. The basicconcepts and steps needed to plan and execute a sur-vey are introduced here.

The particular advantages of the survey are that itallows planners to obtain quantitative results, to antic-ipate and address many of the sources of error beforethe data are collected, and ultimately to generalizefindings from a relatively small number of respon-dents (the sample) to a larger group (the population).With increasing emphasis on representative citizenparticipation, surveys offer a useful method both toreach a broad public and to gather input from peo-ple who typically are not consulted on planningissues.

REASONS TO USE A SURVEY

Consider a survey when the data needed are notavailable from secondary sources. The existing datamay be outdated and no longer reflect current condi-tions or may describe a geography that does notcoincide with your needs, such as state-level data thatcannot be disaggregated into local units.

Surveys are conducted to find out the characteris-tics, behaviors, opinions, and knowledge of aparticular population. Before embarking on a survey,clearly establish your objectives. Determine who is tobe sampled and what you want to learn about thesample. Your questionnaire should flow directly fromyour information objectives.

TYPES OF SURVEYS

At the core of all surveys is either a questionnaire oran interview—these are the instruments for gatheringinformation.

Questionnaires Questionnaires are self-administered instruments.They generally enable respondents to complete thesurvey at their convenience and to proceed at theirown pace. Respondents often have a greater sense ofanonymity, which leads to greater honesty.Respondents can also verify their responses againstother records and documents.

InterviewsInterviews involve human interaction, even though itis scripted to some degree. In an interview, respon-dents can ask for clarification, thereby reducing thepotential for error. The interviewer can control thesequence of questions by following a skip patternaccording to previous responses—a feature nowpossible with self-administered, computerized ques-tionnaires. Depending on the study objectives, askilled interviewer can also pursue certain subjectsby using probes and follow-up questions. In a face-to-face situation, interviewers have the advantage ofbeing able to observe nonverbal cues. To a lesserdegree, even telephone interviewers can detect andrespond to changes in the respondent’s tone of voiceand speech.

MODES OF DISTRIBUTION

Surveys are further differentiated by their modes ofdistribution. They cover the entire range of communi-cation technologies currently in use—face-to-face(both intercept/“street corner” interviews and in-depthinterviews), posted mail, fax, telephone, email, andthe Web—and combinations of these modes. Themost appropriate survey method will depend on yourresources, survey objectives, and characteristics of thesample. Increasingly, survey software is being used togather data, reaching survey takers through email. Theadvantages of this approach include drawing upon anexisting database of survey recipients and quickly cre-ating reports, graphs, and tables from the data.

POPULATION SELECTION AND SIZE

SamplingSampling refers to a plan for randomly choosing asample. Determining the correct sample size used tobe one of the most daunting steps in survey prepara-tion. Today this challenge is easily met by goingonline and typing “sample size calculator” or “ran-dom sample calculator” into a search engine. SeveralWeb sites provide a utility that allows you to find outinstantly how many people you need to survey. Allrequire you to establish three parameters: populationsize, error level, and confidence level.

• Population size refers to the total number of peo-ple within the study area. For any given level ofaccuracy, the larger the population, the smaller thesample needed (percentage of people to be sur-veyed).

• Error level (or margin of error) is expressed as “plusor minus times percentage points” and refers to thedifference between the estimated value (derivedfrom the sample) and the true value (from thepopulation).

• Confidence level is also expressed as a percentageand refers to the number of times similar results areexpected if the study were replicated 100 times.

Error and confidence go hand in hand. Say a sur-vey found that 59 percent of households in the cityown one or more bicycles. If the survey weredesigned with an error level of �3 percentage pointsand a 95 percent confidence level, it would mean thathousehold bicycle ownership rates could actuallyrange from 56 percent to 62 percent, and this findingwould occur 95 out of 100 times if the survey wereconducted over and over. If your survey does nothave an acceptable level of confidence, it will be dif-ficult to know what to make of the results.

In a city with a population of 50,000, the followingsample sizes are needed:

Confidence Margin of Margin of Level Error ± 3 % Error ± 5 %

90 percent 745 271

95 percent 1,045 381

99 percent 1,778 655

Response Rate Sample size refers to the number of completed sur-veys. Therefore, the actual number of surveysdistributed must be adjusted to account for theresponse rate—a function of contact (reaching

SURVEYS

Nancy I. Nishikawa, AICP

The matrix compares four major survey methods under varying conditions of resource constraints, survey needs, and respon-dent characteristics.

SELECTING A SURVEY METHODReprinted with permission from The Planner’s Use of Information, 2nd Edition, copyright 2003 by the American Planning Association,Suite 1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

Resource ConstraintsInadequate Sampling Frame(e.g., Incomplete Mailing List or Directory)Quick Turnaround to Complete SurveyLimited Skilled StaffLimited Budget

Special NeedsMultiple LanguagesMaps or Other Visual MaterialsComplex Instructions or Need to Follow Precise OrderNeed to Probe, Explain Unclear QuestionsSome Items Require Additional ResearchAnonymity Needed for Sensitive Responses

Respondent CharacteristicsLarge Sample SizeGeographically DispersedSurvey Must Be Conducted at Specific LocationTarget Population Is Difficult to Contact

Face-to-Face

++

------

-++++++---

----++++

Telephone

++

++--+

---++++--++

-+---

Web-Based

--

++++++

+++++--++++

++++----

Mail

--

--++++

+++----+++

++++---

Interviewer-Administered Self-Administered

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 51

52 Surveys


respondents at viable addresses or working phonenumbers) and cooperation (getting people to com-plete the survey). The formula to calculate the totalnumber of surveys that must be distributed is:

Sample � response rate � total surveys to be distributed

Therefore, if one estimates a 20 percent responserate for a mail survey with a sample size of 381,one would need to send out 1,905 questionnaires.However, if there are indications that a higher esti-mate of a 40 percent response rate is warranted,one could reduce the mailing to 953 question-naires.

Some of the common techniques to improve coop-eration include:

• sending out prenotification letters, then followingthe questionnaire with reminder cards;

• developing persuasive introductory language;• ensuring that the questionnaire is attractive and

easy to complete; and• training interviewers for more effective “first con-

tact.”

Response rates are an important and challengingcomponent of surveys. That said, noncontact andnoncooperation should not seriously affect dataquality to the extent that they occur randomly(Langer 2003). Addressing sources of bias is stillparamount.

ALTERNATIVE SAMPLING DESIGNS

In addition to simple random sampling, plannersshould be familiar with two alternative samplingdesigns: stratified sample and clustered sample.

Stratified SampleIn a stratified sample, the population is divided intosubgroups (strata) before sampling. For example, ifthe survey is about a city’s bike paths and it isknown that households with school-aged childrenare more likely to own bicycles, one might selectseparate samples for households with school-agedchildren and those without. Each subgroup is a sep-arate sample, and the respective sample sizeswould reflect the subgroup’s size relative to theoverall population. Within subgroups, individualsare selected at random.

Clustered SampleIn a clustered sample, the population is divided intosmaller geographic units (clusters), such as neigh-borhoods within a city or blocks within a district.The sample consists of a random selection of clus-ters and all individuals within those clusters aresurveyed.

TIPS FOR SUCCESSFUL DATACOLLECTION

The survey is a way of creating an area-specific, cus-tomized database. Even a hurriedly put-togethersurvey can fill a critical information gap. Designedproperly, the survey can be a rigorous tool. The fol-lowing tips can maximize your data-gathering efforts:

• Start with a brief, compelling introduction thatclearly states the purpose of your study and itspotential value to the respondent.

• Use plain language that is easy to understand;avoid jargon and acronyms.

• Organize questions in logical groups; provide tran-sitions when shifting topics.

• Ask important questions first, profile questions last.• Proofread to eliminate typographic and grammati-

cal errors; make the layout crisp and legible. • Include graphics (maps, plans, diagrams, render-

ings, and photos), as appropriate.• Keep the survey short and simple.• Pretest with a few people (ideally representing a

cross section of the sample), then debrief and askfor candid feedback.

DESIGNING A QUESTIONNAIRE

Researchers have several options in designing a ques-tionnaire, primarily in constructing and sequencingitems. Two basic categories of questions are theclosed- versus open-ended inquiries.

Close-Ended QuestionsIn close-ended questions, respondents are asked toselect from a list provided by the researcher, withinstructions either to select a single answer (one that“best fits”) or multiple answers (all that apply). A vari-ation of the closed-ended question is one that asksrespondents to evaluate on a scale or rank in order ofpreference, such as one of the following:

• Rating scale is an ordinal measurement of degree,which asks respondents to indicate a positionbetween opposite word pairs (e.g., noisy-quiet orfrequently-never, etc.).

• Likert scale asks respondents to indicate the extentto which they agree with a statement (e.g., stronglyagree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, don’tknow).

• Numerical scale asks respondents to correlate theirposition to a numerical rating (e.g., satisfactionlevel rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being leastsatisfied and 5 being most satisfied).

In close-ended questions, the choices do not haveto be words. Many planning-oriented issues areamenable to choices presented in drawings, plans,and photos. Another possibility is to ask respondents

to indicate their preferences by allocating a “theoret-ical budget”—$1 and $100 are easiest to work with.

Open-Ended QuestionsOpen-ended questions give respondents an opportu-nity for self-expression and spontaneity that can leadresearchers to new insights. Their disadvantage is thatthey can be difficult to summarize without postcod-ing. A compromise is to offer a list of what areexpected to be the most popular choices, based onprior knowledge of the subject, then include an“Other” category that allows respondents to provideanswers outside the predetermined categories.

The importance of sequencing questionnaire itemsin a clear, logical order should not be overlooked.Respondents are more likely to find an instrumentcredible if it is readily apparent that questions are rel-evant to the overall purpose of the study and areconnected in a way that makes sense. The most basicpatterns are the funnel sequence, which begins withthe most general question and works down todetailed points, and the inverted funnel sequence,which begins with specific questions and then movesto more general issues. Transitional questions, briefexplanations, or headings can be inserted to signal achange of topic or to show how the new topic relatesto what had been asked previously.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Despite the tremendous usefulness of surveys forresearchers, they are not met with the same level ofenthusiasm among the survey-taking public. Manyfactors have contributed to the survey’s diminishedreputation; however, it is possible to avoid further tar-nish by observing a few common-sense practices.Foremost, respect the privacy of respondents. Do notrelease names and addresses of respondents. Codesare typically assigned to questionnaires, in whichcase, secure the name-to-code assignments. Resultscan be reported confidentially by tabulating data sothat individual responses cannot be singled out. And,whenever possible, provide respondents with a copyof your findings—prompt feedback will demonstratehow the study has contributed to a better under-standing of important community issues.

REFERENCES

Dandekar, Hemalata C. 2003. Planner’s Use ofInformation, 2nd ed. Chicago: Planners Press.

Langer, Gary. 2003. “About Response Rates: SomeUnresolved Questions.” Public Perspective,May/June, 16-18. www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/pubper/pdf/pp14_3c.pdf

See also:Analysis TechniquesPlan Making

Nancy I. Nishikawa, AICP

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 52

Asset Mapping 53

PARTICIPATION

Asset mapping is the process of identifying, througha community capacity inventory, the individual, orga-nizational, and institutional capacity and gifts of aparticular community. This technique is derived froman asset-based approach to community development.Asset mapping rejects the dominant deficiency-ori-ented model, focusing instead on the capacities ofneighborhoods.

There are two reasons for this capacity-orientedemphasis. First, evidence indicates that significantcommunity development takes place only when localcommunity people are committed to investing them-selves and their resources in the effort. Second, it isunlikely that significant help will arrive from outsidethe community; therefore, development must startfrom within the community.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS MAP

Low-income communities too often are characterizedby their deficiencies and needs. These needs areoften identified, quantified, and mapped by conduct-ing needs surveys. The result is a map of theneighborhood’s problems, such as illiteracy, teenagepregnancy, criminal activity, and drug use. This is apowerful map and offers one way to think aboutlow-income neighborhoods. It may be true that such

a neighborhood map is accurate, but it is also truethat it tells only half the truth. Communities havenever been built upon their deficiencies. Buildingcommunity has always depended on mobilizing thecapacities and assets of a people and a place. Manylow-income neighborhoods also have considerableassets to build upon, including proximity and accessto the central business district and cultural facilitiesand, in some cases, substantial historic structures andopen-space resources.

MAPPING BUILDING BLOCKS

The process of identifying capacities and assets, bothindividual and organizational, is the first step on thepath toward community regeneration. In developingan asset map, it is useful to recognize that not allcommunity assets are equally available for commu-nity-building purposes—some are more accessiblethan others. The asset map uses three types of build-ing blocks to develop the most comprehensive viewof a neighborhood’s assets: primary, secondary, andpotential.

PrimaryPrimary building blocks are the most easily accessibleassets because they are located in the neighborhood

and controlled by those who live there. Examplesinclude individual capacities, citizen associations, andreligious organizations.

SecondarySecondary building blocks are the next most accessi-ble assets because they are located in theneighborhood but are controlled elsewhere. Parks,schools, and social service agencies are examples ofsecondary building blocks.

PotentialFinally, the least accessible assets are those locatedoutside of the neighborhood and controlled by thoseoutside of the neighborhood. This type of asset,called a potential building block, includes publicexpenditures.

USING THE ASSET MAP

Most of the assets identified on the sample asset mapalready exist in many low-income neighborhoods.They are waiting to be inventoried and turned towardthe goal of rebuilding communities. One critical ele-ment of the regeneration process involves multiplyingthe connections among all of the identified assets.Different communities will approach the entire

ASSET MAPPING

John P. Kretzmann, Ph.D,. and John L. McKnight, Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

Slum

Hou

sing

Crime Mental Illness

Teenage Pregnancy

Lead Poisoning

DrugAbuse

RatBites

WelfareDependency

Domestic Violence

Alcoholism

AIDS

Dropouts

Illiteracy

Pollution

Child Abuse

Abandonment

Gangs

Broken Families

Unemployment

Boarded-Up Buildings

Homelessness

Trua

ncy

Slum Housing

THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS MAP Source: John McKnight and John Kretzmann, 1996.

Publ

ic In

form

atio

n

LibrariesFire

Departments

PublicSchools

Cultural Organizations

PersonalIncome

Parks

Associationsof Business

Capital Improvement Expenditures

Police

Vacant Buildings, Land, etc.

Social Service Agencies

IndividualCapacities

Gifts of Labeled People

Home-Based Enterprises

Welfare Expenditures

Individual Businesses

Higher EducationInstitutions

Religious Organizations

Citizen Associations

Energy/Waste Management

Hos

pita

ls

Public Information Primary Building Blocks

Secondary Building Blocks

Potential Building Blocks

THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSETS MAPSource: John McKnight and John Kretzmann, 1996.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 53

54 Asset Mapping


Bridges to Resources The key to neighborhood regeneration is to buildupon those resources the community already controlsand to harness those not yet available for local devel-opment purposes.

Every neighborhood has a map of riches, assets, andcapacities. It is important to note that the asset map isof the same territory as the neighborhood needs map.Once the asset map has replaced the needs map, theregenerating community can begin to assemble itsassets and capacities into new combinations, newstructures of opportunity, new sources of income andcontrol, and new possibilities for production.

See also:MappingNeighborhoodsNeighborhood Plans

John P. Kretzmann, Ph.D., and John L. McKnight, Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

rebuilding challenge with different strategies. Leadersin every community, however, will need to considerat least three questions central to the rebuilding task:

• Which organizations can act most effectively tolead the community-building process?

• What kinds of communitywide research, planning,and decision-making processes can most demo-cratically and effectively advance this rebuildingprocess?

• How might we build useful bridges to resourceslocated outside the community?

OrganizationsTwo kinds of existing community associations areparticularly well suited to lead community building:the multi-issue community organization and the com-munity development organization. In somecommunities, neither of these organizations may

exist, so a new asset development organization mustbe created.

Research, Planning, and Decision-MakingProcessesCapacity-oriented community planning will no doubttake many different forms, but all them will have atleast these characteristics in common:

• The process will aim to involve as many represen-tatives of internally located and controlled assets aspossible in the discussion and decisions.

• The process will incorporate some version of acommunity capacity inventory in its initial stages.

• The process will develop community-buildingstrategies that take full advantage of the interestsand strengths of the participants, and will aimtoward building the power to define and controlthe future of the neighborhood.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 54

Community Visioning 55

PARTICIPATION

Community visioning offers local communities newways to think about and plan for the long-termfuture. The visioning process was inspired in part bythe concept of “anticipatory democracy,” anapproach to governance that blends futures research,grassroots public participation, and long-range strate-gic planning.

Visioning has caught on quickly around the coun-try in communities undergoing rapid growth anddevelopment as well as those experiencing economicdecline. As an adjunct to traditional community plan-ning, visioning promotes greater awareness ofsocietal change and deepened citizen involvement. Italso gives communities a stronger sense of controlover their destinies.

WHAT IS VISIONING?

In the simplest terms, visioning is a planning processthrough which a community creates a shared visionfor its future and begins to make it a reality. Such avision provides an overlay for other communityplans, policies, and decisions, as well as a guide toactions in the wider community. While a significantnumber of communities employing a wide range ofapproaches and techniques have undertaken com-munity visioning, the most successful efforts seem toshare these five key characteristics:

• Understanding the whole community. The visioningprocess promotes an understanding of the wholecommunity and the full range of issues shaping itsfuture. It also attempts to engage the participationof the entire community and its key stakeholdergroups.

• Reflecting core community values. The visioningprocess seeks to identify the community’s core val-ues—those deeply held community beliefs andideals shared by its members. Such values informthe idealistic nature of the community’s vision.

• Addressing emerging trends and issues. The vision-ing process explores the emerging trends drivingthe community’s future and the strategic issues theyportend. Addressing such trends promotes greaterforesight, adding rigor and realism to the commu-nity’s vision.

• Envisioning a preferred future. The visioningprocess produces a statement articulating the com-munity’s preferred future. The vision statementrepresents the community’s desired “destination”—a shared image of where it would like to be in thelong-term future.

• Promoting local action. The visioning process alsoproduces a strategic action plan. The action planserves as the community’s “road map”: to move itin the direction of its vision in the near-term future.

BENEFITS OF VISIONING

For communities that successfully engage in vision-ing, the process offers clear benefits. Visioning:

• brings community members together in a uniquelydifferent context to consider their common future;

• encourages the community to explore new ideasand possibilities;

• creates a shared sense of direction and a frame-work for future community decisions; and

• produces a process that results in concrete goalsand strategies for action

Additionally, there can be second-order benefitsthat may not be immediately apparent in undertakingthe process, such as:

• enriching public involvement by expanding theterms and scope of civic engagement;

• fostering new leadership in citizens who have notbeen previously active in public life;

• promoting active partnerships among government,business, civic, and nonprofit organizations; and

• strengthening community cohesion and “socialcapital.”

In other words, engaging in the process of vision-ing can be as rewarding as its products.

Finally, there can be significant visioning benefitsfor the function of planning itself. For example,strong consensus on community goals can provide aninformed and supportive context for the develop-ment of other plans and policies. This, in turn, canfacilitate and even streamline public involvement.

At the same time, visioning can place newdemands on planning. It stretches the traditional roleof planners, calling upon new skills and competen-cies. It demands increased levels of dialogue and trustwith the public. Ultimately, to the degree that vision-ing extends beyond the traditional domain ofplanning, it requires more effective cross-sector com-munication and collaboration.

THE OREGON MODEL

Oregon was one of the first places in the UnitedStates to experience the proliferation of community-based visioning. In a state widely recognized for itsland-use planning and growth management policies,visioning was seen as an overlay for local land-useplans and a tool to help communities managechange.

Based on Oregon’s early community visioning suc-cesses and similar state-level efforts, the OregonModel represents a comprehensive approach tovisioning that has since gained widespread accept-

ance around the country. The model is framed byfour simple questions, which collectively form thebasis of the visioning process:

1.Where are we now?2.Where are we going?3.Where do we want to be?4.How do we get there?

Answering each question implies a discrete step inthe process, with different activities, outcomes, andproducts. Step one involves profiling the presentcommunity’s current conditions and core values. Steptwo involves analyzing emerging trends and theirprobable impact on the community’s future. Stepthree is geared to the creation of a vision, and stepfour involves developing an action plan.

Some communities have added a fifth step pro-moting action plan implementation:

5. Are we getting there?

This addition to the Oregon Model responds tocriticism that the visioning process does not alwaysproduce real results. The fifth step may also incorpo-rate the development of indicators or benchmarks tomonitor and measure the community’s success inachieving its vision over time.

Visioning is designed to be iterative and ongoing.Benchmarking provides an important feedback loopfor the eventual update of the community’s visionand action plan. The action plan, having a muchshorter planning horizon than its companion vision,requires more frequent updates.

Applying the ModelThe Oregon Model is a flexible approach that can beadapted to a wide variety of settings and can bescaled up or down depending on the nature of thecommunity, its needs, and its resources. The key toits success is to shape the process to fit the place.

Establishing a vision framework—timeframe, over-all focus, and specific focus areas—provides astrategic starting point. Most communities set theirvision timeframe at 20 to 25 years into the future.They also adopt a broad overall focus, encompassingthe full spectrum of community concerns. Focusareas may range beyond traditional planning to

COMMUNITY VISIONING

Steven C. Ames, Steven Ames Planning, Portland, Oregon

TrendAnalysis

CommunityProfile

VisionStatement

ActionPlan

Implementationand Monitoring

Where Are WeNow?

Where Are WeGoing?

Where Do WeWant to Be?

How Do WeGet There?

Are WeGetting There?

Descriptive Information

Community Values

Trend Information

Probable Scenario

Possible/Preferred Scenarios

Community Vision

Goals, Strategies, Actions

Action Plan Matrix

Vision/Action Plan Implementation

Community Indicators/ Benchmarks

THE NEW OREGON MODELSource: Steven Ames Planning.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 55

56 Community Visioning


encompass such topics as education, arts and culture,health, and public safety. Building on this framework,the design of every visioning process will varywidely.

As a relatively new approach to planning, commu-nity visioning can have a steep learning curve; it mayemploy nontraditional planning techniques such as“environmental scanning” or alternative scenarios.Managing diverse stakeholder groups or alleviatingpublic skepticism regarding the process can provedaunting. Midprocess course corrections are necessary.

Fortunately, none of these challenges are insur-mountable. Moreover, the ability of visioning toprovide strategic input for such perennial planningconcerns as growth management, urban design, trans-portation, housing, community development, andsustainability justifies the up-front investment. Indeed,planners often use the outcomes of visioning to frameand legitimize other major planning initiatives.

Involving the Public in VisioningTrue to visioning’s roots in anticipatory democracy,public involvement is a critical element of the vision-ing process. Engaging the public is essential increating a shared community vision and action plan,as well as in promoting their eventual achievement.This implies an inclusive, participatory process capa-ble of forging broad public consensus on keycommunity goals.

To some planners, such a dialogue may seemincreasingly difficult in today’s society, given thenumerous urgent issues on the public agenda, shrink-ing local government budgets, the busy lives ofcitizens, and the ever-present distractions of themedia and pop culture. For these reasons, public out-

reach and strong “branding” of the visioning processare absolutely critical to successful public involve-ment.

Fortunately, for many people, there remains a fun-damental appeal in talking about the future of theircommunity. The reason is probably the abidingimportance of “place.” People relate to and careabout where they live; it’s one of the fundamental

ways through which we continue to connect ashuman beings.

There is also an array of tools and techniques tostimulate and facilitate the visioning dialogue. Theseinclude participatory techniques, such as publicworkshops and open houses, as well as more repre-sentative techniques, such as citizen task forces,scientific surveys, and focus groups. The former helpensure broad public input, allow for open dialogue,and promote public awareness; the latter help cap-ture diverse viewpoints, promote in-depthdiscussions, and facilitate the development of specificvisioning products.

Additionally, computer-mediated communicationsare increasingly integral to the visioning process.While “electronic town meetings” have yet to realizetheir original promise, other tools have stepped in tofill the gap. Visioning today would be inconceivablewithout the Internet, search engines, and communityWeb sites, with their respective capacities for dissem-inating and gathering information. Graphicalcomputer simulations have also increased our abilityto actually see aspects of preferred—or not-so-pre-ferred—futures.

Undoubtedly, evolving forms of electronic com-munication will continue to add new dimensions tocommunity visioning, just as the process itself contin-ues to evolve as an integral part of communityplanning.

See also:Places and Place MakingPublic MeetingsSurveysVisualization

Steven C. Ames, Steven Ames Planning, Portland, Oregon

SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY VISIONING

Visioning works when:

• The community is concerned about its futureand is eager for dialogue.

• The process is well designed, managed, andadequately resourced.

• Key community institutions and opinion leadersare involved in the process.

• Elected officials and city managers are support-ive of the process.

• The public is authentically engaged in theprocess.

Visioning doesn’t work when:

• The community is too polarized to engage in acivil dialogue.

• The process is poorly designed or managed orinadequately resourced.

• Key community institutions or opinion leadersare not involved in the process.

• Elected officials or city managers are unsupport-ive of the process.

• There is no follow-through in implementing thevision and action plan.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 56

Charrettes 57

PARTICIPATION

A charrette involves a multidisciplinary team of pro-fessionals developing all elements of a plan. Theteam works closely with stakeholders through aseries of feedback loops, during which alternativeconcepts are developed, reviewed by stakeholders,and revised accordingly. The charrette is a sophisti-cated process that best serves controversial andcomplicated urban design and planning problems.Its capacity to bring all the decision makers togetherfor a discrete amount of time to create a solutionmakes it one of the most powerful techniques in aplanner’s toolkit.

Charrettes are not a substitute for a standard plan-ning process, which is executed over several months.They are conducted to address specific problematicsituations and should complement the overall plan-ning process. The charrette process works best forsituations such as:

• high-stakes projects;• volatile yet workable political environments;• complex design problems; and• projects that include imminent development.

The combination of the sophistication of theprocess with the complexity of the situations inwhich it is most often used means charrette practi-tioners must be well trained.

DYNAMIC PLANNING

A charrette is the central event of a larger process thatthe National Charrette Institute calls DynamicPlanning, a multiday, collaborative planning anddesign effort with the goal of arriving at a compre-hensive, feasible plan.

Dynamic Planning has three governing values:

• Anyone affected by the project has the right to pro-vide input with potential impact on the outcome.

• Each participant has a unique contribution that isheard and respected.

• Many hands make the best plans.

BENEFITS OF THE CHARRETTEPROCESS

The benefits of the charrette process are numerous.When done correctly, the charrette promotes trustbetween citizens and government through meaning-ful public involvement and education. It fosters ashared community vision by turning opposition intosupport. It continuously strives for the creation of afeasible plan, which increases the likelihood of theproject getting built by gaining broad support fromcitizens, professionals, and staff. Identifying the stake-holders early and often, and encouraging publicparticipation creates a better plan through diverseinput and involvement. Finally, the charrette makeseconomic sense. Because all parties are collaboratingfrom the start, no voice is overlooked, which allowsthe project to avoid costly rework. Also, the charretteallows for fewer and more highly productive worksessions, making it less time-consuming than tradi-tional processes.

THE NINE STRATEGIES OF THECHARRETTE PROCESS

The term “charrette” is overused and often misused.Although “charrette” refers specifically to a holisticplan to bring transformative change to a neighbor-hood, some use the word to refer to an afternoonmeeting or a marathon planning workshop. The fol-lowing nine strategies are what differentiate acharrette from other planning processes.

1. Work collaboratively. All interested parties must beinvolved from the beginning. Having contributedto the planning, participants are in a position bothto understand and to support a project’s rationale.

2. Design cross-functionally. A multidisciplinary teammethod results in decisions that are realistic everystep of the way. The cross-functional process elim-inates the need for rework because the design workcontinually reflects the wisdom of each specialty.

3. Compress work sessions. The charrette itself, usuallylasting two to seven days, is a series of meetingsand design sessions that would traditionally takemonths to complete. This time compression facili-tates creative problem solving by acceleratingdecision making and reducing unconstructivenegotiation tactics. It also encourages people toabandon their usual working patterns and “thinkoutside of the box.”

4. Communicate in short feedback loops. During thecharrette, design ideas are created based upon apublic vision and presented within hours for fur-ther review, critique, and refinement. Regularstakeholder input and reviews quickly build trustin the process and foster true understanding andsupport of the product.

5. Study the details and the whole. Lasting agreementis based on a fully informed dialogue, which canbe accomplished only by looking at the detailsand the big picture concurrently. Studies at thesetwo scales also inform each other and reduce thelikelihood that a fatal flaw will be overlooked inthe plan.

6. Produce a feasible plan. The charrette differs fromother workshops in its expressed goal to create afeasible plan. In other words, every decision point

CHARRETTES

National Charrette Institute, Portland, Oregon

AlternativesConcepts Refinement Plan

Public Review

Public Review Public Review

CHARRETTE FEEDBACK LOOPSSource: National Charrette Institute, 2003.

must be fully informed, especially by the legal,financial, and engineering disciplines.

7. Use design to achieve a shared vision and createholistic solutions. Design is a powerful tool forestablishing a shared vision. Drawings illustrate thecomplexity of the problem and can be used toresolve conflict by proposing previously unex-plored solutions that represent win-win outcomes.

8. Include a multiday charrette. Most charrettesrequire between two and seven days, allowing forthree feedback loops. The more difficult the prob-lem is, the longer the charrette should be.

9. Hold the charrette on site. Working on site fostersthe design team’s understanding of local valuesand traditions, and provides the necessary easyaccess to stakeholders and information. Therefore,the studio should be located in a place where it iseasily accessible to all stakeholders and where thedesigners have quick access to the project site.

THE THREE PHASES OF DYNAMICPLANNING As discussed above, the charrette is the central ele-ment of a larger comprehensive process calledDynamic Planning. There are three phases inDynamic Planning: research, education, and charrettepreparation; the charrette; and plan implementation.The most common cause of project failure is not apoorly run charrette; rather, it is usually due to incom-plete preparation and/or inadequate follow-throughduring the implementation phase.

Research, Education, and CharrettePreparation During this phase, all the necessary base informationis gathered and all the necessary people are identifiedand engaged. A complexity analysis of the project iscompleted, so that the charrette manager can decidehow much time is needed for the charrette. Duringthis time initial stakeholder meetings are held andfeasibility studies are completed. Finally, the charrettelogistics are arranged. The studio setup is planned,the design team is formed, and the charrette isscheduled step by step. This step can typically takearound four months.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 57

58 Charrettes


The Charrette The charrette brings all the right people and all theright information to a series of highly focused andproductive work sessions. Before the first publicmeeting is held, the design team takes a tour of thearea and holds meetings with key stakeholdergroups. The first public meeting is held to determine

the direction in which the public would like to taketheir community. Based on public input, gatheredthrough a number of different participatory methodsemployed during the first public meeting, the designteam begins to work on the development of alterna-tive concepts. The next evening, another publicmeeting is held to display the alternative concepts

and gather another round of public feedback. Afterthis second public meeting, the design team meets todiscuss the best way to synthesize the different con-cepts into one preferred plan. This new plan is thenpresented to the public in an open house. Followingthe open house, the preferred plan is developed fur-ther, and the design is refined. Additional stakeholderinput is gathered. The preferred plan is then pre-sented to the public again during the final charrettepublic meeting.

Plan ImplementationDynamic Planning does not end with the charrette. Itis critical that the preferred plan undergo further fea-sibility testing and public review. Each team memberis in charge of his or her element of the charrette planand performs feasibility tests and then refines the ele-ment as necessary. These revisions to the plan arethen presented to the public again, usually about amonth after the charrette. The final product of theDynamic Planning process is a full set of documentsthat represent the complete record of the DynamicPlanning and charrette processes, including recordsof the meetings, who was involved, and the evolutionof the plan.

WHERE CHARRETTES SUCCEED

The key to a successful charrette is in its preparation.Because a successful charrette requires all the rightpeople and all the right information, most mistakesare made by not identifying and involving the rightpeople early and throughout the process and/or notplanning enough time to produce the documentsnecessary for implementation. The importance ofstakeholder reviews and soliciting public feedbackcannot be overemphasized.

NEXT EVOLUTION OFCHARRETTES

Traditionally, charrettes have been “high-touch,” rely-ing on low-tech elements, such as hand drawings.High-tech modeling tools are increasingly beingincorporated into traditionally high-touch charrettes.They include keypad polling, environmental impactanalysis programs, and vision scenario development.These tools are helping to increase public involve-ment, execute design, and perform feasibilityanalysis. As high-tech tools are refined, they will pro-vide the design team with an increased capability togive quick feedback during a charrette.

See also:Visualization

National Charrette Institute, Portland, Oregon

Supplies

Copier

Computers

ConferenceTable

MapTable

Pin-Up/ReviewSpace

Women'sRoom

Men'sRoom

Kitchen

Exit

MeetingRoom

Gallery and Reception

Workstations

Coffee/Tea

CHARRETTE STUDIO LAYOUTSource: National Charrette Institute, 2003.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7

AlternativePlans

RefinedPlans

FinalPlan

PublicVision

PublicInput

PublicReview

PublicConfirmation

CHARRETTE WORK CYCLESource: National Charrette Institute, 2003.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 58

Public Meetings 59

PARTICIPATION

Public meetings are among the most common formsof citizen participation for planners and urban design-ers. They can be used to ascertain public opiniongenerally or to reach consensus on a recommendedaction. When they are successful, it is due to carefulplanning and follow-through. Well-organized andexecuted public meetings can be valuable opportuni-ties for planners to provide information on importantissues to the citizenry and obtain meaningful input.

There are three primary purposes for holding apublic meeting: share information, seek advice, orsolve problems. Though any issue can be the subjectof this form of public dialogue, planners most fre-quently deal with matters such as zoning,comprehensive planning, parks and open space,environmental protection, and transportation. Themeetings themselves may take a variety of forms.They differ substantially from public hearings, whichgenerally follow formal rules and procedures. In fact,it can be said that governmental bodies usually arerequired to hold public hearings, whereas they havea choice about whether and how to hold publicmeetings.

At an effective public meeting, planners can enlistcitizens as partners or at the least give them impor-tant information. By listening and respondingrespectfully, they can help diffuse opposition andbuild trust and confidence. The most successful pub-lic meetings are designed and executed verycarefully, with attention paid to myriad details andnothing left to chance.

THE PURPOSE OF A PUBLICMEETING

Before developing the agenda or any other part ofthe public meeting, the first matter to be agreed uponis its purpose: Is the meeting being convened primar-ily to share information, to seek advice, or to solveproblems? Once that is decided, planners then shouldchoose the appropriate structure and organizationthat best carries out this objective. To avoid misun-derstandings, it is important that all notices indicateclearly the nature of the meeting and the expectedoutcomes. This also should be emphasized duringintroductory remarks. For example, citizens can beupset if they come to a public meeting ready to voteon options or alternatives, only to find that the pur-pose of the gathering is only to ask for their opinions.

Informational MeetingsInformational meetings are held to convey informa-tion or data to the public and to receive theircomments. Public hearings are the most common,but not the only, form of informational meetings. Atpublic hearings, staff presents information to the deci-sion makers or hearing officers, followed bytestimony from citizens, all within strict constraints.Other informational meetings are more informal, withplanners making reports to neighborhood, civic, orother interested groups, and then answering ques-tions. Although time for short presentations from theattendees may be permitted, prolonged dialogue andinteraction are discouraged.

Advisory MeetingsWhile advisory public meetings also provide infor-mation, the public is given meaningful opportunitiesat these meetings to interact with staff or decisionmakers. Similar to the structure of informational meet-ings, advisory meetings begin with a presentation ofbasic information, possibly followed by a summary ofthe advantages and disadvantages of various alterna-tives. After the presentations at an advisory meeting,however, the public engages in an open but struc-tured dialogue.

WorkshopsThe most common form of dialogue session is theworkshop, where 8 to 10 participants discuss issuespertinent to the subject, led by a facilitator. Notes aretaken, with the assurance that feedback from theattendees will be shared with the decision makers.No promises are made that the results from the work-shop will be the final decision; the only assurancesgiven are that decision makers will consider citizenconcerns in their final deliberations.

Open HouseAnother form of advisory meeting becoming popularamong planners is the community open house. Whileinformational or advisory meetings should be nomore than three hours long, an open house is typi-cally longer, from 3:00 to 8:00 P.M., for example. Abusy public appreciates the flexible hours. For exam-ple, seniors or others may prefer not being out afterdark, and working people can drop by on the wayhome or after supper.

To hold an open house requires a large room thatcan hold many people milling about, such as a schoolgymnasium or cafeteria, senior or community center, orchurch basement. As people enter, they are given infor-mation packets that include a small map or roomlayout, agenda, and background materials. Well-placed

signs mark the different areas of activity or stations.Planners and others who can answer questions andengage people in a dialogue about a particular segmentof the issue staff each station. For example, if the openhouse is being held about a draft comprehensive plan,the people at the various stations can address elementsof the plan, such as transportation, parks, and housing.Speakers may provide formal presentations in ascreened-off part of the room at specific times. Citizensare encouraged to stay as long as they like, moving attheir own pace between stations and other informa-tional displays. Short written questionnaires giveattendees additional opportunities to comment andexpress their opinions. This open format, with staff anddecision makers committed to listening and activelyengaging the public, can generate much communitygoodwill as well as provide valuable information.

Problem-Solving MeetingsThe purpose of the third, and least common, form ofpublic meeting is to solve problems. In this case, theresults of citizen input will directly influence the deci-sion-making process. The workshop formatdiscussed above, consisting of a presentation of tech-nical material followed by facilitated discussion, isalso a useful technique for problem-solving meetings.However, in this case, the public is asked to reachconclusions or make recommendations. If there aremore than a dozen attendees, people should bedivided into small discussion units. Group consensusor agreement is more likely to emerge if participantsare randomly dispersed at small discussion tables.This will produce results more reflective of the groupprocess than of any particular advocate or dissenter.The successful problem-solving meeting requires aninformed citizenry, skilled discussion leaders follow-ing an agenda with specific questions and discussiontopics, well-trained recorders, and decision makerswho commit themselves to following the results.

PUBLIC MEETINGS

Elaine C. Cogan, Cogan Owens Cogan, LLC, Portland, Oregon

M

With this arrangement, all eyes are on the speaker.There isminimal interaction with the audience, typically limited toquestions and answers.To be heard, one must generally goto the front.

TYPICAL INFORMATIONAL SEATINGARRANGEMENTReprinted with permission from Successful Public Meetings,copyright 2000 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

M

M

MM

M

The curved shape of the arrangement creates fewer per-ceived barriers between the speakers and the audience. Italso allows the audience to have views of each other.Theplacement of microphones invites questions and comments.

IMPROVED INFORMATIONAL SEATINGARRANGEMENT Reprinted with permission from Successful Public Meetings,copyright 2000 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 59

60 Public Meetings



When a circle is not possible, a semicircle gives most of thesame advantages. Use an even number of rows, as the odd,middle row is often left vacant.

SEMICIRCLE SEATING ARRANGEMENT Reprinted with permission from Neighborhood Planning,copyright 1990 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

A circle arrangement allows everyone to see everythingand creates a more equal setting. Including a table allowsparticipants to take notes.

CIRCLE SEATING ARRANGEMENT Reprinted with permission from Neighborhood Planning,copyright 1990 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

The community fair arrangement allows for many informalopportunities to receive information, discuss issues, and giveopinions.

COMMUNITY FAIR ARRANGEMENT Reprinted with permission from Neighborhood Planning,copyright 1990 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

M Flip Chart

Flip Chart

Flip Chart

Flip C

hart

Flip C

hart

M

CitizenComment

Forms

ResourceTable

Entrance To Hearing Room (if needed)

Slide/Video Show

ResourceTable

ResourceTable

ResourceTable

Children's

Corner

Information Displays

Info

rmat

ion/

Sign

-Up

Refreshments

This room arrangement is commonly used for group meet-ings.The “U” allows a speaker to move around within thegroup. However, it creates open space between partici-pants. Moving the tables closer together encouragesinteraction across the “U.”

U-SHAPE SEATING ARRANGEMENT Source: © 1995 David Knox Productions, Inc.

Several smaller tables allow for small-group interaction. Flipcharts and microphones allow for breakout exercises andreporting back to the group.

WORKSHOP SEATING ARRANGEMENT Reprinted with permission from Neighborhood Planning,copyright 1990 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

This arrangement is similar to the boardroom seatingarrangement. It makes the role of “leader” less obvious.Corners may be “dead” areas, however.

CLOSED-SQUARE SEATINGARRANGEMENT Reprinted with permission from Neighborhood Planning,copyright 1990 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

(with or without table)

The rectangular table is typical for conference room meetings.It encourages face-to-face interaction, but those on the endsmay talk more and receive more attention. Substituting an ovalor round table allows participants to see each other easily.

BOARDROOM SEATING ARRANGEMENT Reprinted with permission from Neighborhood Planning,copyright 1990 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

This arrangement is similar to the improved informationalseating arrangement. It allows for interaction when a circlearrangement is not possible. A main speaker may have toturn to view certain audience members.

THEATER SEATING ARRANGEMENT Reprinted with permission from Neighborhood Planning,copyright 1990 by the American Planning Association, Suite1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 60

Public Meetings 61

PARTICIPATION

UNDERREPRESENTEDPOPULATIONS

In an increasingly diverse society, planners should besensitive about how to involve people who may notgenerally come to public meetings. One successful tech-nique is to contact representatives of minority,non-English speaking, or other underrepresented com-munities to ask them to help you reach their constituents,friends, and neighbors. Take their advice seriously. Theymay suggest several approaches, such as:

• advertising in local newspapers or radio stations;• printing notices in languages other than English;• using interpreters at meetings;• providing child care; and• meeting at unconventional times, such as weekends;

PRESENTATION SKILLS In deciding the amount and kind of information to pro-vide at all public meetings, consider the needs of youraudience. What do they need or want to know in order

to be conversant with the subject and provide usefulfeedback? By asking this question and answering ithonestly, planners will avoid making the common mis-take of writing technical papers instead of simplehandouts or speaking in jargon or language wellbeyond citizens’ understanding. Recognize also that notall good planners are good presenters. Some profes-sionals relate well to people at informal neighborhoodmeetings but are not able to speak to a great numberin a big hall. Others have just the opposite skills. Eitherobtain training to increase your abilities in different set-tings or recognize your limitations and deploy thepeople best able to handle specific situations.

Likewise, remember that one type of presentationdoes not fit all situations. While computer presenta-tions are popular with planners and designers, theycan backfire if done poorly, using too many wordsand confusing images. Computers also are prone tomalfunction so it is important always to have abackup, such as a written handout. With some audi-ences, simple charts or drawings may be moreeffective than flashy graphics.

KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL PUBLICMEETINGS

Successful public meetings are characterized by anumber of considerations:

• Set aside sufficient time and resources to plan eachevent, agreeing first on the basic purpose and pri-mary audience.

• Choose the best format to meet your objectives.• Provide notice well in advance and in the lan-

guage(s) understood by your target audiences.• Hold the meeting at a time and in a place conven-

ient to the people you want to attend.• Agree on roles and responsibilities for hosts, pre-

senters, discussion leaders, and recorders.• Develop clear, appropriate, and readable written

materials and graphics.• Be well prepared so that you can deal with any

last-minute crises or challenges.

See also:Public Hearings


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 61

Public

Chart

or Scre

en

Staff/C

onsultan

tsChart or Screen

Officials

Public

M

M

62 Public Hearings


The law requires that most public agencies andelected bodies hold public hearings before makingimportant decisions. These hearings follow specificrules and procedures legally prescribed by statestatutes and local ordinances. Generally, public hear-ings are held near the end of the planning anddevelopment process, just before the authority incharge votes about or decides the final disposition ofthe matter at hand. Notification of the hearing is sentto those parties legally required to receive them orinserted in advertisements in the local newspaper.

The hearing body usually sits on a raised dais withstaff close by. The public is seated auditorium-style.Public comments are limited, and they may berecorded on audio or videotape, or by professionalstenographers.

Planners participate as staff or consultants, report-ing to the hearing body and answering questions.Public testimony follows. To maintain a sense of fair-ness, proponents and opponents may be givenalternate turns to speak. Decision makers listen andrarely ask questions. If an issue is contentious, thehearing may go on for hours.

THE ELEMENTS OF A GOOD PUBLICHEARING

Planners, who must follow the legally prescribed rulesfor public hearings, can ensure that the hearingsachieve their desired ends (receiving and document-ing comments from the public about the nature of thematter at hand). Beyond that, however, they shouldalso ensure that the actions they take meet the letterof the law, the spirit of the law, and the standards foreffective and fair planning. The following sectionsoffer some guidelines for effective public hearings.These actions should constitute a standard for the wayin which public hearings are arranged and conducted.

Notification and Other Informational Materials1. Write all notices in plain language, with translations

as needed for non-English-speaking people.Disseminate as widely as your budget will allow,using community newspapers, Web pages, and

other electronic means of communicating. If legaltext is required, have it accompany the plainly writ-ten notice.

2. Hand out written agendas and summaries so atten-dees can follow along with the presentations. Makesure to have a sufficient quantity for all, andarrange to duplicate extras if needed.

3. Present technical material in as nontechnical amanner as possible. Remember that the public andsome of the decision makers are not likely to be aswell versed on the subject as the planners.

Room Arrangements 1. Hold the hearing in a room where all can see and

hear with ease. If the dais is a fixed platform, setup chairs and tables for the public officials and staffat the same level as the audience.

2. Arrange charts or screens for slides or video pre-sentations so the public as well as the officials cansee them. If the room is large, position severalscreens so that everyone can see.

3. Have a sufficient number of working microphonesfor presenters, hearing personnel, and the public,and place them strategically to give citizens easyaccess.

4. Combine the hearing with an “open house” or sim-ilar opportunity for the public to receive andprovide information in a more informal setting.

Interaction and Involvement1. Station one or two staff at the door to greet the

public, give them the handouts, and show them toempty seats. It is especially important to make late-comers welcome.

2. Have a sign-in sheet for all who want to comment,and call upon them in order.

3. Divide a long agenda into manageable portions.Instead of programming all the technical reports atone time, seek public comments after each sectionor portion under consideration. This decreases thelikelihood that large groups of angry or restlesspeople will remain throughout, as most will leaveafter the matters in which they are interested havebeen discussed.

4. Announce beforehand and throughout if the pub-lic’s comments are being recorded.

5. Provide alternative ways to give public testimony.Deploy a stenographer in another room to takedown, verbatim, comments; have a tape recorderand staff person available; or hand out writtencomment forms.

See also:Public Meetings

PUBLIC HEARINGS


“USER-FRIENDLY” NOTIFICATION FORM

The key elements of a successful public hearingnotification are:

• Clear statement of purpose is included at the topof the notice.

• Purpose of the meeting and the public actionbeing taken are described in plain language.

• Date, time, and location of the public hearingare included near the top of the notice.

• Potential financial implications of the project, ofinterest to citizens, are included.

• Ways that citizens can provide comments, at thehearing or in other ways, are provided.

• More detailed contact information is included.• Legal references, if needed, are cited at the end

of the notice.

The user-friendly version of a notification form follows.

Proposal to Change Use of Residential Propertyto Allow Senior or Community CenterThomas McIntire, living at 2900 Elm Street, is ask-ing the city to rezone his property from residentialuse (RS-2) to PS-1, to allow construction of a sen-ior or community center.

The city’s Planning and Zoning Commission mayeither allow or deny this request and is holding twopublic hearings to obtain citizen comments. Bothhearings will be held in the third-floor city hallauditorium, February 28 and March 9, at 6:30 p.m.

If the property is approved as proposed, it will beused by a nonprofit corporation, which will notpay property taxes. The remaining property tax-payers in the city will be required to make up thedifference. The current property taxes paid by theowner are approximately $1,500 per year.

All citizens who own property within 400 feet ofthis property are invited to testify in person orwrite to the Department of Planning and Zoningbefore midnight of the second hearing, March 9.Any other interested parties also may speak at thehearing or write a letter.

For more information, contact Hortense Allen, proj-ect planner, Department of Planning and Zoning, CityHall, Room 725, or call Ms. Allen at 811-555-5656.

Please refer to accompanying map for specific siteinformation. The legal petition for this case is onfile as #1789222 PB and #5589167 PB.

# # # # #

Source: Elaine Cogan, 2000.

Hearing room arrangements should have public officials and staff seated at the same level as the audience. More than onescreen often is provided for presentations, and they are positioned so the public and the officials can see them. Several micro-phones should be placed strategically so citizens have easy access.

HEARING ARRANGEMENTSource: Elaine Cogan.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 62

Computer-Based Public Participation 63

PARTICIPATION

Planners are increasingly recognizing the potential ofcomputer-based participation as a key element indeveloping appropriate and effective solutions to com-munity design and planning problems. As computerand Internet technology becomes more mainstream,planners should develop ways to harness these tech-nologies to work more effectively with the public.

Computerized tools represent a paradigm shift inthe planning and design process that may fundamen-tally change the way planners communicate ideas tothe public. These computer-based participation toolspresently consist of the following:

• Electronic sketchboard. This simulates traditionalpen and paper sketching and provides additionalcapabilities of layering, tracing, and coloring.

• Geographic information systems (GIS). Use of GISrepresents a move from a paper map to a digitalone empowered with spatial analysis, navigation,and visualization capabilities.

• Imaging software. This software provides newways of editing, manipulating, and animating tradi-tional photographs.

• Virtual reality (VR). VR represents a move from 3-D physical models to digital ones that provideparticipants a degree of freedom in “experiencing”proposed projects before construction.

• Urban simulation. Building on virtual reality, urbansimulation shows simulations of dynamic changesof the environment, including seasons, weather,landscape, pollution, and movement of people andautomobile.

• Hypermedia. Also called multimedia, this is a newcomputerized environment that integrates multiplemedia, such as maps, photographs, videos, andsounds on a stand-alone PC.

• Internet. The Internet can provide a virtual settingof traditional same-place and same-time participa-tion that integrates multiple tools, such as GIS,drawings, photographs, and virtual reality.

ADVANTAGES OF COMPUTERIZEDTOOLS

Represent Contextual Data Computerized tools can illustrate abstract concepts,such as environmental impacts, in a way that wouldbe impossible with traditional tools, such as paper,photographs, or physical models. For example, withGIS, one can layer maps derived from different dataon top of one another, query the database that is thesource of the map information to highlight correla-tions between data, and visualize those correlationsthrough the use of patterns and colors on the maps.Such tools also allow the user to extrude data into 3-D models and to simulate a fly- and walk-throughexperience. In a planning process that employs GIS,hypermedia, and virtual reality, average citizens aregranted unprecedented access to a rich array of datapresented in an easy-to-understand format.Computerized tools may enhance the public’s inter-action in the decision-making process because thetools provide so much more specific information thatcan be provided on the spot, thus enabling the pub-lic to explore alternatives quickly and with morecompetence.

Selective Display of Information One key advantage of computerized tools is that theyprovide the capacity to selectively display informa-tion. When working on paper, even a relatively smallamount of information can quickly become over-whelming and appear cluttered. The amount of detaildisplayed in computerized programs can be adjustedinteractively as the scale is changed. Also, participantscan easily overlay data by turning layers on and offas needed. In systems that incorporate hypermedia,different types of information can be queried andcomplex information displayed simply. Differenttypes of data, such as sound, movies, animations,maps, and texts, can also be used selectively to enrichthe study and analysis.

However, in a complex computerized data envi-ronment, citizens may not be able to freely participatebecause they will need “expert” assistance to manip-ulate data.

Geographic ScaleAnother clear advantage of computerized tools is theability to navigate geographic scale. With traditionaltools, multiple maps are needed for each geographicscale: region, city, community, neighborhood, andindividual lots. Computerized mapping allows forzooming in on a region, city, neighborhood, or evena specific house on a single map. As a result, com-puterized tools may increase interactivity, accessibility,and selectivity of information concerning issues at var-ious geographic scales and therefore enhancediscussion about contextual and spatial issues.

CONCERNS ABOUT COMPUTER-BASED PARTICIPATION

Believability One drawback of computerized tools is that theimages can be so realistic and persuasive that theymislead people. It has been found that computer visu-

alization can lead to false conclusions by the public.Some critics have suggested that the use of impressivevideo and graphics will cause decisions to be madeon the strength of visual images alone. Further, withthe capability of creating very concrete, realisticimages, there is the danger that audiences may see agenerated image as constituting reality. The more real-istic the maps and images appear, the more dangerthere is they will be accepted as “truthful.”

Similarly, computerized images can erroneouslyappear to be value-neutral. Just as these tools can beused to create compelling representations of futureurban development, they can create compelling mis-representations as well. Computer visualization mustcombat this by explicitly demonstrating the accuracyof the data being used and by providing accessibilityto metadata (Obermeyer 1998).

AffordabilityThe hardware and software needed for computervisualization require a large capital outlay; thus thequestion of whether to implement advanced visuali-zation technology often comes down to a question ofresources. Depending on the scale of implementationand the richness of the data, these systems can varywidely in development and maintenance costs. Low-tech tools can provide an alternative when it isnecessary to respond to a tight timeline or cost con-trol that are a reality in many local planning arenas(Pietsch 2000).

EngagementA prime consideration in any public participation-planning scheme is how well the tools engage thetargeted participants. In general, traditional noncom-puterized public participation methods are moreparticipatory, experiential, and interactive. They pro-vide more social interaction among participants.These approaches are particularly effective when theaudience involves varied interest groups and stake-holders with opposing interests. They are also usefulfor conflict resolution when face-to-face interaction isneeded to facilitate discussions. Practical experienceasserts that the added value of real-time social inter-action among neighbors, while using a physicalsimulation game, for example, surpasses computersimulations even when they have user-friendly com-puter interfaces. Computerized methods lose theiradvantages when people have to “work” the com-puter. Findings indicate that traditional methods ofmanipulating physical objects facilitate comprehen-sion and retention more than working on a computerscreen (Moughtin 2003).

Access to Institutions In public participation, whether computerized or tra-ditional, access to institutions and people remains themost challenging issue. Are citizens willing to partic-ipate? What are the motivating factors and incentives?Will their participation be taken seriously? Will theiropinions make a difference in the decision-makingprocess and ultimate outcome? How open are theplanning processes? Are the powerful players willingto open up and allow others to participate throughinformation sharing? Institutional challenges may con-tinue regardless of technological advancement.

COMPUTER-BASED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Kheir Al-Kodmany, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

Pen and Paper

3-D PhysicalModels

Paper Maps

Photographs

3-D DigitalModels, Virtual Reality, Urban

Simulators

Image EditingPrograms,

Motion Picture, Video

GIS, CAM,MIMS

ElectronicPen and Paper

Hyp

erm

edia

Inte

rnet

Two-

Dim

ensi

onal

to

Thr

ee-D

imen

sion

al

Mul

tisen

sory

Env

iron

men

t

Tools

Traditional to Computerized/Contemporary

THE PROGRESSION FROMTRADITIONAL TO COMPUTERIZEDVISUALIZATION TOOLSSource: Kheir Al-Kodmany, 2004.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 63

64 Computer-Based Public Particiaption


The foremost advantage of computerized participa-tion is access to accurate representation andpresentation of complex contextual information. Thatsaid, while computerized tools usually impress partici-pants and help them attain a comprehensiveunderstanding of the spatial relationships, these toolsoften fall short in allowing the participants to designand alter the representation; computerized tools mustdo a better job of allowing the public to “get theirhands on” something. The real need is not to force achoice between the social benefits of low-tech meth-

ods and the efficiency and power of high-tech meth-ods; rather, we need tools that support the integrationof real worlds and virtual worlds by providing userswith the flexibility to move along the continuum.

REFERENCES

Moughtin, J.C., Rafael Cuesta, Christine Sarris, andPaola Signoretta. 2003. Urban Design: Methods andTechniques. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier Press.

Obermeyer, Nancy J. 1998. “The Evolution of Public

Participation GIS.” Cartography and GeographicInformation Systems. 25, no.2, pp 65-66.

Pietsch, Susan M. 2000. “Computer Visualization inthe Design Control of Urban Environments: ALiterature Review.” Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 27, no. 4, pp. 521-536.

See also:CharrettesGeographic Information SystemsVisualization

Kheir Al-Kodmany, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 64

Facilitation 65

PARTICIPATION

Community-based facilitation is a strategy designed toreach consensus through a process that includesmeaningful involvement of all parties, mutual respectfor differing opinions, and exploration of commonlyheld core values and openness to as-yet unidentifiedsolution sets. This type of facilitation is tailored to thekinds of issues and conflicts that confront plannersand design professionals. Facilitation can be a pow-erful tool for resolving conflict, reaching communityconsensus, and building a broad base of support forchange.

DEFINITION OF FACILITATOR

A facilitator is someone who assists a group inaccomplishing its task. The facilitator assumesresponsibility for the process and lets the groupmembers assume responsibility for, and concentrateon, the substantive content of the discussions.Ultimately, the facilitator’s work should blend intothe background while the group’s dialogue andmovement toward consensus become the joint focus.The facilitator is part of the group but removed fromit. An important element in reaching consensus isthat the group actually develops as a group. Thismeans agreeing on a set of implicit or explicit corevalues, clearly identifying the real problem anddeveloping trust among one another. The facilitatorworks to create a setting wherein systemicapproaches to problem definition and solution iden-tification are the norm.

WHEN TO FACILITATE

Facilitation works under particular circumstances:

• There is a political commitment to a group-deter-mined outcome or recommendation.

• There are more than two dominant perspectives orsolution sets (mediation may need to be exploredin two-set cases).

• The problem is complex and the value continuumis broad.

• There is a broad-based desire to seek resolution tothe perceived problem.

REACHING CONSENSUS

When significant change is under consideration, facil-itation can work to reach group consensus on asolution. A consensus-based decision reflects sharedvalues, which may in turn reflect a new and creativeapproach to the problem. Consensus also carries a

broad commitment to the decision on the part ofgroup members. Because they arrived at the decisionas a group, they are vested in the outcome and itsimplementation.

Certainly, change can be legislated, but the mosteffective change strategy is one based on group orcommunity consensus. Facilitation to reach a decisionand the resulting consensus mean that the group wasin charge, owns the product, and can speak on itsbehalf. Often, broadening the support base is what isneeded for successful implementation.

GROUP CONSENSUS ANDCREATIVITY

One of the clear advantages of achieving group con-sensus for planning and urban design problems is thetremendous creativity that results from groups havingthe freedom to see the problem from multiple per-spectives. This means letting go of individuallypreferred solutions and allowing the energy and pas-sion of the group to arrive at the best solution set.Certain issues and solutions that participants mightnot otherwise raise and discuss are possible with thetrust and respect resulting from creativity and groupconsensus. If there is room for new and innovativesolution sets, facilitation can be an effective tool.

PARTICIPANTS

Often there are years of conflict and distrust amongopposing community factions on particular issues,especially in the fields of planning and design.Facilitation can break down that hardened conflictand distrust, and bring factions to the table. Whenusing facilitation to reach consensus, all perspectivesmust be involved and heard. In the course of delib-eration, the breadth of the value set around the issuemust be represented. Individuals and groups who arenot typically invited to the table or who are not usedto sitting at the same table must participate.Facilitation requires that all interested parties beinvited to participate in reaching consensus.

See also:Consensus Building and Dispute ResolutionPublic Meetings

FACILITATION

Joseph W.Whorton, Ph.D., Georgia Rural Development Council, Athens, Georgia

Common Strategies for Facilitators • Listen well and actively.• Project trust and genuine interest in differing

perspectives.• Believe in values as much as facts as a dominant

motivator for change.• Always be neutral to the outcome.• Maintain loyalty to the group, not the entity that

retained them.• Be trained and skilled in group-process tech-

niques.• Stay neutral and leave personal opinions at

home.• Remember the victory belongs to the group, not

the facilitator.

Useful Tips for Facilitators • Always be responsible for the conduct of the

meeting, even when there is a chairperson forthe group.

• Set and maintain a safe environment where allperspectives can be heard and valued.

• In cooperation with the group, set appropriateground rules, such as: • No interruptions when someone is speaking • No side conversations• All perspectives during discussions are accepted

• Focus on the content of what is being said, notthe veracity of someone’s beliefs.

• Start and end on time, and keep the group ontask.

• Set clear goals and objectives with the group.• Help the group move to consensus by closing

off discussion when appropriate. • Avoid vote taking, to the extent possible, to

avoid having “winners” and “losers.”

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 65

66 Consensus Building and Dispute Resolution


Consensus building seeks to bring all relevant stake-holders together, on a face-to-face basis, assisted byprofessional facilitators and mediators (genericallycalled neutrals) to engage in collaborative problemsolving. At the heart of consensus building is the ideaof mutual gains negotiation—all parties will be betteroff if they can generate an agreement that also takesaccount of the interests of all the other stakeholders.Although not all parties come to (or leave) the tablewith the same power, skill, or knowledge, there areways of enhancing fairness through education, tech-nical assistance, and joint fact-finding. Consensusbuilding aims to enhance the fairness, efficiency, sta-bility, and wisdom of agreements, be they aboutdesigns, plans, or regulations. Once the parties are atloggerheads, efforts to hammer out agreementinvolve dispute resolution.

Planners and designers are bound to encountercompeting interests; incomplete, uncertain, or dis-puted information; complex problems requiringinputs from diverse parties; and issues involvingconflicting political, technical, and legal considera-tions. In such situations, planners and designersmust balance political demands while remainingtrue to their professional obligations. They must beable to work with people who have different viewsand values in producing plans, policies, or deci-sions. Thus, design and planning are a breedingground for disagreements—from conflicts over aes-thetic considerations to major public controversiesover the siting of large-scale facilities. Consensus-building skills and dispute resolution expertisemake it easier to prevent, mitigate, or resolve suchdisagreements. Consensus-building techniques, suchas policy dialogues, can be used before the fact toavoid conflicts; dispute resolution techniques, suchas mediation, can be used to resolve disputes thathave already erupted

.

ELEMENTS OF CONSENSUSBUILDING

Consensus building involves five key steps: assess-ment, convening, deliberating, deciding, andimplementing agreements.

AssessmentAssessment allows the parties, with or without a neu-tral’s help, to identify:

• all the relevant stakeholders and decision-makers;• the key concerns of the parties (i.e., the agenda);• the parties’ interests regarding all the relevant

issues; and• opportunities for and constraints on consensus

building.

A professional neutral, engaged by the appropriateconvenor(s), frequently handles this step. The asses-sor meets privately and confidentially with anexpanding circle of potential stakeholders to map theconflict.

ConveningConvening is the process of bringing the right partiesto the table and designing a process to enhance thelikelihood of collaborative problem solving. In thisphase, the parties, with or without a neutral’s help,set ground rules and assign responsibilities thatincrease the chances of reaching an informed agree-ment. As part of convening, they must determine:

• the objectives of the effort;• the ground rules that will guide behavior at the

table;• the responsibilities of membership;• how the group will make decisions;• the roles of technical advisors;• the timeline for the effort; and• the links between the consensus-building process

and formal decision making by those with statutoryauthority.

Process design ought to empower all parties to par-ticipate in generating an agreement, although theoutput of a consensus building or dispute resolutioneffort often takes the form of advice to those withfinal decision-making authority. Studies of consensusbuilding and dispute resolution completed to datesuggest that the design of such processes must itselfbe something stakeholders help to produce in orderto ensure buy-in and full participation.

DeliberatingDeliberating is the process of forging understanding,creating relationships, uncovering interests, and seek-ing credible information relevant to the issue ordispute at hand. During deliberation, it is essentialthat participants hear one another’s underlying inter-ests. Interests are the underlying reasons why partieswant what they want. Positions—the statement par-ties usually begin with in deliberations—are just oneway of meeting underlying interests.

DecidingDeciding is the effort to reach agreement. This step isonly as successful as the steps that precede it. If a con-sensus-building or dispute resolution effort is notappropriate in the first place, reaching agreement willeither be highly difficult or the outcome will bejudged irrelevant by the decision makers. If theprocess has been designed poorly (e.g., involving thewrong parties, neglecting to set explicit ground rulesto guide interaction), decision making will be difficult,if not impossible. If the parties have not explored oneanother’s interests or generated information through aprocess of joint fact-finding, decision making will befraught with confusion and conflict. To succeed ingenerating agreement, parties need to employ themutual gains approach to negotiation (distinct fromthe more traditional hard bargaining approach).Parties must seek to invent options for mutual gain,identify and exploit differences to create value,develop shared criteria to evaluate trade-offs, andwork together to anticipate problems that might cropup during implementation of whatever agreementsare reached. Mutual gains negotiations are more likelyto produce agreements that affected parties will viewas fair, efficient, stable, and wise.

Decision making can be especially difficult whenimportant interests or fundamental values are in con-flict. Thus, the assistance of neutrals can enhance thechances of success. The mediation or arbitration ofdisagreements, also known as dispute resolution—has moved from the court-related context in which itinitially emerged (known also as alternative disputeresolution or ADR) to a broad set of public policy-making and administrative contexts. We now havefacilitation or mediation of public issues and disputesof many kinds. We have negotiated rule making, col-laborative processes aimed at generating regionalvision statements, and mediated zoning appeals.Evaluative studies clearly show that site-specific land-use disputes and more general policy disputes on alocal, metropolitan, or statewide level have all beenresolved more effectively through the use of consen-sus-building and dispute resolution tools.

CONSENSUS BUILDING AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Lawrence E. Susskind, Ph.D., AICP, and Patrick Field, Consensus Building Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts

PRECONDITIONS FOR CONSENSUSBUILDINGThere are three preconditions for the appropriateand effective use of consensus building. The keyparties must be willing to “come to the table.” Ifthey are not, there’s little or no chance of success.Second, those with statutory authority (usuallyelected officials) must be willing to sponsor or con-vene a consensus-building or dispute-resolutioneffort. While the convenors retain the final decision-making authority, they must be willing to specifythat, if the relevant stakeholders generate a well-founded consensus, they will take it seriously.Third, there must be sufficient resources availableto ensure that assistance from a professionallytrained neutral, as well as technical advisorsselected by all the parties, will be available.Similarly, there cannot be any overriding statutoryrequirement that imposes unreasonable time con-straints. If these preconditions can be met, plannersand designers would do well to go beyond tradi-tional approaches to consulting with the public andto use consensus-building or dispute-resolutiontechniques, as appropriate.

JOINT FACT FINDINGThirty years of consensus-building and dispute res-olution have yielded another key finding: as is thecase in designing the process, the parties mustseek, analyze, and interpret facts and forecaststogether. This is joint fact-finding, the collectiveeffort by participants in a consensus-building ordispute resolution process to generate informationthat all parties will accept as credible, legitimate,and salient. Through jointly hired experts, expertpanels, study teams, or other means, participantsmust generate information that is: technicallyand/or scientifically credible (i.e., passes musterwith independent experts in a particular field);legitimate because it is developed in a way thatgives participants a say in the scoping, conduct,review, and analysis of study findings; and salientbecause the information generated can be used toinform and guide collaborative decision making.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 66

Consensus Building and Dispute Resolution 67

PARTICIPATION

Implementing AgreementsWell-managed consensus-building processes takeaccount of the fact that mere agreement is not suffi-cient if the stakeholders do not take the potentialobstacles to their implementation into accountbefore they make final commitments to each other.Anticipating the problems of follow-throughrequires that:

• parties design joint monitoring arrangements to besure that commitments are being honored;

• parties align their internal organizational incentivesand controls with the terms of agreement to ensurethat all sides have reason to abide by the agree-ments they have made; and.

• new information and learning will be used to alteroriginal agreements as needed (and thus agree-ments should be sufficiently adaptable).

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

The field of consensus building and dispute resolu-tion, which emerged in the early 1970s, has becomeincreasingly professional. Associations dedicated tothis field include the Association of ConflictResolution and the U.S. Institute for EnvironmentalConflict Resolution. A 1999 study sponsored by theLincoln Institute for Land Policy identified more than100 cases of successfully mediated land-use, environ-mental, and design conflicts throughout the UnitedStates. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Oregon haveenacted statutes encouraging the mediation of land-use disputes.

There is, however, no singular standard of practicefor mediators and facilitators, although various asso-ciations have issued ethical guidelines and standardsof practice, including the Association for ConflictResolution (ACR), the Alternative Dispute Resolution

Section of the American Bar Association, theAmerican Arbitration Association, and various stateorganizations, such as the Florida Supreme CourtDispute Resolution Committee on Rules and Policy.Some federal agencies have created rosters of pre-qualified practitioners, such as the Institute forEnvironmental Conflict Resolution (IECR). No officialdegree in public dispute resolution exists currently,though many planning programs, design schools,public policy programs, and law schools offercourses in negotiation, dispute resolution, and con-sensus building. There are a few degree-grantinginstitutions in conflict resolution, such as GeorgeMason University, Antioch University, and theUniversity of Massachusetts, Boston.

EMERGING ISSUES

Environmental JusticeIn federal courts, advocates for environmental justicehave sought relief under the Civil Rights Act for com-munities of color suffering from unfair pollutionburdens. Few of these suits have been successful,however, so some of these advocates—though con-cerned about issues of power, fairness, anddiversity—are attempting to use consensus buildingand ADR to achieve their goals.

EvaluationWith almost 30 years of experience behind them,practitioners and users of consensus-building and dis-pute resolution tools are beginning to identify thelimits of these techniques as well as their strengths.The hope and promise of the field have given way toa pragmatic and more skeptical view. Numerous eval-uation efforts are underway to assess the added valueof these techniques in a variety of settings. Indicatorsof success typically include participant satisfaction,

relationships among participants, effectiveness ofimplementation, and the correlation between processdesign and substantive outcomes. Evaluation is still inits infancy and poses many methodological chal-lenges. Initial findings do support the contention,however, that consensus building increases involvedparties’ satisfaction with the outcome and leaves themin a better position to deal with their differences inthe future.

REFERENCES

Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan, and JenniferThomas-Larmer. 1999. Consensus BuildingHandbook: A Comprehensive Guide to ReachingAgreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

See also:Environmental Justice Facilitation

Lawrence E. Susskind, Ph.D., AICP, and Patrick Field, Consensus Building Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts

FIVE KEYS TO ACHIEVING CONSENSUS

1. Account for and include key stakeholders.

2. Anticipate the need to link informal processeswith formal decision making.

3. Generate technical information viewed aslegitimate, salient, and technically credible byall stakeholders and decision makers.

4. Fully uncover parties’ interests and generatemutually advantageous “packages” to meetthose interests.

5. Anticipate the challenges of implementing anagreement or resolution.

Convene

Clarify Responsibilities

Deliberate

Decide

Implement Agreements

Initiate Discussion

Prepare a Preassessment

Prepare a Full Assessment

Identify Stakeholder Representatives

Locate Funding

Specify Roles of Neutrals and Parties' Facilitators

Set Rules Regulating Observers

Set Agenda and Ground Rules

Determine If It Is a Precedent

Assess Communication Options

Strive for Transparency

Separate Inventing from Committing

Create Subcommittees

Seek Expert Advice

Use a Single Text and "Avoid Attribution"

Try to Maximize Joint Gains

Use Contingencies

Follow Agreed-Upon Decision Rule

Keep a Record

Seek Gratification by Constituencies

Provide for Monitoring

Provide for Adaptation toChanged Circumstances

CONSENSUS BUILDING: ESSENTIAL STEPS Source: © The Consensus Building Handbook.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 67

68 The Landscape Tradition


FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED

The first American theory of urban planning emergedfrom landscape and park design planning in the sec-ond half of the nineteenth century. The key figurewas Frederick Law Olmsted, who argued that thegrowth of cities was inevitable and fundamentallybeneficial to society, and that the incorporation ofparks and natural landscapes into the urban fabriccould counter many of the negative effects of thisgrowth. Like many American intellectuals of the era,such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry DavidThoreau, Olmsted placed a high value on nature. Hehoped that imaginative use of the developing practiceof landscape design could relieve the stress ofcrowded cities and encourage naturalness in socialrelations.

Olmsted put his theory into practice with NewYork City’s Central Park, codesigned with CalvertVaux. Intended to allow visitors to escape from thecity, the 1857 design has remained a classic of land-scape practice. Olmsted subsequently designed otherlarge city parks, including Mount Royal for Montreal,Belle Isle for Detroit, and Prospect for Brooklyn.Shunning formal, symmetrical elements, he used longcurving meadows, irregular lakes, and winding path-ways to create a feeling of “country” in the city.

Even if they could not afford Olmsted’s services,most U.S. cities set aside substantial tracts of land forparks in the last decades of the century. A number of

important parks, among them Piedmont in Atlanta,Balboa in San Diego, and Forest in St. Louis, weredeveloped as sites for expositions and fairs and thenrecycled for continued public use.

PARK PLANNING

With Olmsted as a leader, park development intro-duced Americans to systematic planning at a regionalscale. Civic leaders realized that multiple park tractscould be acquired in outlying parts of their city andlinked with parkways and boulevards. Chicagoplanned a set of lakefront and inland parks withboulevard connections in the 1870s. H. W. S.Cleveland, author of Landscape Design as Applied tothe Wants of the West (1873), designed a similar com-prehensive system for Minneapolis and St. Paul in the1880s; George Kessler for Kansas City in the 1890s,and for Dallas and Houston in the early 1900s; andJohn Olmsted for Portland, Oregon, in the early1900s. The capstone for this work was the regionalpark system for greater Boston, planned by aMetropolitan Park Commission (created 1893) underthe leadership of Charles Eliot. The system includedOlmsted’s plans for the Fenway and, by 1902,embraced 15,000 acres, 10 miles of shoreline, and 22miles of parkway.

Regional park systems of the early twentieth cen-tury, such as the Cook County, Illinois, Forest

Preserves and the Denver, Colorado, Mountain Parks,extended regional open-space planning into the auto-mobile age. Park systems were also regular parts of“city beautiful” plans prepared by Daniel Burnham,Edward Bennett, and others. All such plans requiredthat civic leaders think about future populationgrowth, land uses, and circulation on a regional scaleand acquire land in advance of need, often targetingwhat we would now see as environmentally sensitiveareas, such as steep hills, marshes, lakefronts, andstream courses.

Taken together, several principles consistentlyguided early park planners:

• Adaptation of design elements to the natural land-scape

• Creation of a “rural” rather than formal atmosphere• Importance of large park tracts to give sense of

escape• Design of citywide systems of large parks con-

nected by parkways and boulevards• Recognition of value of acquiring park lands in

advance of outward city growth

PLANNED SUBURBS

Olmsted was also a pivotal figure in the evolutionof upscale suburbs planned in the “romantic” or“picturesque” style. Commuter railroad service,which began in large cities in the 1850s, offered theupper middle class the opportunity to live in new,low-density communities beyond the crowded city.Some of the early railroad suburbs were simplegrids imposed on preexisting farming villages, butothers were consciously designed in the park-mak-ing tradition with large lots, pathways, and curvingstreets adapted to the landscape. Early examplesfrom the 1850s are Llewellyn Park, New Jersey, andLake Forest, Illinois. The classic “model suburbanneighborhood” was Olmsted’s 1868 design forRiverside, Illinois, located on 1,600 acres along theDes Plaines River, 11 miles west of Chicago. Thegoal was a pastoral landscape in which streets,walkways, and trees created “secluded peaceful-ness and tranquility.”

The design elements of the “romantic suburbs”have remained important parts of the suburban plan-ning vocabulary, overlapping with the more sociallyconscious goals of the Garden City movement. Theexclusive residential development or suburb, withtasteful provision of retail facilities, schools, andchurches, flourished in the late nineteenth century(for example, Chestnut Hill in Philadelphia, RolandPark in Baltimore, and Inman Park in Atlanta) and theearly twentieth century (for example, Shaker Heightsnear Cleveland and the Country Club District ofKansas City). Although many of these districts havebeen incorporated into the fabric of the central city,it is still easy to identify them on a map by spottingthose neighborhoods whose curving streets interruptthe otherwise regular grid.

Carl Abbott, Ph.D., Portland State University, Portland, Oregon

PLANNING MOVEMENTSTHE LANDSCAPE TRADITION

The La

keThe Green

Hart Range

OLMSTED’S PROSPECT PARK, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK Source: Rogers, Elizabeth Barlow. 1972. Frederick Law Olmsted’s New York. New York: Praeger, in association with the WhitneyMuseum of American Art.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 68

The Landscape Tradition 69

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

REFERENCES

Cleveland, H. W. S. 1873. Landscape Design asApplied to the Wants of the West. Amherst, MA:University of Massachusetts Press.

Cranz, Galen. 1982. The Politics of Park Design: AHistory of Urban Parks in America. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Rogers, Elizabeth Barlow. 1972. Frederick LawOlmsted’s New York. New York: Praeger, in associa-tion with the Whitney Museum of American Art.

Roper, Laura Wood. 1973. FLO: A Biography ofFrederick Law Olmsted. Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Rosenzweig, Roy, and Elizabeth Blackmar. 1992. ThePark and the People: A History of Central Park.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Schuyler, David. 1986. The New Urban Landscape:Redefinition of City Form in Nineteenth-CenturyAmerica. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Scott, Mel. 1969. American City Planning Since1890: A History of Commemorating the FiftiethAnniversary of the American Institute of Planners.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Urban Planning and Land Policies: Volume II of theSupplementary Report of the Urbanism Committee tothe National Resources Committee. 1939.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

See also:Conservation DevelopmentsGreenways and TrailsParks and Open-Space PlansTypes of Parks


MetropolitanDistrict Line

BOSTON’S METROPOLITAN PARKS SYSTEM, 1902Source: Mel Scott, American City Planning Since 1890: A History Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the AmericanInstitute of Planners, © 1969 The Regents of the University of California.

PORTION OF GENERAL PLAN OFRIVERSIDE, ILLINOIS Source: Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, 1868.

Notre Dame College

Loyola College

Site of Saint Mary's Seminary

Roland ParkCountrySchool

Johns HopkinsUniversity

Gilman CountrySchool

PublicSchool

FriendsSchool

PublicSchool

ROLAND PARK, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Source: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 69

70 Engineering Livable Cities


SANITATION AND SURVIVAL

Cities in the first stages of industrialization, like thoseof Britain and the United States early in the nineteenthcentury, were death traps where environmental pollu-tion, fire, and disease ravaged the vulnerable poor.The early history of American cities is punctuated byepidemics of typhus, yellow fever, and cholera thatcould sweep off 5, 10, or even 15 percent of a city’spopulation in a single year. Observers knew that leak-ing cesspools, privy vaults for human waste, andstreets piled high with rotting garbage, animal waste,and dead horses were surely bad for people, but ittook John Griscom’s 1845 report on “The SanitaryCondition of the Laboring Population of New York,”and Lemuel Shattuck’s similar 1850 report forMassachusetts to demonstrate the direct relationshipbetween filthy living conditions and disease. Shattuckwas also a founder of the American StatisticalAssociation, demonstrating the connection betweenthe development of public health as a distinct fieldand the rise of urban social analysis. In response to agrowing scientific consensus, New York adopted thefirst systematic public health code in 1866, basing itsprovisions on a building-by-building survey. The codeis given credit for cutting mortality from the next out-break of cholera by 90 percent from what it mighthave been.

WATER AND WASTEWATERSYSTEMS

It took water to fight filth and fires. Philadelphiaopened the first city water works in 1801, primarily tobe able to wash down streets and fight fires. Bostonreached westward for water, and New York reachednorth, opening the Croton Aqueduct from Westchester

County to Manhattan with a great celebration in 1842.Chicago, with no sparkling mountain streams to tap,extended tunnels miles into Lake Michigan to take inwater that was free from polluted runoff from the city.Initially designed for civic purposes, municipal watersystems began to serve private households in the1860s and 1870s for cooking, bathing, and the newlypopular water closets or flush toilets. By the laterdecades of the century, new houses and apartmentswere being built with “bath rooms” for the private useof city water.

The solution to one problem often creates another,however, and the growing use of water was noexception. The water that flowed so freely intohomes and businesses also had to flow out, usuallycontaminated with various wastes. That meant thatcities needed systems of sewers. Drawing on the pio-neering efforts of European cities, such as Hamburgand London, the common solution was a combinedsystem for draining both streets and buildings. Mostcities initially relied on gravity for drainage, butChicago was too flat. Already accustomed by the1860s to doing things in a big way, city officialsadopted Ellis Chesbrough’s proposal to raise theentire city, laying sewers on or just below the surface,covering them, and filling in around them. Newbuildings were erected on the new grade; old build-ings could either turn their original ground floor intoa basement or lift the entire structure. The first area-wide drainage plan was Boston’s MetropolitanSewerage Plan in 1875.

STREETS AND BRIDGES

Transportation created still other engineering prob-lems. Early city streets were dirt, sometimes coveredwith gravel, but nearly always reeking with animal

waste and garbage in standing water. Even with pres-surized water systems, soft surfaces were nearlyimpossible to flush clean. Through the middledecades of the nineteenth century, cities experi-mented with pavements of wooden blocks,cobblestones, macadam (crushed stone compactedwith steam rollers), and asphalt.

Other engineers took on the challenge of bridgingthe rivers on which cities often stood, creating mon-uments such as the Cincinnati-Covington Bridge overthe Ohio River (1867), Eads Bridge over theMississippi River at St. Louis (1874), and the BrooklynBridge across the East River between Brooklyn andNew York City (1887).

ENGINEERING AND PLANNING

Taken together, these efforts to design and constructurban infrastructure had powerful effects on shapingAmerican cities. In many ways, the municipal engi-neers who began to systematically construct andmanage the range of urban public works projects—water supply, sewers, streets, bridges, parkfacilities—were the first city planners. Along with land-scape architects and park designers, they were amongthe first to think comprehensively about future patternsof growth and the facilities needed to serve thatgrowth. Their work paved the way for the develop-ment of land-use planning as a related specialty andset the stage for the continuing overlap of the concernsof civil engineering and planning on concerns such asenvironmental protection and transportation.

See also:Community Facilities Plans Wastewater TreatmentWater Supply

ENGINEERING LIVABLE CITIES


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 70

Garden Cities 71

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

EBENEZER HOWARD AND GARDENCITIES OF TO-MORROW

Ebenezer Howard, a court stenographer in London,had a longstanding interest in mechanical inventionand moved in reform-minded circles. Born inEngland in 1850, he had spent his early twenties inthe American Middle West before returning home toa steady middle-class life. Along with thousands ofother readers, he was taken by Massachusettsindustrialist Edward Bellamy’s utopian novelLooking Backward (1889), which offered an opti-mistic faith in technology and social cooperation.Deeply concerned about the overcrowded Londonin which he lived, Howard, in 1898, publishedTomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform, reissuedin 1902 as Garden Cities of To-Morrow.

Howard addressed the book to a simple, basicquestion: “Given 6,000 acres of land, how shall weendeavor to make the best use of it?” His answerwas a proposal for the radical deconcentration ofindustrial cities. Appalled by the social misery ofLondon’s teeming slums, he envisioned a networkof largely self-sufficient satellite cities that wouldintercept London-bound migrants. The first “gardencities” would prevent the metropolis from becom-ing any more swollen. Later towns might evenallow the squalid neighborhoods of East London toempty out and the remaining urban fabric becomemore livable. In his own words, “[A]s men hasten tobuild up this [garden city] and the other townswhich must inevitably follow its construction, themigration to the towns—the old, crowded, chaoticslum towns of the past will be effectually checked,and the current of population set in precisely theopposite direction—to the new towns, bright andfair, wholesome and beautiful.”

The Garden City was to be the best of two worlds:large enough to have the benefits of concentrationbut small enough to remain close to the countryside.Like Frederick Law Olmsted, Howard wanted toblend urban and rural advantages. “Neither the townnor the country represent the full purpose of nature.Human society and the beauty of nature are meant tobe enjoyed together. The two must be made one….Town and country must be married, and out of thisjoyous union will spring a new hope, a new life, anew civilization.”

Howard was interested in both political economyand urban design, but it is the latter that has gottenthe most attention. He envisioned a set of free-standing towns encircling the metropolis,connected to each other by a circumferential rail-road and to the city by radial rail lines. As the firstcircle of towns filled, he envisioned the develop-ment of a second circle. In every case, the townswould be separated from the city and from eachother by undeveloped rural land—a greenbelt infact if not in name. For each Garden City, Howardproposed a 1,000-acre core to house 30,000 people,surrounded by 5,000 agricultural acres supportinganother 2,000 people and supplying fruits, veg-etable, and dairy products for the town. Therewould be a strong town center with park, library,hospital, theater, town hall, and shopping. Six dis-tinct neighborhoods would each center on a school.

Industrial sites for the self-sufficient town would beon the edge to keep the “smoke fiend” at bay.

Howard was a socialist as well as an urban vision-ary. He hoped that the town site would be owned incommon on behalf of the community. Increases inland value would then be able to fund communityamenities and services. Townspeople themselveswould decide which services they needed and setrent levels accordingly. These economic dimensionsof Howard’s ideas show the influence of AmericanHenry George, whose book Progress and Poverty

argued for a “single tax” on land because increases inthe value of land are “unearned increments” that arethe product of the larger society rather than individ-ual initiative. Not surprisingly, these political andeconomic aspects of Howard’s vision had less impactthan his great idea that “the free gifts of Nature” couldbe designed into the fabric of a decentralized metrop-olis, although they remained very important toHoward himself.

GARDEN CITIES IN ENGLAND

Howard inspired many disciples, and two effortswere made to implement his ideas in early twentieth-century England. Letchworth, located 35 miles fromLondon, was begun on 4,000 acres in 1905. ArchitectsBarry Parker and Raymond Unwin adapted Howard’sscheme to the actual site, with substantial success.Many of the town’s residents also worked there;housing sites were spacious (for England); and agreenbelt set the town off from its environs. Welwyn,which followed in 1919, was also a financial anddesign success.

The Garden City concept had a longer-term impactin the “new towns” program that dominated Britishplanning after World War II. The British governmentdesignated a “green belt” of restricted developmentaround the existing London suburbs and, in the 1950sand 1960s, constructed satellite cities such as HemelHempstead outside that zone. The “new towns”tended to be substantially larger than Howard hadproposed, and they had to be designed around auto-mobiles as well as rail.

GARDEN CITIES


Population 38,0

00

Country

Country

Country

Country

Inter-Municipal

Railway

Country

Inter-Municipal

Railway

Inte

r-Mun

icipa

lRa

ilway

Gar

denCity

Population 32,000

Central CityPopulation 32

,000C

onco

rd

High Road

High Road

High

Ro

ad

GARDEN CITY DIAGRAM Source: Ebenezer Howard, 1902.

Slum

san

dG

inPa

laces

, Pala

tialEdifices. Crowded Dwellings, D

esertedV

illages.

Beauty of Nature, Social Opportunit

y.

Foul

Air,

Mur

ky

Sky,W

ell-Lit Streets, No Public Spirit, Need

forReform

.Fogs

and

Dro

ught

s, Costly

Drainage Lack or Amusement, Bright Sunshine.Exce

ssiv

eH

ours

, Arm

y of Unemployed. Lack of Drainage.AbundanceofW

ater.

Hig

hR

ents

and

Price

s,Cha

nges

of Employment Long-Hours. LowWages. Fresh

Air. Low

Rents.

Dist

ance

from

Wor

k.High

Money Wages Trespassers Beware.W

ood. Meadow

. Forest

Isol

atio

nof

Cro

wds. P

laces

of Amusement. Hands Out ofWork. LandLying

Idle

Clo

sing

Out

ofN

ature

, Socia

l Opportunity, Lack of Society, Beauty of Nature

Fields and Parks of Easy Access.

Low Rents, High Wages.Low Rates, Plenty to Do.Low Prices, No Sweating.Field for Enterprise, Flow of Capital.

Pure Air and Water, Good Drainage.Bright Homes and Gardens, No Smoke, No Slu

ms.

Freedom Cooperation

The People

To

wnCountry

Where Will They Go?

Town-Country

THE THREE MAGNETS Source: Ebenezer Howard, 1902.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 71

72 Garden Cities


GARDEN CITIES IN THE UNITEDSTATES

In the same era as Welwyn, an early planned com-munity in the United States that showed the influenceof Howard’s ideas was Forest Hills Village, built inQueens, New York in 1913 by the Russell SageFoundation as a demonstration community for well-designed, middle-class housing. Also in the sameemerging tradition were several federally sponsoredcommunities for defense workers during World WarI, such as Yorkship Village in Camden, New Jersey,and Hilton Village in Newport News, Virginia.

A more substantial American application wasRadburn, New Jersey, begun just across the newGeorge Washington Bridge from New York in 1928..Designed by Henry Wright and Clarence Stein,Radburn was to be the “Town for the Motor Age.” Theplan used many design elements now common inplanned communities. Superblocks, a large residentialplanning unit free from vehicular encroachment, pro-

vided uninterrupted pedestrian access from everybuilding to a large recreation area within the centerand pedestrian underpasses at major arteries. Radburnwas intended for a population of 25,000, but only afraction was built because the onset of the GreatDepression dried up financing. Nevertheless, it wasand is a successful residential suburb.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANDGREENBELT TOWNS

If the Depression halted the expansion of Radburn,New Jersey, it provided the impetus for a set of“garden cities” funded and built by the federal gov-ernment between 1935 and 1938. The ResettlementAdministration, a New Deal agency—headed byRexford Tugwell—applied the planning principlesof Garden Cities and Radburn to the development ofthree new “greenbelt” towns: Greenhills, Ohio, nearCincinnati; Greendale, Wisconsin, near Milwaukee;and Greenbelt, Maryland, near Washington, DC. Afourth town, to be located in New Jersey, was neverbuilt. Like Howard’s model, these were to be bothplanning experiments and social experiments, test-ing an alternative to slum clearance for solving thehousing crisis and showing the possibilities of coop-erative organization.

With architects and planners suffering from theeconomic collapse, the greenbelt towns were ableto draw on the best design talent. Each town wasdesigned for 4,000 residents. Each had a communitycenter, an encompassing greenbelt, andsuperblocks that separated vehicular and pedestri-ans routes. Local taste meant that Greendale wasbuilt with detached houses, Greenhills andGreenbelt with row houses and apartments. Thefirst residents were carefully screened becauseResettlement Administration officials wanted toensure success. Greenbelt, while not named, fea-tured prominently as an example of what-to-do inThe City, the documentary film for the New YorkWorld’s Fair of 1939, which was scripted by LewisMumford, photographed by Pare Lorenz, and spon-

sored by the American Institute of Planners. AfterWorld War II, Congress privatized the towns, withGreenbelt maintaining its most distinct identity.

GARDEN CITY INFLUENCES

Howard’s Garden City and early efforts to put hisideas into practice have had multiple influences onplanning practice:

• A number of federal communities built to servedam construction or military needs reflected someof the design principles (for example, Norris,Tennessee, and Los Alamos, New Mexico).

• The idea of diverting urban growth to self-containedsatellite cities resurfaced in the United States in theNew Towns movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

• Greenbelts, in whole or in part, have becomeimportant growth management goals and tools inmany communities.

• The design vocabulary of vehicle/pedestrian sepa-ration and neighborhood units has influenced bothsuburban and resort community planning.

Planned unit developments (PUDs) and transit-ori-ented developments (TODs) are more recent ways toimplement the principles of comprehensive commu-nity design that Howard articulated.

REFERENCES

Bellamy, Edward. 1898. Looking Backward:2000–1889. Boston and New York: Houghton,Mifflin and Co.

George, Henry. 1882. Progress and Poverty, 4th ed.New York: Appleton and Co.

Howard, Ebenezer. [1902] 1946. Garden Cities of To-Morrow. Reprint, London: Faber and Faber.

See also:Conservation DevelopmentsPlanned-Unit DevelopmentTransit-Oriented Development


Rai

lroa

d

PORTION OF PLAN OF RADBURN, NEWJERSEY Source: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 72

City Beautiful 73

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

CIVIC ART

Many Americans in the late nineteenth century cameto recognize that their towns and cities were ugly—or at least raw, rough, and unfinished. Under avariety of names, residents in hundreds of smallertowns and larger cities organized what can generi-cally be called “beautification societies.” Their goalswere sometimes quite modest: trees for the barrentown square, removal of the tangle of electrical andtelephone wires that were beginning to loop citystreets, paved sidewalks to lift pedestrians out of themud, playground and picnic facilities for the unde-veloped city park. Other residents looked to erectstatues, memorials, and public art. Still others workedto replace inadequate public buildings with libraries,city halls, schools, and courthouses worthy of a greatrepublic. In 1901, Charles Mulford Robinson summa-rized and promoted such efforts in his book TheImprovement of Towns and Cities. Various park andcivic improvement organizations of the 1890s mergedin 1904 into the American Civic Association, which(perhaps optimistically) identified more than 2,000local affiliates.

WORLD’S FAIRS

In the same decades, cities from coast to coast werestaging international expositions and world’s fairs,which required the construction of a harmonious setof exhibition buildings arranged to speed the circula-tion of tens of thousands of visitors. The World’sColumbian Exposition at Chicago in 1893 set thestandard. On grounds carved from the sandy shore ofLake Michigan, following a scheme by Frederick LawOlmsted, rose a “White City” of impressive exhibithalls, arranged around lakes and reflecting pools. Theneoclassical architecture and formal design mimickedEuropean capitals and announced the nation’s globalaspirations. Other fairs followed between 1897 and1915, in Omaha, Nebraska; Buffalo, New York; SaintLouis, Missouri; Portland, Oregon; Norfolk, Virginia;Seattle, Washington; and San Diego and SanFrancisco, California. They varied in ambition andarchitectural styles, but each was an exercise in thecomprehensive planning of a substantial tract ofundeveloped land.

WASHINGTON, DC,AND CIVICCENTERS

The single most important center for American civiclife was Washington, DC, whose monumental plan byPierre-Charles L’Enfant had increasingly been disre-garded. An exhibit by the American Institute ofArchitects provided impetus for Senator JamesMcMillan of Michigan to secure funding for a com-mittee of experts to advise on future development forthe federal city. After studying the imperial capitals ofEurope, the McMillan Commission in 1902 issued aplan for reworking Washington’s public core—a planthat has been followed, by and large, over the ensu-ing century. With the McMillan Commission Plan asan example, and with Progressive Era ideas about thepositive functions of government in mind, other citiesalso undertook to plan and build civic centers, sys-tematic groupings of public buildings around parks

and plazas. Notable examples include San Francisco,Cleveland, and Denver (it took the latter four tries tocome up with the design the city enjoys today).

CITY BEAUTIFUL PLANS

In some cities, redesigned civic centers were onlyone element in comprehensive “city beautiful” plans.

The most well-known examples are the plans thatDaniel Burnham and his colleague Edward Bennettprepared for San Francisco (1907) and Chicago(1909). The Chicago Plan, produced with sumptuousdrawings, was sponsored by that city’s CommercialClub of civic-minded businessmen, and a pamphletsummarizing the plan became part of the publicschool curriculum into the 1920s. Bennett, Virgil

CITY BEAUTIFUL


1906: C. Mulford Robinson

DENVER CIVIC CENTER: CHANGING SCHEMESSource: Mel Scott, American City Planning Since 1890: A History Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the AmericanInstitute of Planners, © 1969 The Regents of the University of California.

1912: F. L. Olmsted, A. W. Brunner

1917: E.H. Bennett 1930: Denver Planning Commission

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 73

74 City Beautiful


and drawings, which could make an ordinary U.S.city look like a future Vienna or Paris. In historianWilliam Wilson’s words, the Chicago plan was a“visual idealization of civic harmony.”

In fact, plans such as those of Burnham andBennett were also the first comprehensive metropol-itan plans. Their authors took on the ordering of thefollowing elements for the entire metropolis:

• Ports and railroad terminals• Industrial districts• Major streets, including new radial and circumfer-

ential highways• Civic spaces and plazas• Sites for public buildings• Parks

Burnham felt the challenge was the need to planand design for whole cities. These ideas would soonbe reiterated by John Nolen, who cited the “growingappreciation of a city’s organic unity” in publicationssuch as City Planning (1916). Although some com-mentators then and now mark a division betweenthe City Beautiful of the 1900s and the City Efficientof the 1910s and 1920s, there were more similaritiesthan differences in the goals and ambitions.

REFERENCES

Nolen, John. 1916. City Planning. New York: D.Appleton and Co.

Robinson, Charles Mulford. 1901. The Improvementof Towns and Cities. New York: G. P. Putnam.

Wilson, William H. 1989. The City BeautifulMovement. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

See also:Parks and Open Space


Bogue, and other urbanists produced similar plansfor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon;Seattle, Washington; and other cities, usually underprivate civic sponsorship. The term “city beautiful”has stuck to these plans for three reasons: their tieswith the civic improvement and beautification move-ments; their roots in monumental planning forworld’s fair sites and Washington, DC; and their maps

SENATE PARK COMMISSION PROPOSALS FOR CENTRAL WASHINGTON, DCSource: Senate Park Plan Commission, 1901.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 74

Practical Planning 75

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

Planning took the first step from a civic movement toa profession with the First National Conference onCity Planning (NCCP) and the Problems ofCongestion in 1909, which brought together archi-tects, landscape architects, housing reformers, andcity beautiful advocates. The next year, the NCCPbecame an ongoing organization whose meetingswere precursors of the annual conference of theAmerican Planning Association. The concerns ofplanning, said Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., in 1910,were the means of circulation within cities, the distri-bution of public services, and the character ofdevelopment on private lands.

ZONING

Planners in the 1910s got a new tool—land-use zon-ing—to deal with the third concern. Americanantecedents included city ordinances that controlledcertain building types (e.g., all-brick districts in urbancenters to reduce fire hazard) or exiled noxious activ-ities to limited areas, but systematic land-use zoningto regulate land uses and intensity of development indifferent subareas was a German innovation.Informed civic leaders were aware of the Germanmodel, and several cities experimented with zoning,

authority to adopt local zoning laws. This followedearlier action by Wisconsin (1909), New York (1913),and Massachusetts (1913) to officially recognize plan-ning as a proper function of municipal government.The landmark legal case was Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Company (1926). Overturning a lowercourt, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the authority ofthe suburban Cleveland village to zone a portion ofthe land owned by the Ambler Company for single-family or two-family dwellings only, denying to thecompany the right to develop its entire tract for com-merce and industry. The issue was whether Euclid’sordinance was a valid exercise of the police power ormerely an exercise in “eccentric and supersensitivetaste.” Previous decisions had validated legislation onbuilding heights, construction standards, and lot cov-erage, and the Court now concluded there was nogood basis on which to reject limitations on uses.When the Supreme Court took the case, more than 27million Americans were already living in cities underzoning ordinances; by the end of the decade, the totalwas more than 800 cities, including more than half ofthe nation’s urban population.

CONSULTANTS ANDCOMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

What many of these cities lacked was a comprehen-sive plan that treated public facilities, open space,transportation, and general directions of growth.Thoughtful planners, such as Alfred Bettman, whohad filed a key brief in the Euclid case, understoodzoning as a tool for implementing comprehensiveplans. Although this principle has become legallybinding in some states, such as Oregon, it was easyin the 1920s and 1930s for a city to enact a cookie-cutter zoning ordinance without a larger plan. In theabsence of such a plan, zoning often codified thesocioeconomic status quo, preserving middle-classneighborhoods and their housing values fromunwanted change while opening working-class dis-tricts to redevelopment.

Despite this problem, enough cities wanted a com-prehensive plan so that a number of nationalconsultants were kept very busy, especially duringthe prosperous years of the 1920s. John Nolen andHarland Batholomew were particularly active in craft-ing plans covering rapid transit and streets, railroadterminals and port facilities, parks, public buildinglocations, utility routes, and the treatment of riversand bridges (all topics covered by Edward Bassett inThe Master Plan). In this era of the “city efficient” or“city functional,” the central concerns can be summa-rized as improving transportation systems andbuilding the basis for continued economic growth.

PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS

With zoning and comprehensive planning in itstoolkit, planning was also becoming a self-consciousprofession. The periodical The City Plan, the prede-cessor of the Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, first appeared in 1915. Frederick LawOlmsted, Jr. and Flavel Shurtleff organized theAmerican City Planning Institute in 1917, by whichtime at least 13 universities were offering courses in

PRACTICAL PLANNING


Grand Central

Terminal

Central Park South

BryantPark

Second

Fifty

Seventh

East

Rive

r

Central Park

2

2

2

11 211 2

11 2

11 2

2

11 2

11 4

HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN CENTRALMANHATTAN UNDER THE 1916 PLANSource: Mel Scott, American City Planning Since 1890: AHistory Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of theAmerican Institute of Planners, © 1969 The Regents of theUniversity of California.

0 4Miles

Lake Erie

Cleveland

Euclid

Lake S

hore

Avenue

St. Clair

e Aven

ue

Lake S

hore

Railoroad

Nickel

Plate

Railoro

ad

Euclid

Avenue

Cleveland

AmblerRealty Tract

Lake E

rie

0

Miles

1

THE VILLAGE OF EUCLID, OHIO, SHOWINGLOCATION OF THE AMBLER TRACT Source: Reprinted with permission from Journal of theAmerican Planning Association, copyright Summer 1986 bythe American Planning Association, Suite 1600, 122 SouthMichigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

U-3U-6

U-4

Cartway (Not to Scale)

U-6

U-1

U-1

U-6

U-6 U-3

U-2 U-2

U-1

Ambler RealtyTract

Euclid Avenue

Nickel Plate Railroad

0

Feet

900

ZONING OF PROPERTIES NEAR THEAMBLER REALTY TRACT Reprinted with permission from Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association, copyright Summer 1986 by theAmerican Planning Association, Suite 1600, 122 SouthMichigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

but New York City gets the credit for adopting thenation’s first citywide zoning ordinance in 1916. Thelaw divided the city into residential, commercial, andunrestricted-use zones and added five categories ofheight limitations (pushing New Yorkers to constructthe “step-pyramid” buildings common in much ofManhattan).

Zoning spread rapidly, promoted by consultantssuch as Charles Cheney. There were 24 zoned citiesby 1917 and roughly 500 within the following decade.The U.S. Department of Commerce, under the leader-ship of Herbert Hoover, promoted a Standard StateZoning Enabling Act (1924) that gave states the

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 75

76 Practical Planning


city planning. Harvard offered the first master’s degreein planning in 1923 and created a School of CityPlanning in 1929, which grew out of landscape archi-tecture. John Nolen’s edited book, City Planning,which appeared first in 1916 and in revised form in

1929, was the predecessor of the InternationalCity/County Management Association “green books,”which generations of planners have used.

Newly trained professionals worked for consultingfirms and for local government planning commis-sions. City Beautiful plans had usually been preparedunder the aegis of a private civic organization, suchas the Civic Improvement Committee of Des Moines,the Civic League of St. Louis, or the City ImprovementLeague of Dallas. By the time of the formation of theAmerican Society of Planning Officials in 1934, incontrast, nearly 1,000 cities had formally appointedplanning commissions, volunteer boards made up ofrealtors, engineers, architects, and other local busi-nesspeople, and served, occasionally, by paid staff. Ifa profession is defined by a distinct set of institutions

that develop, promote, and monitor the applicationof specialized knowledge, then by 1940, planningwas a small but real profession.

REFERENCES

Bassett, Edward. 1938. The master plan, with a dis-cussion of the theory of community land planninglegislation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Nolen, John. 1916. City Planning. New York: D.Appleton and Co.

See also:Comprehensive PlansState Enabling LegislationZoning Regulation


INSTITUTIONAL FIRSTS1909 National Conference on City Planning1909 Wisconsin recognizes planning as municipal function1915 The City Plan (first planning periodical)1916 NYC zoning ordinance1916 John Nolen, ed., The City Plan (first planning text)1917 American City Planning Institute 1923 First graduate degree in planning1924 Standard Zoning Enabling Act 1934 American Society of Planning Officials

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 76

Regionalism, 1910-1940 77

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

THE METROPOLITAN IDEABy the closing years of the nineteenth century, fast-growing American cities were breaching the traditionalboundaries and concepts of “city.” Political leadersresponded with annexation and consolidation cam-paigns, such as the great Chicago annexation of 1889,which roughly tripled the area of the city, and the NewYork consolidation of 1897, which pulled together theseparate cities of New York (Manhattan) and Brooklyn,Richmond County (Staten Island), Queens County, andpart of Westchester County (the Bronx) into the single,huge City of New York. Scholars such as Adna F.Weber in The Growth of Cities in the NineteenthCentury, Graham Taylor in Satellite Cities, and HarlanPaul Douglass in The Suburban Trend turned theirgaze to the relationships between cities and theirgrowing suburbs. The U.S. Census struggled withmeasuring great, growing cities, and in 1911 came upwith the concept of the “metropolitan district” as a wayto interpret the 1910 census, paving the way for theStandard Metropolitan Area that has been used in dif-ferent versions since 1950.

METROPOLITAN PLANSThis intellectual ferment supported a renewed con-cern for planning on a metropolitan scale. One strandof regional planning in the 1920s built on the recentheritage of the City Beautiful with comprehensiveplans for regional infrastructure and efficient metro-politan growth. The Los Angeles County RegionalPlanning Commission (1922) was a pioneering effortto direct the physical development of more than threedozen municipalities. The Chicago Regional PlanningAssociation (1923) was an early “council of govern-ments.” It conducted studies, created a regionalhighway plan, defined zoning and subdivisions stan-

dards, and worked to convince local jurisdictions touse such standards. A number of other cities copiedone or the other of these two models: the countywideagency and the regional council.

In New York, Thomas Adams led the most impor-tant of these efforts with funding from the RussellSage Foundation. The Regional Plan for New Yorkand Environs (1929–1930) was a comprehensivescheme for the physical infrastructure necessary forthe continued growth of the metropolis to anexpected population of 20 million. The plan calledfor careful decentralization of business and industryinto subcenters that could be easily served by high-ways and transit, with housing also dispersed incompact neighborhoods located to reduce the dis-tance between home and work. One of the moststriking proposals was for a set of radial and circum-ferential highways to tie together the sprawlingmetropolis. The proposal looked back to DanielBurnham’s similar ideas for Chicago and forward tothe age of radial freeways, beltways, and edge cities.

REGIONALIST THOUGHT

Placing themselves in contrast with the New Yorkapproach were the members of the confusinglynamed Regional Planning Association of America(RPAA). The RPAA comprised a small group of NewYork-based architects, writers, and planners, whosplintered from the AIA’s Committee on CommunityPlanning. They included Lewis Mumford, HenryWright, and Benton MacKaye. They took their inspi-ration from the eccentric Scottish theorist PatrickGeddes, who agreed with many European geogra-phers about the need for rooting social life in thenatural patterns of the landscape and preached theneed to plan holistically for ecological regions, such

REGIONALISM, 1910–1940


Also known as the New York State Epoch III Plan, thisdrawing shows the RPAA’s settlement and conservationpattern for the regional city.

1926 PLAN FOR THE NEW YORK STATEREGION Reprinted with permission from Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association, copyright Autumn 1994 by the AmericanPlanning Association, Suite 1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue,Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

Appalachian Trail

Lanes or Trends of Metropolitan Development

Metropolitan Centers

Atlan

ticOc

ean

MountainousAreas

BENTON MACKAYE’S APPALACHIANTRAIL PROPOSAL Reprinted with permission from Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association, copyright Autumn 1994 by the AmericanPlanning Association, Suite 1600, 122 South Michigan Avenue,Chicago, IL 60603-6107.

Metropolitan Loop and Its Branches

Metropolitan Bypass

Radial Routes

Outer Circumferential Routes

Inner Routes

Atlantic Ocean

Long Island Sound

PLAN FOR THE NEW YORK REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM Source: Regional Plan Association 1933.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 77

78 Regionalism, 1910-1940


as river valleys. Adapting Geddes’ ideas for theUnited States, RPAA members argued for the system-atic planning of entire regions and states in ways thatbalanced the metropolis with healthy and prosperoussubregions. They shared with Ebenezer Howard thedesire to limit the expansion of the biggest cities, butthey placed a much stronger emphasis on integratingnew development within the existing framework ofsmaller towns, cities, and rural areas, and on peo-ple/place interactions.

Some of the most interesting ideas came fromMacKaye. One proposal, from which many Americanshave benefited, was for an interconnected set of trailsand pathways that has been realized as theAppalachian Trail. Another was the “townless high-way,” a proposal to build high-speed highways aroundexisting communities, facilitating their economic con-nections while protecting their character. He would bepleased with the way in which contemporary interstatehighways link previously isolated communities, butnot with the lack of foresight that has allowed freewayinterchanges to turn into alternative town centers.

REGIONAL PLANNING AND THENEW DEAL

The most important heir to RPAA thinking was NewDeal regionalism in the 1930s. The Tennessee ValleyAuthority (1933) combined the American engineering

impulse with a social vision. It built dams to protectagriculture, allow barge navigation, and provideaffordable electricity for homes, farms, and factories,helping to rebalance an American national economyin which wealth had long flowed from the South andWest to eastern banks, factories, and cities. TheGrand Coulee and Bonneville Dams on the ColumbiaRiver had the same goal of regional balance anddevelopment: to water “pastures of plenty” and “turndarkness to dawn” in the words of songwriter WoodyGuthrie.

The New Deal years also brought the NationalResources Committee (it had several names duringits existence from 1933 to 1943, originating as theNational Planning Board and ending as the NationalResources Planning Board). It promoted systematicthinking about national economic development andserved as an umbrella for a number of state andregional (multistate) planning commissions that didgood work in inventorying regional resources, eco-nomic development challenges, and socialproblems. Its report, Our Cities: Their Role in theNational Economy (1937), is an elegant summary ofprogressive thinking about urban problems andplanning before World War II. Although the report’steam of authors identified 32 distinct problems ofurban areas, they argued against wholesale decen-tralization and abandonment of core areas. Instead,they called for “judicious reshaping of the urban

community and region by systematic developmentand redevelopment in accordance with forward-looking plans” in order to extend and increase “thebenefits of modern civilization which the great cityhas brought to an ever-increasing proportion of ourpeople.”

REFERENCES

Clawson, Marion. 1981. New Deal Planning: TheNational Resources Planning Board. Baltimore, MD:Published for Resources for the Future by JohnsHopkins University Press.

Douglass, Harlan Paul. 1925. The Suburban Trend.New York: Century.

Taylor. Graham. 1915. Satellite Cities: A Case Studyof Industrial Suburbs. New York: Ayer Company.

Weber, Adna F. 1899. The Growth of Cities in theNineteenth Century: A Study in Statistics. NewYork: Macmillan Co. in association with ColumbiaUniversity.

See also:New Regionalism: Environment, Politics, andPlanningRegional PlansRegions


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 78

Public Housing and Urban Renewal 79

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

REGULATING SLUMS

As early as the middle of the nineteenth century,Americans knew that substandard housing was a seri-ous problem for their growing cities. While a handfulof new urbanites might enjoy a new suburb, such asRiverside, Illinois, tens of thousands crowded intoshacks, shanties, cellars, single airless rooms, and ten-ements squeezed on busy streets and back alleys.The response was the first small steps toward hous-ing regulation. No one questioned that the supply ofhousing belonged to the private market, but NewYork City adopted the first building restrictions in1867. The city followed with the landmark TenementHouse Act of 1879, which set basic standards for lightand air, resulting in five- and six-story buildings witha pinched middle to create a narrow airshaft.Thousands of these “dumbbell” or “old law” tene-ments packed the blocks of lower Manhattan.Following the 1890 publication of How The OtherHalf Lives, the exposé by journalist and photographerJacob Riis, New Yorkers revisited the housing ques-tion with more stringent regulations in 1901, creatingwhat were known as “new law” tenements.

While no other American city packed its people asdensely as New York, all suffered from cheap, dan-gerous, and overcrowded housing for thepoor—firetrap housing that bred endemic diseasessuch as tuberculosis. In some cases, civic-mindedphilanthropists tried to develop “model tenements” orhousing designs that offered better living conditionsbut that could still be built for a profit. By the earlytwentieth century, officials in most cities were adopt-ing their own housing and building codes, justified asmeasures to protect the safety and health of the entirecommunity. Construction and management of hous-ing, however, remained a purely private enterprise.

PUBLIC HOUSING

The situation changed during the Great Depression ofthe 1930s, when the federal government took a cen-tral role in the production of new housing. TheNational Housing Act of 1934 created the FederalHousing Administration (FHA) to act as a housingmortgage insurance agency to bring adequate fundsinto housing construction and thereby to create newemployment opportunities as a boost to the domesticeconomy. The Public Works Administration directlyconstructed housing until the U.S. Supreme Courtruled that such action had no constitutional justifica-tion. The National Housing Act of 1937 created adetour around the ruling. It created the U.S. HousingAuthority (USHA) to channel financial assistance inthe form of direct loans and annual operating subsi-dies to local housing authorities for slum clearanceand for construction and operation of public housingfor low-income families.

Before World War II intervened, the USHA pro-vided 90 percent of the construction costs for 168,000units. Local housing authorities came up with theremaining 10 percent, picked the sites, built the apart-ments, selected the tenants, and managed thecomplexes. The underlying idea was slum clearance,with one-for-one replacement of substandard tene-ments by inexpensive but decent apartments.

FEDERAL HOUSING AFTER WORLDWAR II

The United States faced a double housing crisisafter World War II. On the one hand, there wasnot enough new housing to meet the pent-updemand and the needs of returning veterans whowere about to launch the baby boom. One policyresponse was the Veterans Administration mort-gage guarantee program to augment the FHA. Onthe other hand, old city neighborhoods, oftenbuilt with substandard housing, were deteriorat-ing, and the public worried about the cancerlikespread of urban “blight” from old slums into mar-ginal neighborhoods. One of the federal reactionswas to continue the use of “redlining” maps devel-oped by the Home Owners Loan Corporation inthe 1930s. These maps sorted neighborhoods bysocial and economic status to effectively denyloan assistance in the worst districts inside the“red line” on the map.

The National Housing Act of 1949 reaffirmed a fed-eral commitment to the housing needs of the poor.Backed by Ohio’s very conservative Senator RobertTaft, the act provided money for localities to assem-ble, clear, and then sell or lease land for“predominantly residential uses” to housing agenciesor private developers. Congress also declared that“the general welfare and security of the Nation andthe health and living standards of its people require…the elimination of substandard and blighted areas,and the realization as soon as feasible of the goal ofa decent home and a suitable living environment forevery American family.”

The results did not match the rhetoric. More low-cost housing was demolished than was built asreplacements. Because all the decisions were in thehands of local officials, new projects tended to per-petuate racial segregation. Many housing projects of

the 1930s had been well-designed, low-density com-munities of townhouses and low-rise apartmentswith landscape plantings. In the 1950s and 1960s,however, architects and officials turned to 10- or 12-story slabs set in paved superblocks. Such massiveProjects (the capitalization now seemed appropri-ate) were islands of poverty in the midst of the city,cut off from neighborhood life. Interior design stan-dards forbade large rooms and prohibited closetdoors (to encourage neatness). Projects such asPruitt-Igoe in St. Louis and Robert Taylor Homes inChicago quickly became icons of misguided pol-icy—warehouses for storing the urban poor. Someof the worst of these projects were demolishedwithin a couple decades of construction, while oth-ers have been removed more recently under theHOPE VI program.

URBAN RENEWAL

Congress was meanwhile transforming the redevel-opment and housing program into urban renewalwith Housing Act amendments in 1954 and 1959.After the latter year, 20 percent of federal capital-grant funds could be used for nonresidentialdevelopment, and clearance projects no longer hadto focus on substandard buildings. Urban renewalwas a tool for trying to revitalize older downtowns.Cities across the country cleared low-intensity areason the downtown fringe for a variety of uses: high-rise housing for the middle class, hospitalexpansion, new university campuses, civic centers,sports arenas, convention centers, and office build-ings. In cities with strong real estate markets, thecleared land might fill up easily. In others, it some-times sat vacant for years, even at abargain-basement price, waiting for the right proj-ect. The quality of local planning determinedwhether the redeveloped district meshed with thefabric of the central core or turned its back on thedowntown it was supposed to save.

The Housing Act of 1954 did encourage the expan-sion of the planning profession by giving directassistance to municipalities with populations of lessthan 50,000 to undertake comprehensive planningand by authorizing loans and grants for metropolitanand regional planning. The Workable Program forCommunity Improvement, a feature of the 1954 act,required annual recertification of comprehensivemaster plans in order for cities to continue to be eli-gible for the various federal funds authorized by theact. Achieving racial, social, and economic mix con-stituted a requirement for city eligibility to receivefederal funds—a requirement that was often ignoredin actual implementation.

THE CRITIQUE OF URBANRENEWAL

Urban renewal quickly became a controversial pro-gram. Many agencies bought and cleared moredowntown land than the market could absorb, leavingunsightly parking lots and rubble-strewn blocks.Martin Anderson, a conservative critic, complained inThe Federal Bulldozer (1964) that urban renewal short-circuited the private market, destroyed hundreds of

PUBLIC HOUSING AND URBAN RENEWAL


Civic Center

Downtown

MAP OF BLIGHTED AREAS IN LOSANGELES, 1945Source: National Housing Agency 1945.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 79

80 Public Housing and Urban Renewal


small businesses, and unfairly favored a few politicallyconnected developers. It was, he argued, an inefficientand costly intervention in the private market. From adifferent political stance, other critics argued that urbanrenewal was “Negro removal,” a program that simplyshoved unwanted populations from one location toanother. A notable example was the “renewal” ofChavez Ravine in Los Angeles, displacing a low-income Mexican-American neighborhood in favor ofDodger Stadium. Similarly, a series of studies byHerbert Gans, Chester Hartman, and Marc Fried con-cluded that the urban renewal of Boston’s West Endhad destroyed a viable neighborhood. Although offi-cial reports described the area as a slum, it was actually

a stable ethnic community before the bulldozers scat-tered its residents to more expensive apartments instrange neighborhoods. The sorts of large-scale rede-velopment at which urban renewal aimed was alsoone of the targets in Jane Jacobs’s popular and insight-ful book The Death and Life of Great American Cities(1961).

Urban renewal as an independent program endedin 1974 when urban renewal funds were folded intothe new Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) program. In various forms, however, it hasremained part of the planning and developmenttoolkit, often funded by local techniques such as taxincrement financing.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Martin. 1964. The Federal Bulldozer: ACritical Analysis of Urban Renewal 1949–62.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities. New York: Random House.

Riis, Jacob A. 1890. How the Other Half Lives. NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

See also:HOPE VIRevitalization and Economic Development Tax Increment Financing


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 80

Measuring and Modeling 81

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

The planning profession’s dynamic balance betweenthe traditions of design and engineering shiftedmarkedly in the 1950s and 1960s with the addition ofquantitative analysis and modeling to the set of com-mon planning techniques.

The key document was Harvey Perloff’s 1957 bookEducation for Planning. Perloff, then the head of theplanning program at the University of Chicago, thecenter of systematic research on urban society, calledfor a planning curriculum that emphasized systematicknowledge of cities as functioning systems shapedby—and, in turn, shaping—economic, social, andtechnological trends. With his emphasis on social andeconomic elements, Perloff viewed planning asrooted in the social sciences. The same orientationappeared in his argument that planners need tounderstand basic principles of socioeconomicchange, to develop hypotheses, and to test theseideas with research. In short, planning educatorsshould aim to train applied social scientists first,designers second.

Perloff’s ideas fell on fertile soil. His stress on socialresearch was in accord with the growing interest inplanning as a means of social reform and empower-ment (see Advocacy and Equity Planning). It alsocame at a time when universities and corporationswere installing the first generation of mainframe com-puters. The new capability to perform calculationswith electronic data processing quickly revolution-ized the social sciences. By the 1960s, youngereconomists, sociologists, political scientists, and geog-raphers felt that they now could make social science“scientific”; subsequently, their increasingly complexstatistical analyses elbowed aside traditional descrip-tive and case study approaches.

This more sophisticated numerical analysis directlyaffected planning. Earlier generations of comprehen-sive and regional planners had conducted extensive

inventories of land uses, housing, and infrastructure,producing detailed tables and land-use maps (theRegional Plan of New York had eight volumes ofbackup information!). The use of this information,however, had remained essentially subjective, basedon the best professional judgment of experts. In con-trast, the Chicago Area Transportation Study(1960–1962) was a massive effort to project thegrowth of the region and to employ origin and desti-nation data to devise an efficient transportationsystem to serve that growth. The Penn-JerseyTransportation Study for the Philadelphia region sim-ilarly used social science theory to develop alternativescenarios for the region’s growth. Both studiesdepended on processing large amounts of quantita-tive data. Helping to frame the analytical approachwere the developing fields of regional science andregional economics, which hoped to develop generalanalytical models of metropolitan growth by applyinggravity models, market theories, and other spatial andeconomic principles to construct large-scale modelsof land-use and transportation connections.

Although the efforts of the 1960s proved unsatis-factory, the vast increase in available computingcapacity and in available quantitative data hasallowed continued refinement of large-scale urbanmodeling and simulation. The quantitative revolu-tion transformed academic planning research, ascan be seen in the pages of the Journal of theAmerican Planning Association. Much planningscholarship now involves the quantitative testing ofcause-effect relationships, employing forms of mul-tiple linear regression analysis. The relationshipscan range over the broad subject matter of plan-ning: the effect of rent control on housingavailability, the effect of light rail stations on landdevelopment, the effect of streetscape on safety,and the implicit value of environmental amenities.

Experts hope such modeling will help to differenti-ate between effective and ineffective planninginterventions and policies, and clearly establishtheir comparative costs and benefits.

Daily planning practice has been more directlyaffected by another product of the data-analysis rev-olution—namely, geographic information systems(GIS). Maps have always been central tools and prod-ucts of planning; since the 1980s, however, thespread of personal computers with vast data storageand manipulating capacity has made mapping adynamic tool. GIS allows the customized layering ofmultiple sets of spatial information, creating a pow-erful analytical tool for exploring social, economic,and land-use variables. With the advent of the WorldWide Web, GIS can also facilitate citizen access tospatial information (zoning maps, crime incidence,population change, and the like), helping to democ-ratize access to planning information. Because of thevisual dimension of mapping, it is an interesting twistthat computer-dependent GIS also moves planningback toward its roots in urban design.

REFERENCES

Klosterman, Richard (ed.). 1994. “Symposium: Large-Scale Models: Twenty Years Later.” Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 60, no.1 (Winter): 41.

Perloff, Harvey. 1957. Education for Planning.Baltimore, MD: Published for Resources for theFuture by Johns Hopkins Press.

Scott, Mel. 1969. American City Planning Since1890. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

See also:Geographic Information Systems

MEASURING AND MODELING


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 81

82 Advocacy and Equity Planning


In 1967, members of the American Institute ofPlanners (AIP) argued vehemently over the characterof planning. Since 1938, the AIP constitution haddefined the field as “the planning of the unifieddevelopment of urban communities and their envi-rons and of states, regions, and the nation, asexpressed through determination of the comprehen-sive arrangement of land uses and land occupancyand the regulation thereof.” Now, after emotionaldebates, the AIP dropped the final phrase anddefined five subfields: generalist, physical, social,economic-financial, and government-administrative.

ADVOCACY PLANNING

The AIP took this action during the same period thatthe profession was absorbing Paul Davidoff’s influen-tial manifesto for “advocacy planning.” Davidoffrecognized that American planning had originatedand developed with the support of local civic leadersand with a business-oriented agenda of facilitatingefficient metropolitan growth. He also recognizedthat inequality of expertise and information is one ofthe most basic sources of unequal power. He arguedforcefully that planners should engage more directlyin the struggle for equal civil and economic rights byusing their expertise to plan for the needs of disad-vantaged segments of society—they should fight fortheir own progressive values and advocate for theirclients’ views of community betterment. Both a plan-ner and an attorney, Davidoff put his ideas intoaction through the Suburban Action Institute, whichtried to open up suburban housing to the urban poor.

FAIR HOUSING AND FAIR-SHAREHOUSING

The issue that Davidoff chose to address was rootedin two generations of heavy migration of AfricanAmericans to northern and western (and southern)cities. The population shift began with the “greatmigration” of 1915 to 1930, which resulted in the“ghettoization” of black neighborhoods, and a secondmigration from 1940 to 1970, resulting in ghettoexpansion and “second ghettos.” Unlike Europeanimmigrant groups, who had usually lived in ethnicallymixed areas, many blacks found themselves in nearlyall-black neighborhoods in which they were confinedby discrimination in mortgage lending (so-calledredlining), closed real estate markets, and sporadicviolence. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, it provedvery difficult to maintain racially integrated neighbor-hoods. When enough African Americans moved in(the “tipping point” tended to be around 20 to 30percent of households), white households fled toother city neighborhoods or the suburbs.

Both ghettoization and white flight created largespatial inequities and inefficient land-use patterns(even to the extent of virtual neighborhood aban-donment), making housing discrimination a planningproblem. One response was neighborhood triage andmarketing programs in which planners would help toidentify neighborhoods in line for racial turnover anddevelop incentives to hold white households. A sec-ond was vigorous enforcement of fair housing laws,which have gradually, but not completely, opened

housing markets to all races. A third response was“fair-share” housing programs. Pioneered by theMiami Valley Regional Planning Commission forDayton, Ohio, fair-share programs were efforts toallocate subsidized and low-income housing equi-tably across a metropolitan area. Because most suchprograms have been voluntary for jurisdictions, theyunfortunately have delivered less than hoped.However, the program created as a result of the caseof Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority (1969),which mandates the dispersal of low-income house-holds throughout the region, has had modest success.

THE GREAT SOCIETY AND THE CITIES

Davidoff wrote at a time when the nature of federalurban programs was changing rapidly. TheCommunity Renewal Act (1959) had responded toearly concerns about urban renewal by supportingcitywide surveys of housing and social needs togather data to link housing policy with issues ofhealth, welfare, and education. The establishment in1965 of the cabinet-level Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD) was the culmination of along lobbying effort. Coinciding with the GreatSociety initiatives of President Lyndon Johnson, itsymbolized federal government concern about thegrowing importance of affordable housing, inner-citydeterioration, and urban sprawl.

HUD soon found itself administering the contro-versial Model Cities program. The DemonstrationCities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966provided for grants to 147 selected “model cities” toconcentrate funds from various federal agencies forall forms of urban improvement on specified targetneighborhoods. This crash program designed to cre-ate model neighborhoods never really had anopportunity to prove its worth because of changes inprogram objectives and funding priorities during theadministration of President Richard Nixon. It stirredcontroversy because it gave the residents of themodel cities neighborhoods a direct say about plansand programs, annoying both mayors and redevel-opment bureaucrats.

THE RISE OF COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT

The Housing and Community Development Act of1974 effected an important change in the federalfunding of community development programs.Existing “categorical” grants for various types of com-munity improvements, such as water and sewerfacilities, open spaces, urban beautification, historicpreservation, neighborhood facilities, urban renewal,and model cities, were consolidated into a single pro-gram of community-development “block” grants,giving localities greater control over how the moneywas to be spent, within broad guidelines. Thesefunds have since been distributed to various citiesaccording to a formula based on population, poverty,and overcrowding. For more than 30 years, cities andurban counties have received $75 billion inCommunity Development Block Grants (CDBG) forcommunity-oriented projects. The federal program

shared some of the same goals and spirit as theCommunity Action program of the War on Poverty, aswell as its emphasis on citizen participation. Indeed,the tension between pro forma citizen consultationand substantial citizen influence on planning deci-sions (as outlined in Sherry Arnstein’s famous “ladderof citizen participation” in 1969) has remained anunresolved issue for planners.

In addition to funding tens of thousands of specificprojects, the CDBG program helped to create the sub-stantial practice of locally based “communitydevelopment.” Over the last two decades, thousandsof nonprofit community development corporations(CDCs) have been organized in urban neighborhoodsand rural communities. Depending on a combinationof government funding, foundation grants, and pro-gram revenue, CDCs have become importantproducers of low-cost housing. In some cases, theyhave also taken on commercial revitalization, job train-ing, and social services. At their best, CDCssimultaneously offer concrete services and develop theself-help capacities of local residents and communities.

EQUITY PLANNING

An important application of Davidoff’s ideas is the ideaof equity planning. The term was most notably appliedin Cleveland in the 1970s. The city planning staff, influ-enced by Davidoff and led by Norman Krumholz, triedto keep the needs and concerns of the city’s poorestneighborhoods and citizens on the public agenda. Thepractice requires support in city hall (e.g., by CarlStokes and Dennis Kucinich in Cleveland) as well asenough political savvy on the part of planners todevelop equity-based projects that remain acceptablefor the city as a whole. Equity planning is thus a prag-matic effort to find ways to persuade business interestsand the middle class that helping poor communities

ADVOCACY AND EQUITY PLANNING


PLANNING FOR EQUITY

Advocacy Planning• Concern for disadvantaged communities• Planners as advocates on behalf of the poor and

minorities• Primary stress on application of professional

expertise• Process orientation

Equity Planning• Planners as advocates and brokers for the poor• Strong emphasis on development of political

support• Stress on practical results and “doable” efforts• Close connections to neighborhood political

revolts• Product and process orientation

Empowerment/Community-Based Planning• Planners facilitate community action• Importance of local knowledge to balance

expertise• Planning as iterative process• Close connections to community development

process orientation

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 82

Advocacy and Equity Planning 83

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

can be generally beneficial to the entire city. Many ofthe lessons of Cleveland were applied in Chicago inthe 1980s under the mayoral administration of HaroldWashington. That city’s Economic Development Planof 1984 was explicitly interested in redistributing thebenefits of economic growth more equitably amonggroups and neighborhoods.

Through all of this work, planners have faced atension between working within existing institutionsand power structures (a pluralist approach) and seek-ing to assist the emergence of new social and politicalmovements to challenge those institutions. A varia-tion that leans toward the latter is empowerment

planning, which emphasizes the importance of grass-roots action. In this model, planners work closelywith community residents to help the communityitself define its problems and solutions. Professionalexpertise is balanced by local knowledge held andarticulated by residents themselves. Although plansand projects are important goals, the process itselfand the capacities that it develops among its partici-pants are equally important. Empowerment planningthus reaches back in its intellectual framework to theCommunity Action and Model Cities programs of the1960s and finds expression in grassroots communitydevelopment work.

REFERENCES

Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. “A Ladder of CitizenParticipation.” AIP Journal 35, no. 4: 216–224.

Davidoff, Paul. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism inPlanning.” Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners 31, no. 4 (November): 331–337.

See also:Environmental JusticeHousing Plans Participation


APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 83

84 Urban Growth and Environmental Concerns


THE CHALLENGES OF SPRAWL

When the post-World War II housing boom hit its stride,suburban development was occurring at an unprece-dented scale in places like Lakewood, California, andthe Levittowns of Long Island, Pennsylvania, and NewJersey. As the editors of Fortune magazine noted in aseries of articles in 1957 and 1958, metropolitan sprawlwas creating The Exploding Metropolis (the title of the1958 book version of those essays). European geogra-pher Jean Gottmann gave Americans a new word forthe phenomenon with his book Megalopolis (1961). Heidentified an entirely new form of settlement emergingin the corridor from Boston to Washington. Megalopoliswas a supermetropolis extending outward “on a rapidlyexpanding scale… mixing uses of land that look eitherurban or rural, encircling vast areas which remain‘green’… creating a completely new pattern of livingand regional interdependence between communities.”

The idea of superurbanization caught the imagina-tion. Americans began to envision a future dominated

by megalopolitan corridors, with BosWash in the Eastbalanced by ChiPitts in the Middle West and SanSan inthe West, along with smaller—but still vast—conurba-tions across Florida, along the Carolina Piedmont, alongthe Gulf Coast, around Puget Sound, and many otherpossibilities. For planners, Gottmann’s analysisprompted a renewed interest in thinking about metro-politan form on the most comprehensive scale, in away not seen since Ebenezer Howard’s system ofGarden Cities and its adoption by the RegionalPlanning Association of America. The new plans triedto project a pattern of urban expansion that could pro-tect rural land while allowing economically efficientgrowth. Dealing with Washington, D.C., in 1961, theNational Capital Planning Commission published APolicies Plan for the Year 2000 that proposed a “starfish”model of outward growth along six corridors to beserved by new mass transit. Consulting for DetroitEdison Corporation, Greek planner ConstantinosDoxiades in 1966 developed an even more compre-

hensive scheme for arranging an estimated 9 millionpeople across the landscape of future Detroit.

SUBURBANIZATION ANDENVIRONMENTALISM

Suburban growth in the 1950s and 1960s also haddirect consequences in environmental planning.Many suburbanites had moved to new homes toescape the environmental as well as social problemsof cities. They increasingly noted that letting bulldoz-ers loose on the countryside re-created some of thesame problems. Overburdened septic systems andrunoff from suburban yards and streets pollutedstreams. Tract development and regional shoppingmalls ate up the landscape, and the resulting traffictie-ups polluted the air. The increasing awareness ofsuburban environmental problems added strength toan environmental movement that had been rooted inwilderness and wildlife preservation (Rachel Carson’sSilent Spring was published in 1962; the WildernessAct was passed in 1964).

The 1970s became known as the “environmentaldecade.” By April 22, 1970, 10,000 schools and 20million people were eager to take part in the firstEarth Day, which was endorsed by the Nixon admin-istration as a “safe” protest to divert energies frommovement against the Vietnam War. Earth Day wasaccompanied and followed by a wave of new federalregulations and programs to improve air and waterquality, control pesticides, and protect natural sys-tems. Particularly important for urban and regionalplanning were the National Environmental Policy Actof 1969, administered by the new EnvironmentalProtection Agency (1970), which required the prepa-ration of environmental impact statements (EIS)before final decisions could be made to go aheadwith federal and federally funded projects. Plannersfound that the EIS process provided new opportuni-ties for consulting but also required training in naturalsciences to supplement education in social scienceand design.

DESIGN WITH NATURE

At the same time, one other influential book reinvigo-rated the design approach to urban form, but itappeared within the context of environmentalism.Working from a base at the University ofPennsylvania, Scottish-American landscape architectand planner Ian McHarg developed the technique ofoverlay planning to guide metropolitan expansion.Simple in concept but complex in application, thetechnique involved the mapping of valued or vulner-able resources (forests, stream courses, wildlifecorridors, aquifer recharge zones, historic sites) andoverlaying the maps to identify the areas where devel-opment would do the least damage. McHargpublished his ideas, along with examples from hiswork, in Design with Nature (1969). The book wasboth a primer on the technique and an impassionedplea to avoid the mistakes of past city-builders, as rep-resented by the dark, smoky Glasgow of his youth. Itsimportance lies also in McHarg’s unabashed reversalof the customary relationship between developers andenvironment, for to design with nature means to priv-

URBAN GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS


NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION: RADIAL CORRIDOR PLAN, 1961Courtesy of National Capital Planning Commission.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 84

Urban Growth and Environmental Concerns 85

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

Growth of an Urban Region: The Developing UrbanDetroit Area. Detroit: The Detroit Edison Company.

Exploding Metropolis, The. 1958. [by] the editors ofFortune. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Gottmann, Jean. 1961. Megalopolis: The UrbanizedNortheastern Seaboard of the United States. NewYork: Twentieth Century Fund Press.

McHarg, Ian. 1996. A Quest for Life. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

—-. 1969. Design with Nature. New York: NaturalHistory Press.

See also:Environmental Impact AssessmentEnvironmental Management Growth ManagementNational Environmental Policy ActStatewide Land-Use Planning Programs


CanadianExtension

EasternMegalopolis

Main Portion of Great Lakes Megalopolis

THE GREAT LAKES MEGALOPOLISSource: Doxiades 1970.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL DECADES1961-1968:WILDERNESS AND WILDLIFEFOCUSWilderness Act (1964)National Wildlife Refuge System (1966)Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968)

1969-1976: POLLUTION CONTROL ANDENDANGERED ENVIRONMENTS FOCUSNational Environmental Policy Act (1969) Environmental Protection Agency (1970) Clean Air Act (1970)Occupational Safety and Health Act (1970)Water Pollution Control Act (1972)Pesticide Control Act (1972)Coastal Zone Management Act (1972)Endangered Species Act (1973)Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)

1977-1980: ENERGY AND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS FOCUSEnergy Policy and Conservation Act (1978)Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (Superfund) (1980)

ilege the natural environment and to fit developmentwhere it does the least harm, not where it is most eco-nomical or efficient. The book, and approach, can beviewed as a predecessor to the idea of sustainabilitythat would emerge in the 1990s.

REFERENCESCarson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Doxiades, Constantinos.1970. Emergence and

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 85

86 Statewide Land-Use Planning Programs


Against the background of this “quiet revolution inland use control,” to use the phrase of PeterBosselman and David Callies, came Oregon’s com-prehensive Senate Bill 100 (1973) establishing astatewide land-use planning system. The trigger forthe effort was growing concern about the urbaniza-tion of the Willamette Valley. Extending roughly 100miles south from Portland and averaging 30 to 40miles wide, the valley is a rich agricultural region thatis obviously finite, bounded by the peaks of theCascades on one side and the Coast Range on theother. Like Vermont and Hawaii, therefore, Oregonwas protecting a limited land resource.

The Oregon program requires that all cities andcounties prepare and implement comprehensive land-use plans taking into account 14 statewide planninggoals (and five regionally applicable environmentalgoals):

Goal 1: Citizen Involvement

Goal 2: Land Use Planning

Goal 3: Agricultural Lands

Goal 4: Forest Lands

Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Area,and Natural Resources

Goal 6: Air, Water, and Land Resources

Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters andHazards

Goal 8: Recreational Needs

Goal 9: Economic Development

Goal 10: Housing

Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services

Goal 12: Transportation

Goal 13: Energy Conservation

Goal 14: Urbanization

The Oregon Department of Land Conservation andDevelopment reviews local plans and can send themback for additional work, but the plans themselvesremain the work of local planners and officials. Themost studied part of the Oregon system is therequirement that every municipality or metropolitanarea establish an urban growth boundary (UGB)—aboundary seen as a line on a map “encircling” alreadydeveloped land and a 20-year supply of undevelopedland. The UGB is expected to expand with thegrowth of its community but to maintain that growthin compact form. Although the UGB and other goalshave become important tools for controlling urbanform, it is important to remember that the basic moti-vation for the Oregon system was to protectproductive farm and forest land.

UGB draws on the British greenbelt idea butmakes it an issue of regulation rather than direct pub-lic acquisition. In this way it is very different fromBoulder, Colorado, where a citizen initiative in 1967approved a sales tax for open-space acquisition thathas now placed 40,000 acres of open and sensitivelands in public ownership and established an effec-tive cordon line around the city, separating it from thesuburban sprawl of Denver.

The Oregon system was a bridge between earlierinitiatives and a new generation of state planningprograms in the 1980s and 1990s. Its perceived suc-cess helped to convince Florida, Maine, Georgia,Washington, Maryland, Tennessee, New Jersey, andRhode Island to adopt their own statewide planningprograms or standards. In some cases, such asWashington, the specific approach mirrors Oregon’s.In other cases, such as Florida and Maryland, “con-currency,” the idea that development should bepaced to meet the capacity of local infrastructure, isemphasized strongly. Maryland’s “Smart Growth” pro-gram, for example, is a “carrot” program that definesareas appropriate for urbanization or developmentand limits state aid for infrastructure to those areas.Tennessee’s Growth Policy Act (1998) matches manyof the goals of the American Planning Association’s“Growing Smart” program, using both regulatory andincentive approaches.

See also:Farmland PreservationGrowth Management Open-Space Preservation Techniques

STATEWIDE LAND-USE PLANNING PROGRAMS


Urban GrowthBoundary

URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, PORTLAND, OREGONSource: Portland Metro 2002.

One of the startling changes in planning in the 1970swas the appearance of state-based or statewide land-use planning programs. Since the legal beginnings ofplanning, states had delegated their constitutionalauthority over land-use regulation to counties andmunicipalities. Now, for the first time, states began toexercise that authority directly through statewideplanning and regulatory programs.

The earliest cases were small states where land, orat least desirable land, was in obviously short supply.Hawaii adopted the first state planning system in 1961.As soon modified, the law divided the islands’ landinto four districts: urban, agricultural, low-densityrural, and forest and water reserves, with appropriatelevels of development allowed in each district.Vermont, another small state where desirable land wasunder intense pressure for recreational development,adopted a state planning program in 1970. The legis-lation required state permitting for developments ofmore than local significance. Although it proved diffi-cult in implementation and was later modified, theprogram set an important precedent. So too did newprograms to regulate development in two of thenation’s most diverse and important coastal areas.Despite legislative reluctance, California votersapproved a Coastal Zone Management Act by popu-lar initiative in 1972. Two years later, North Carolinaadopted its Coastal Area Management Act.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 86

Redesigning Downtown 87

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF PLACE

At the start of the 1960s, two powerful bookschanged the ways that city planners thought abouttheir cities. Kevin Lynch based The Image of the City(1960) on empirical research into the ways ordinarypeople perceived and used cities. He argued thatnobody is capable of understanding a large city inall its complexity. Instead, people sort out the spa-tial chaos of their city by thinking in terms ofdistricts, nodes, edges, corridors, and landmarks. Ayear later, architectural journalist Jane Jacobs tookon the tradition of large-scale planning in The Deathand Life of Great American Cities. Although blaming“planners” for many of the errors of architects,developers, and politicians, she made a cogent andcompelling argument. Observe how people actuallyuse their sidewalks, streets, and parks, she wrote,and you would understand the importance of a“street-level” approach to planning attentive to thedetails of urban form and design that create every-day environments.

In their very different ways—as social scientist andpolemicist—Lynch and Jacobs introduced the practiceof environmental psychology to planning. Their workstimulated social science research on planning-relatedtopics, such as defensible space and the use of publicspace. It was further popularized by William H.Whyte’s careful observations of the ways that peopleactually use the parks, plazas, and sidewalks ofManhattan, and the resulting suggestions for makingpublic spaces people-friendly. In turn, research onenvironmental psychology provided a scientific,rational basis for reemphasizing traditional urbanplanning concerns with the design of cities.

Historic PreservationAn important product of the turn to urban design wasthe historic preservation movement. In 1966,Congress launched historic preservation in its modernform by establishing the National Register of HistoricPlaces and system of state historic preservationoffices. Over the next 15 years, preservation evolvedfrom an elite activity concerned with national histori-cal monuments and noteworthy architecture into animportant planning and revitalization tool, withNational Register nominations tying their buildingsand districts to local rather than national history. In1981, changes in the federal tax code added strongfinancial incentives for reinvestment in historic build-ings. By the 1980s, hundreds of cities had locallandmarks or historic preservation commissionsstaffed by architectural historians and planners.

One important outcome of the new interest inpreservation was systematic efforts to revitalize oldneighborhood business centers and small-town mainstreets. The National Main Street Center, launched in1980 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation,tied together planning, preservation, and economicdevelopment approaches to the needs of smallercities and towns. Modeled on programs developedearlier in the decade by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the city of Pittsburgh, the programrequired local, grassroots participation and focusedon four principles:

• Organization (local business and political buy-in)• Promotion (tapping local and tourist markets)• Design (historic preservation and urban design)• Economic restructuring (getting the right mix of

businesses)

The Main Street approach has provided an impor-tant planning tool for preserving the economic andsocial core of smaller communities as they have facedso-called big-box retailers at outlying freeway inter-sections.

Another common result from the preservationmovement was the designation of one or more his-toric districts in or near the center of large cities.Usually, these were nineteenth-century commercialand warehouse districts that had been left behind asthe city built a new high-rise. These districts, with their

stock of two- to six-story buildings with interestingmasonry or cast iron façades attracted design profes-sionals and niche retailers. The restored buildingswere most often marketed as part of an “old town”entertainment and boutique district, an arts district, ora district for sophisticated living in loft apartments.

A NEW WAVE IN DOWNTOWNPLANNING

The definition of “downtown historic district” waspart of a more widespread recognition that down-towns were best understood as sets of distinctsubareas—an idea that put Kevin Lynch’s findingsinto professional practice. Many cities undertook newdowntown plans in the 1970s. In most cases, plan-ners abandoned the earlier tendency to treat the

REDESIGNING DOWNTOWN


Northwest Industrial

Retail Core

Hotel-Entertainment

PortlandCenter

PortlandState

University

SouthParkBlocks

SkidmoreFountainOld Town

North ParkBlocks

Wat

erfro

nt

Broa

dway

New Hawthorne

Bridge

Marquam

Bridge

BurnsideBridge

MorrisonBridge

Steel

Bridge

Broadway

Bridge

Imageable Districts

Activity Nodes

Buildings Having Historical and Architectural Merit

River

PORTLAND DOWNTOWN PLAN, 1972: IMAGEABLE DISTRICTSSource: City of Portland, Oregon, 1972.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 87

88 Redesigning Downtown


central business district as a single entity. Instead,they identified a variety of subareas that played spe-cial economic, social, or cultural roles, and suggesteddifferent planning treatment for each area. The 1972downtown plan for Portland, Oregon, arguably oneof the most successful in conception and results,explicitly applied Lynch and identified upwards of 20mini-downtowns within the larger core area.

Two other design-based trends also affected down-towns in the last decades of the twentieth century. Onewas the desire to market downtown as a center foramenities. The “festival market,” pioneered by devel-oper James Rouse in Boston and Baltimore, was ineffect an effort to create a historic boutique district undera single roof. The approach proved successful in somecities but not others. In the same vein, cities have beeninvesting in public markets, performing arts centers,museums, and downtown baseball stadiums to luresuburbanites downtown, as well as adding park spaceand reconnecting downtowns to their waterfronts.

The second move was to mandate more interestingarchitecture as part of the zoning code. Many

Americans by the 1980s were becoming tired of boringrectangular high-rises that clogged the skyline withoutimproving it. Within the profession of architecture, theresponse was the turn to postmodern designs. In plan-ning, this meant downtown plans that tried to mitigatethe box. The bellwether was the downtown plan forSan Francisco (1985), an effort to regulate new down-town development so that it would be more suitable inscale and shape for a well-loved city center. The planmicromanaged building heights to make new develop-ment compatible with San Francisco’s prominent hillsand strong skyline, and it required that top floors besmaller than the building’s ground-floor footprint, toensure variety and interest in the skyline.

REFERENCES

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities. New York: Random House.

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Portland, City of 1972. Downtown Plan.

San Francisco, City of, Planning Department. 1995.General Plan: Downtown Area Plan.

Whyte, William H. 1988. City: Rediscovering theCenter. New York: Univers.

See also:Downtown PlansHistoric DistrictsHistoric StructuresMain Streets Specialty Retail Districts


THE BEST NEW BASEBALL PARKS:GOOD FOR THE GAME, GOOD FORDOWNTOWNCamden Yards, Baltimore (1992)Jacobs Field, Cleveland (1994)Coors Field, Denver (1995)Bank One Ballpark, Phoenix (1998)Safeco Field, Seattle (1999) Comerica Park, Detroit (2000)SBC Park, San Francisco (2000)Petco Park, San Diego (2004)

Above 550 feetthe setback is 35 feet.

Above 300 feet, setback is determined by sloping line starting at 15 feet at 300 feet, increasing to 35 feet at 550 feet.

Minimum 15 feet setback from interior property line or center line of street between top of building base and 300 feet.

No setback required 0 feet to top of building base, which is 1.25 times width of street.

Interior property line or center line of street.

550 Feet

35 Feet

300 Feet

1.25 Times

Width of Street

15 Feet

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA,DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES:SEPARATION BETWEEN TOWERS Source: San Francisco Planning Department 1995.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 88

Renewed Neighborhoods, New Towns, and New Urbanism 89

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

had been built around some version of neighborhoodunits. Now, in the ferment of the 1960s, citizenactivists began to call attention to the needs of agingcity neighborhoods threatened by downtown expan-sion or in danger of disinvestment because thetrickle-down housing market pulled middle-classhomeowners outward to new suburbs. Drawing les-sons from the Model Cities program and looking atcommunity development funds, middle-class resi-dents also organized to lobby city hall for housingrehabilitation loan programs, rezoning to block apart-ment construction, historic district status, and similarplanning interventions.

The politics of neighborhood renewal varied. Somecities, such as Dayton, Ohio, Kansas City, Missouri,and Portland, Oregon, responded by creating formalsystems by which neighborhoods could have inputon plans and policies that affected their community.In other places, such as San Francisco and Seattle, thepolitical system pitted neighborhoods against down-town interests, resulting in fierce election battles andantidevelopment referendums. One overall result bythe 1980s was the conservation of early twentieth-century neighborhoods for use by another generationof families. A second was a renewed interest in fram-ing citywide plans in terms of a nested hierarchy oflocal neighborhoods and larger community areas.

NEW TOWNS OF THE 1960sAND 1970s

The perpetual contrast between replanning estab-lished communities and planning for greenfield sitesalso appeared in the 1970s drive to build “newtowns.” The difference between a large suburb witha mix of housing types and a new town was notalways precise, although the latter implied a moreself-sufficient community with space for employmentand business as well as people. The model was thepostwar new towns of Britain and Scandinavia, whichwere intended as self-contained satellite communitiesand had roots in the Garden City movement.

Some early post-World War II developments—notably Park Forest, Illinois—had been planned ascomplete communities. Private development ofplanned residential communities, notably for retiredpersons on fixed incomes, also proliferated duringthe 1960s, mostly in the southeastern and southwest-ern states. However, the most widely publicized newtowns were Reston, Virginia, and Columbia,Maryland, with target populations of 75,000 and125,000. Begun in the mid-1960s, Reston attractedattention for the innovative, urbane feel of its LakeAnne Village Center. For Columbia, located betweenWashington and Baltimore, shopping center magnateJames Rouse drew on the best current thinking insocial science and design, although the actual neigh-borhoods offered relatively standard housing andstreetscapes. In part inspired by these nearby exam-ples, Congress in 1968 adopted the NewCommunities Act, as Title IV of a larger Housing andCommunity Development Act, and followed with theUrban Growth and New Community Act of 1970. Thislegislation offered federal guarantees for bondsissued by private developers in return for agreementto build comprehensive new towns with a mix of

RENEWED NEIGHBORHOODS, NEW TOWNS,AND NEW URBANISM


Belt Highw

ay

Arterial StreetTo Business Center Traffic Junction

Mai

n H

ighw

ay

A Shopping District Might Be Substituted for Church Site

To C

ivic

Cen

ter

Main Highway

Interior Streets Not Wider Than Required for Specific Use and Giving Easy Access to Shops and Community Center

Radius 1/4 Mile

Only Neighborhood Institutions at Community Center

Area in Open Development Preferably 160 Acres In Any Case It Should House Enough People to Require One Elementary SchoolExact Shape Not Essential but Best When All Sides Are Fairly Equidistant from Center

Shopping Districts in Periphery at Traffic Junctions and Preferably Bunched in Form

Ten Percentof Area to Recreation and Park Space

Community

Center

CLARENCE PERRY’S NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT DIAGRAM Source: Regional Plan Association 1929.

One of the central choices in planning is whether toimprove the urban fabric by building new communi-ties on vacant land or by redesigning and reinvestingin existing neighborhoods and districts; that is,“greenfield” development versus infill and revitaliza-tion strategies. This tension has played out in policiestoward established neighborhoods, in the “newtown” movement, and in the planning and designapproaches grouped as “new urbanism.”

NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION

In the last third of the twentieth century, many plan-ners refocused their attention on older middle-classneighborhoods. Clarence Perry in the 1920s hadintroduced the idea that cities should be planned assets of neighborhood units oriented to an elementaryschool, a park, and local shopping. The greenbelttowns and many private suburbs after World War II

Open SpaceNatural Boundary

Core Man-MadeBoundary

RegionalServiceArea

NeighborhoodCommunityServiceArea

Community

PHOENIX,ARIZONA, NEIGHBORHOODUNITS Source: Phoenix, Arizona, Planning Department.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 89

90 Renewed Neighborhoods, New Towns, and New Urbanism


land uses. Although more than a dozen new townswere started, the actual federal funding was inade-quate; most never got off the ground or collapsed inthe recession of 1974 and 1975. One of the few suc-cess stories is the Woodlands, near Houston. Thedeveloper of the Woodlands, George Mitchell, was awealthy oil man inspired by Ian McHarg, whom hehad hired to do an ecological master plan for thedevelopment. The project benefited from the fact thatthe developer already owned the land. The same wastrue for the development of the huge Irvine Ranchtract in Orange County, California, which was a newtown in character if not in name.

NEW URBANISM

The movement known as “new urbanism” burst ontothe planning scene in the late 1980s and 1990s. Thedriving force was a group of planners and architectswho wanted to revive the art of urban design andenvisioned ways to combine the positive lessons ofneighborhood conservation with the lessons—bothpositive and negative—from the new town experi-

ence. A number of enthusiastic and charismatic fig-ures, especially Peter Calthorpe, Andres Duany, andElizabeth Plater-Zyberk, came together in 1993 as theCongress for the New Urbanism (CNU), and in 1996issued a manifesto for their ideas, the “Charter of theNew Urbanism.” The CNU defines itself as “an urbandesign movement” involved in “all aspects of realestate development.” The CNU in 2004 had morethan 2,000 members and identified several hundrednew urbanism projects built or under construction.

The new urbanists share a disdain for suburbansprawl and strip development with its large-scale sep-aration of uses and dependence on automobiles. Thecharter speaks to the three scales of region, neigh-borhood, and block; and a number of CNU members,such as Calthorpe, have been very active in the “newregionalism.” However, much of new urbanist prac-tice has centered at the smaller scales, with efforts todesign neighborhoods that encourage walking, focuson public spaces, and allow a fine-grained mixture ofuses and housing types. In some notable cases, thesehave been greenfield developments, such as Seaside,Florida; Kentlands, Maryland; and Celebration,

Florida—raising the criticism that the movement isreally the “new suburbanism.” Advocates counterwith an impressive roster of mixed-use infill projects,retooled shopping malls, and similar efforts toimprove existing communities. In addition to publi-cizing the market success and design quality of suchdevelopments, new urbanists work to change rigidzoning and building codes.

See also:Neighborhood PlansZoning Regulation


CHARTER OF THE NEW URBANISM:TOPICAL COVERAGE

The Region: Metropolis, City, and Town

The Neighborhood, the District, and the Corridor

The Block, the Street, and the Building

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 90

New Regionalism: Environment, Politics, and Planning 91

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

At the opening of the twentieth-first century, manyplanners were talking about a “new regionalism” thatrevisits and recombines the ideas of the “old region-alisms” of the early twentieth century. Unlike theearlier regionalisms, which aimed at planned disper-sal of activities, the new regionalism aims atreurbanization and compact growth, and is thereforepart of the same broad approach to city-making alsoexpressed in downtown revitalization, growth man-agement, and new urbanism.

As outlined by Stephen Wheeler, a professor of plan-ning at New Mexico University, the new regionalism:

• Focuses on specific territories and spatial planning;• Addresses problems created by metropolitan frag-

mentation;• Is holistic in integrating planning specialties and

speaking to all facets of sustainability–environment,economy, and equity;

• Places importance on physical plans, urban design,and sense of place; and

• Takes a normative and activist stance.

METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCEAND POLITICS

One of the roots of the new regionalism is the long-standing effort to deal with the governmentalfragmentation of metropolitan areas. When a singlemetropolitan region may be divided among dozens,or even hundreds, of independent governments, con-flicts in land-use decisions and inefficiencies in servicedelivery are inevitable. In the 1950s and 1960s, localgovernment reformers pushed for consolidation orgovernmental unification of central cities and theirsurrounding county. The effort met some successes,notably Jacksonville and Miami, Florida; Nashville,Tennessee; Lexington, Kentucky; and Indianapolis,Indiana. However, it stalled because of political oppo-sition and because of the realization that city-countyconsolidation was inadequate to deal with the prob-lems of large metropolitan areas that might take in halfa dozen or more counties.

An alternative was federal requirements forregional review of applications for federal grants. Theso-called A-95 process in the 1960s and 1970s spurredthe formation of hundreds of Councils ofGovernment (COGS) to perform this review andcoordination. However, the requirement was scaledback in the 1980s, with different sorts of coordinationnow required for specific issues and programs, suchas the requirement that a metropolitan planningorganization approve regional transportation plans.

One more comprehensive approach has been todevelop city-suburb political alliances. A number ofexperts have noted that metropolitan areas with smallsocial and economic disparities between central cityand suburbs do better economically than those withlarge disparities. They follow by arguing that socialactivists and business interests therefore share a com-mon agenda of promoting growth through equity.Analysts such as Myron Orfield have further refinedthis point by showing that central cities and older sub-urbs often share common interests that can be servedby regional approaches to housing and transportation.

The fullest development of regional governance isfound in the Twin Cities and in Portland, Oregon.

The Metropolitan Council of Minnesota covers theseven-county region of Minneapolis-St. Paul. TheMinnesota legislature created the council in 1967 andstrengthened its powers in subsequent laws. Thecouncil has 17 members, appointed by the governorto represent districts. It operates transit, wastewater,regional parks, and affordable housing programs, andcoordinates transportation planning. Portland’s Metrohas the distinction of being the only elected regionalgovernment in the United States, with a governingcouncil elected by districts that overlap municipal andcounty boundaries. Voters of the three core metro-politan counties created Metro in 1978 andstrengthened its powers in 1992. Metro acquires andoperates regional parks and recreation facilities, man-ages sold waste disposal, controls the urban growthboundary, has certain abilities to levy taxes, anddevelops regional land-use and transportation plansthat set basic requirements for local plans.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES:METROPOLITAN SCALE In addition to the long-standing concern over the puz-zles of planning infrastructure and land use withinpolitically fragmented regions, interest in the newregionalism has come from the realization that metro-politan growth affects entire, complex ecologicalregions—for example, the lower Hudson River Valleyor the hills and valleys that surround Puget Sound. TheEndangered Species Act, although certainly notexpected to raise urban planning issues when it waspassed in 1973, has now become a major constraint onurban regions as they grow into surrounding moun-tains and riparian zones. In a way that harkens back toBoston at the end of the nineteenth century, therehave been important efforts to plan and implementmajor open-space acquisition programs on a regionalscale (for example, for the San Francisco Bay region).

NEW REGIONAL PLANSA major accomplishment of the new regionalism hasbeen a new generation of metropolitan plans thatrange from statewide work by the State of New Jersey

NEW REGIONALISM: ENVIRONMENT, POLITICS,AND PLANNING


Vancouver

Portland

Growth is encouraged in centers and corridors, withincreased emphasis on redevelopment within the urbangrowth boundary.

PORTLAND, OREGON, 2040 REGIONALGROWTH PLAN Source: Portland Metro 1995.

Increasing GapBetween Rich

and Poor

WastefulConsumptionof Resources

Sluggish"Boom and Bust"

Growth

Qualityof Life

Impr

ovisi

ng

Pros

perit

y for

All

A Healthy Regional

EcosystemQualityof Life

Vibrant SustainableGrowth

Greensward

Mobility

Centers

Workforce

Governance

Equity Environment Equity Environment

A Region at Risk A Competitive Region

Campaigns

Economy Economy

THE THREE “E’S” TRANSFORMED BY THE FIVE CAMPAIGNS Source: From A Region at Risk by Robert D.Yaro and Tony Hiss. Copyright©1996 by Regional Plan Association. Reproduced bypermission of Island Press,Washington, D.C.

to the Envision Central Texas planning initiative byPeter Calthorpe and John Fregonese to regional sce-nario building for the Salt Lake City area, also byCalthorpe and Fregonese. Commonalities include anemphasis on concentrating development in a hierar-chy of centers, prevention of sprawl, concern witheffective public transportation, and desire to protectopen space and environmentally sensitive land.

A good example is Metro Region 2040, developed byMetro for the Portland region. Working within the frame-work of urban growth boundary, the plan proposes toabsorb a 70 percent population increase with only a 7percent increase in urbanized land. The plan thus callsfor infill and compact growth that detours around sensi-tive land, with downtown, regional centers, and towncenters served by an expanded light rail system.

Another example is “The Metropolis Plan: Choicesfor the Chicago Region,” developed by Metropolis2020, a nonprofit group established in 1999 by theChicago Commercial Club, which had sponsoredDaniel Burnham’s plan nearly a century earlier. Theplan considered scenarios for fitting 1.6 million morepeople into the region by 2030 and developed thefollowing goals:

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 91

92 New Regionalism: Environment, Politics, and Planning


• Invest in strong “regional cities.”• Remove distortions to the housing market, such as

overly restrictive zoning.• Invest in transit modernization and make better use

of existing rail lines.• Help communities build more walkable neighbor-

hoods and business districts.• Reinforce use of expressways for long trips and

arterial streets for shorter trips.• Restore and protect prairie reserves, woodlands,

and wetlands.

Perhaps the most comprehensive of these effortswas the “Third Regional Plan for the New York-NewJersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area,” published bythe Regional Plan Association in 1996. The planstarted with a review of economic trends, equity, andthe environment (the three E’s of sustainability) anddefined five “major campaigns” to create a competi-tive region:

• Greensward campaign• Centers campaign• Mobility campaign• Workforce campaign• Governance campaign

Together, these campaigns covered the “territories”of environment, land use, equity, and governance.

GREENLINE MANAGEMENT

Urban growth in the later twentieth century alsobrought a new kind of regional planning to areasbeyond even the widest metropolitan boundaries. Thehalf century after World War II was marked by theubiquity of automobiles and levels of prosperity thatallowed many middle-class families to acquire vaca-tion properties and second homes in areas with scenicand recreational resources. Every large city staked outa “recreation shed” or “weekendland”—the PoconoMountains and Jersey shore for Philadelphia, theEastern Shore of Maryland for Baltimore andWashington, the Front Range for Denver, the shores ofPuget Sound for Seattle. This mountain and coastaldevelopment, of course, threatened to destroy thevery natural amenities that had attracted it.

The problem has been particularly acute where nat-ural systems and ecoregions cross state boundaries,requiring federal intervention and/or bistate compacts.The Tahoe Region Planning Agency, for example, is abistate agency created in 1969 to protect the beauty ofLake Tahoe; it enforces a 1987 plan that tries to man-age the recreational overspill of urban California fromoverwhelming the lake area. The Connecticut RiverValley Joint Commissions (1989) is a voluntary advi-sory panel appointed by the governors of Vermontand New Hampshire. In an even more complicatedsetting, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Districtof Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, andthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signedagreements in 1983 and 1987 to establish theChesapeake Bay Program partnership to protect andrestore the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

Areas such as Chesapeake Bay or the Pinelands ofsouthern New Jersey are too large, economicallyactive, and well populated to be protected under thetraditional standards of national parks. Instead, wefind recent experiments with “greenline parks.” Anidea borrowed from Europe, greenline management

cities within the corridor. Even newer is the MojaveNational Preserve in California, established in 1994when Congress transferred 3 million acres from theBureau of Land Management to the National ParkService (NPS), with the mandate that previous eco-nomic activities be able to continue even under NPS.One of the most successful efforts is the BlackstoneHeritage Corridor from Providence, Rhode Island, toWorcester, Massachusetts. It combines greenwayplanning, heritage planning, and downtown devel-opment.

See also:Regional PlansRegions


0 5 0 5

Miles

Preservation Area District

Forest Area

Agricultural Production Area

Rural Development Area

Regional Growth Area

Pinelands Town

Military and Federal Installation Area

Pinelands Village

Special Agricultural Production Area

is an effort to develop land-use plans that preservevital scenic and natural resources while allowing thecontinuation of existing economic activities. Thelargest such effort is the joint management of theNew Jersey Pinelands through the federal PinelandsNational Reserve (1978) and the state PinelandsCommission (1979). The Pinelands covers 1.1 millionacres and is home to 700,000 people whose needshave to be balanced with those of natural systems.The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area is asimilar effort established by Congress in 1986.Management of a mountainous 70-mile corridoralong the river east of Portland is shared by the U.S.Forest Service, a bistate commission representingOregon and Washington and preexisting towns and

NEW JERSEY PINELANDS MANAGEMENT AREA Source: State of New Jersey Pinelands Commission 1999.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 92

Environmental Justice 93

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

The term “environmental justice” was coined in thelate 1980s to describe a philosophy combining envi-ronmental awareness with an emphasis on racial andethnic equality, seeking changes in industrial, gov-ernmental, and commercial practices that proponentssay unfairly burden people of color and the econom-ically disadvantaged. “Environmental racism,” aclosely related term, refers specifically to practices,either intentional or institutionalized, that create envi-ronmental degradation in areas inhabited by racialminorities. The movement has gained internationalstature, in part by focusing on environmental burdenssuffered by indigenous minorities in various parts ofthe world.

A critical step in the development of this move-ment was the publication in 1987 of the seminalUnited Church of Christ study, Toxic Wastes and Racein the United States. The study, which comparedminority population data across the United Stateswith the location of toxic waste sites, went beyondthe anecdotal information about various types ofexposures of disadvantaged populations to environ-mental health risks by using sophisticated statisticaldata to support such claims.

In the United States, the environmental justicemovement grew rapidly in the 1990s, and it is logi-cally more predominant in areas with larger minoritypopulations. In many large cities, as well as manyrural areas in the South, the Southwest, and the WestCoast, investigations of disproportionate health andoccupational safety hazards have focused on popula-tions of African Americans, Hispanics, AsianAmericans, and Native Americans, plus indigenouspeoples in Alaska and Hawaii. The movement haslargely been composed of grassroots neighborhoodand regional organizations and coalitions, with only amodest amount of national coordination.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MOVEMENT

A major attempt to define the movement’s goalsoccurred in October 1991, in Washington, DC, at theFirst National People of Color EnvironmentalLeadership Summit. The 17 principles of the move-ment are reproduced in the sidebar. Despite theloose-knit nature of the movement, these principlesprobably fairly represent most of the active grassrootsorganizations.

ISSUES FOR PLANNERS

For planners, providing equitable opportunities toparticipate in the decision-making process, particu-larly for disadvantaged populations, and protectingthe natural environment are essential principles of theAmerican Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Codeof Ethics. The movement for environmental justicechallenges decision makers to meet those obligationsby improving government’s performance in safe-guarding those opportunities. More importantly,planners need to be aware of the nuances of real orpotential inequities and of effective ways of redress-ing them. For instance, concern about the NIMBY(“not in my backyard”) syndrome may not alwaysrecognize that some disadvantaged minorities mayfeel, legitimately, they have too often accepted envi-

ronmentally dangerous or questionable facilities intheir backyard while receiving less than their fairshare of amenities. Both results and process areimportant in the environmental justice philosophy.

One way of addressing siting inequities is toinclude fair-share provisions in state or local sitingstatutes and ordinances. For instance, the New YorkCity charter enshrines this principle, under which theNew York City Planning Commission adopted a “fair-share” siting process that took effect in 1991. State orlocal laws spelling out fair-share siting proceduresthat give disadvantaged neighborhoods an adequateopportunity to object to such decisions, while requir-ing advantaged neighborhoods or communities toaccept a prescribed burden of necessary environ-

mental infrastructure, such as sewage treatmentplants or waste transfer or recycling facilities, areamong the planning tools communities can use toredress such inequities.

At the same time, communities can also establishmore positive siting procedures to ensure an equi-table distribution of environmental amenities, such asparks, health clinics, and street trees. Finally, manyinner-city communities have suffered from a real orperceived overabundance of contaminated sites,known as brownfields, which may stymie redevelop-ment in the absence of governmental intervention. Itis important that the community be encouraged toparticipate effectively in the decision-making processconcerning such sites.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

James C. Schwab, AICP, American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois

PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

1. Environmental justice affirms the sacred-ness of Mother Earth, ecological unity, andthe interdependence of all species, and theright to be free from ecological destruction.

2. Environmental justice demands that publicpolicy be based on mutual respect and jus-tice for all peoples, free from any form ofdiscrimination or bias.

3. Environmental justice mandates the right toethical, balanced, and responsible uses ofland and renewable resources in the inter-est of a sustainable planet for humans andother living things.

4. Environmental justice calls for universalprotection from nuclear testing and theextraction, production, and disposal oftoxic/hazardous wastes and poisons thatthreaten the fundamental right to clean air,land, water, and food.

5. Environmental justice affirms the funda-mental right to political, economic, cultural,and environmental self-determination of allpeoples.

6. Environmental justice demands the cessa-tion of the production of all toxins,hazardous wastes, and radioactive materi-als, and that all past and current producersbe held strictly accountable to the peoplefor detoxification and the containment atthe point of production.

7. Environmental justice demands the right toparticipate as equal partners at every level ofdecision making, including needs assessment,planning, implementation, enforcement, andevaluation.

8. Environmental justice affirms the right of allworkers to a safe and healthy work envi-ronment, without being forced to choosebetween an unsafe livelihood and unem-ployment. It also affirms the right of thosewho work at home to be free from envi-ronmental hazards.

9. Environmental justice protects the right ofvictims of environmental injustice to

receive full compensation and reparationsfor damages as well as quality health care.

10. Environmental justice considers govern-mental acts of environmental injustice aviolation of international law, the UniversalDeclaration on Human Rights, and theUnited Nations Convention on Genocide.

11. Environmental justice must recognize aspecial legal and natural relationship ofNative Peoples to the U.S. governmentthrough treaties, agreements, compacts,and covenants affirming sovereignty andself-determination.

12. Environmental justice affirms the need forurban and rural ecological policies to cleanup and rebuild our cities and rural areas inbalance with nature, honoring the culturalintegrity of all our communities, and pro-viding fair access for all to the full range ofresources.

13. Environmental justice calls for the strictenforcement of principles of informed con-sent, and a halt to the testing of experimentalreproductive and medical procedures andvaccinations on people of color.

14. Environmental justice opposes the destruc-tive operations of multinational corporations.

15. Environmental justice opposes militaryoccupation, repression, and exploitation oflands, peoples, and cultures, and other lifeforms.

16. Environmental justice calls for the educationof present and future generations, whichemphasizes social and environmental issues,based on our experience and an apprecia-tion of our diverse cultural perspectives.

17. Environmental justice requires that we, asindividuals, make personal and consumerchoices to consume as little of MotherEarth’s resources and to produce as littlewaste as possible; and make the consciousdecision to challenge and reprioritize ourlifestyles to ensure the health of the naturalworld for present and future generations.

Source: The First National People of Color Environmental Justice Summit, 1991.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 93

94 Environmental Justice


Such a process cannot address all environmentaljustice concerns, however, because many stem fromthe practices of private industrial concerns. Many ofthese issues must be addressed through a range ofregulatory tools, including zoning, the equitableenforcement of environmental regulations, occupa-tional health and safety standards, and other methods,only some of which are directly pertinent to planningand urban design. However, all of these concerns areinterrelated in their impact on the community itself, soall of them may affect the tenor of public participationin a decision-making process where environmentaljustice is a primary public concern. Moreover, Chapter5 of the American Planning Association’s (APA)Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook notes the poten-tial for “unexpected outcomes” as the result of afair-share siting process because the possibility existsof discovering a more environmentally benign alter-native solution that better satisfies all groups withinthe city. The same could be said of environmental jus-tice reviews for many similar decisions in both theprivate and public sector.

REMEDIAL EFFORTS

Like most issues involving a history of racial and eco-nomic inequity, environmental justice can highlight aneed to rectify past mistakes or injustices, particularlythose disproportionately affecting disadvantagedpopulations. These can involve both public and pri-vate efforts, depending on the source of the problemand the actors and resources available, but includesuch initiatives as testing children for lead poisoning,which often has resulted from peeling lead-basedpaint in older housing. In extreme cases, such as theone at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York, in thelate 1970s and early 1980s, it may involve buying outand relocating an entire affected neighborhood inorder to remove people from a major source of con-tamination.

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order12898, the first presidential directive directly address-ing environmental justice concerns in a systematicfashion. The Clinton initiative included the creation ofthe National Environmental Justice Advisory Councilwithin U.S. EPA and the adoption of departmentalenvironmental justice strategies by 17 different federalagencies with environmental or land-use responsibil-ities, including Transportation, Interior, and Energy.These all became part of the Interagency WorkingGroup on Environmental Justice, with U.S. EPA serv-

ing as the lead agency. In the ensuing decade, somestates followed that model with their own environ-mental justice initiatives.

Geographic information systems (GIS) havebecome critical tools in documenting or disprovingclaims of environmental racism or inequity. By mar-rying database and mapping capabilities, thesesystems enable planners to depict graphically andquantitatively where in a community or region disad-vantaged populations may be sufferingdisproportionate negative impacts or relative depriva-tion of environmental amenities. This analysis, inturn, can empower both participating communitygroups and planners themselves to devise policy andland-use solutions that can minimize, reduce, or obvi-ate such threats, or redress imbalances in thedistribution of environmental goods. The process ofdeveloping the information can and often shouldinvolve direct participation by the affected popula-tions. Thus, GIS and similar tools become effectivemeans of resolving or underscoring long-standingfears or suspicions of such inequities. Fair-share for-mulas can then help to determine better ways ofbalancing these burdens within the community.

The growing use of the Internet for facilitating com-munity participation, combined with analytical toolslike GIS, will in coming years probably make envi-ronmental justice an increasingly information-basedmovement that is considerably more sophisticatedthan some of the initial statistical studies of the 1980s.This may in itself serve to redress some past socialinequities in information sharing that allowed envi-ronmental injustices to flourish.

REFERENCES

Meck, Stuart,ed. 2002. Growing SmartSM LegislativeGuidebook: Model Statutes for Planning andManagement of Change, 2 vols. Chicago: AmericanPlanning Association.

New York, City of, Department of City Planning.1995. Fair Share: An Assessment of New York City’sFacility Siting Process.

United Church of Christ. 1987. Commission forRacial Justice. Toxic Wastes and Race in The UnitedStates: A National Report on the Racial andSocioeconomic Characteristics of Communities withHazardous Waste Sites. New York: Public DataAccess, Inc.

See also:Advocacy and Equity PlanningEnvironmental Impact Assessment

James C. Schwab, AICP, American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois

Demographic

Percent MinorityPercent Foreign Language (Subdivide as Appropriate) Percent Immigrant or Foreign-Born Percent Low-Income

Geographic Factors

Air Inversion PotentialRegional Air Monitoring DataWater Quality in Specific Water BodiesGroundwater Quality by LocationSoil Contamination Where Tested

Public Health Data

Lead Poisoning IncidenceAsthma IncidenceEnvironmentally Related Cancer “Hot Spots”Other, as Relevant

Final Analysis

Environmental Criteria

Air Emissions (Including TRI Data)Water Pollution (Including TRI Data)Land-Based Sources

TYPICAL DATA LAYERS FOR GIS INENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS Source: American Planning Association.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 94

Sustainability 95

PLANNING MOVEMENTS

Sustainability is a concept that may be interpreted inmany different ways. For some, sustainability can beachieved by living in compact communities, usingpublic transit, minimizing energy consumption, andrecycling waste. For others, it conjures up images ofliving communally in small, organic-farm-orientedcommunities with a strong sense of unity and beingsurrounded by wide-open spaces. The truth seems tobe that each of these notions of sustainability (as wellas numerous others) has some validity. In reality, sus-tainability seems to be more a process than a set ofconcrete ideas, one whose basic precepts evolve asconditions, ideals, and technological capabilitieschange.

PRINCIPLES OF THE MOVEMENT

Changing ways of thinking invariably affects howdecisions are made and the outcomes of those deci-sions. With time, the culmination of a number ofindividual unsustainable decisions can becometrends. Assuming that a trend can be represented asa sphere with mass and momentum, it is clear that themomentum of the trend, unless acted upon, will leadto a continuation of existing trends.

Sustainability first and foremost requires changingour thought process for approaching developmentissues in our communities. This new way of thinking isbased on six key principles: future-oriented/long-term,bounded by limits, natural/geographic, means-oriented,holistic/interconnected, and participatory.

Future-Oriented/Long-TermSustainability is just as concerned with planning forfuture generations as it is with planning for the pres-

ent generation. Many elected officials do not lookmuch beyond the next election when contemplatinglocal development issues. Even long-range planningdocuments typically do not consider more than a 10-to 20-year time frame. Though plans must considernear-term issues, solution to immediate problemsmust consider the consequences of actions on futuregenerations.

Bounded by LimitsSustainable planning approaches development with aconsciousness of limits to a community’s local devel-opment and population potential—a concept thatborrows heavily from the notion of “carrying capac-ity.” From an ecological perspective, carrying capacityis usually defined as the maximum population of agiven species that can be supported indefinitely in aspecified habitat without permanently impairing theproductivity of that habitat. The term as generallyused by planners means the ability of natural andman-made systems to support the demands of vari-ous uses. A sustainable community recognizes thepotential for human development is finite and seeksto live, develop, and operate within the natural limitsidentified. Techniques such as the EcologicalFootprint concept, which measures various categoriesof human consumption and then translates them intothe amount of productive land required to supportsuch consumption, are useful in determining the realimpact of human activity on ecosystems.

Natural/Geographic Sustainability requires approaching matters based ontheir natural and geographic characteristics, not artifi-cial and political units. Most often, this involvesaddressing issues with respect to “ecoregional”boundaries. While there may not be precise agree-ment on where ecoregional boundaries lie, there is,in general, agreement that regional issues should beaddressed within a larger context of institutions struc-tured around ecological limits or characteristics.Ecoregional boundaries should be natural, not artifi-cial or arbitrary. If implemented, this ecoregionalfocus would allow a comprehensive approach toplanning that encourages cooperation, rather thancompetition, between communities.

Means-OrientedSustainable development approaches the functionalareas of planning (such as transportation, housing,and economic development) not as ends in them-selves, but rather as means to an end—the end beinga sustainable community. Looking at issues from anintegrated “means” perspective rather than an “ends”

perspective results in strategies with a longer-termfocus that more effectively addresses the root causesof problems.

Holistic/InterconnectedSustainability also abandons thinking about func-tional areas as separate from one another. Citygovernment is generally good at identifying problemsand assigning them to a particular department.However, this approach often results in solutions thatcause as many problems as they solve. Recognizingthe inherent interdependence of natural, built, politi-cal, economic, and organizations systems leads tochoices that often resolve multiple problems withoutthe adverse consequences of treating planning issuesas independent from each other.

ParticipatoryIdeally, sustainability is about focusing on the desiredoutcomes for people—a pursuit that broadens theprocess by which a community discovers, considers,and tackles particular issues. The individuals whoparticipate in decision making are the ones who setthe agenda of issues to be addressed and decide themanner by which the agenda is pursued. Therefore,limited participation in decision making can result inchoices benefiting the few at the expense of the com-munity as a whole. More sustainable choices can onlybe made through broad community participation inpublic decision making.

REFERENCES

Daly, Herman. 1972. Toward a Steady StateEconomy. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.

Ehrlich, Paul. 1968. The Population Bomb. NewYork: Ballantine Books.

Krizek, Kevin J. and Joe Power. 1996. A PlannersGuide to Sustainable Development. PAS Report 467.Chicago: American Planning Association.

President’s Council on Sustainable Development.February 1996. Sustainable America: A NewConsensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and aHealthy Environment for the Future. Washington, DC.

World Commission on Environment andDevelopment. 1987. Our Common Future. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

See also:Energy-Efficient DevelopmentEnvironmental Impact AssessmentRegionsWatersheds

SUSTAINABILITY

Kevin J. Krizek, Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Joseph P. Power, AICP

CurrentState of

Community

Continuationof Existing

Trends

Pathway T

oward

Sustain

ability

ChangeMomentum

Change

Chang

e

ASustainable Community

CONTINUATION OF TRENDS Source: Krizek and Power, 1996.

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 95

96 Healthy Cities and Communities


The Healthy Cities movement (or, as it is termed in theUnited States, the Healthy Cities and Communitiesmovement) is rooted in the goal of improving thehealth and quality of life for residents of cities and com-munities. The premise of the movement is that whereand how one lives, and the lifestyle choices available toeach person, have a much greater impact on a person’shealth than does the formal health care delivery system.According to the World Health Organization (WHO),“The fundamental conditions and resources for healthare peace, shelter, education, food, income, a stableecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice andequity” (Hancock and Duhl 1988). Additional condi-tions supportive of a healthy city include residentsbeing safe from violence, avoiding illegal drugs andexcessive alcohol use, having access to basic medi-cines, and having friends and family to rely upon forsupport when needed (Tibbetts 2003).

In European countries, as well as Canada, Australia,and others, Healthy Cities programs are managed bymunicipal governments, which take direction fromnational programs that set standards and procedures.The national programs in these countries are based ona World Health Organization model. In the UnitedStates, the Healthy Cities and Communities movement ischaracterized by local interdisciplinary coalitions work-ing together on site-specific or citywide health problemsidentified by the public as high-priority issues.

Leonard Duhl, professor of urban planning andpublic health at the University of California-Berkeleyand a well-known sociologist, is credited with havinglaunched the movement internationally with a pres-entation he delivered at a 1985 health policyconference in Toronto. Key WHO representativeswere at the conference. Shortly thereafter, WHOembraced the concept, and the international HealthyCities movement was born. European nations andcities were the first to develop Healthy Cities pro-grams, followed by Australia, Canada, and finally theUnited States. Today, there are more than 8,000Healthy Cities programs or projects in various stagesof development worldwide (Tibbetts 2003).

ELEVEN CHARACTERISTICS OF AHEALTHY CITY/COMMUNITY In a 1988 paper for WHO describing and synthesiz-ing the literature and state of practice of the growingmovement, authors Duhl and Trevor Hancock identi-fied 11 characteristics of a healthy city:

1. A clean, safe physical environment of high quality(including housing quality)

2. An ecosystem that is stable now and sustainablein the long term

3. A strong, mutually supportive and nonexploitativecommunity

4. A high degree of participation and control by thepublic over the decisions affecting their lives,health, and well-being

5. The meeting of basic needs (for food, water, shel-ter, income, safety, and work) for all the city’speople

6. Access to a wide variety of experiences andresources, with the chance for a wide variety ofcontact, interaction, and communication

7. A diverse, vital, and innovative city economy 8. The encouragement of connectedness with the

past, and the cultural and biological heritage of citydwellers and with other groups and individuals

9. A forum that is compatible with and enhances thepreceding characteristics

10.An optimal level of appropriate public health andsick care services accessible to all

11.High health status (high levels of positive healthand low levels of disease)

CONTRASTING THE HEALTHYCITIES AND SUSTAINABLECOMMUNITIES MOVEMENTS

While the origins and issue emphases of the HealthyCities movement and the sustainable communitiesmovements are different, there are similarities betweenthe two approaches. Both call for a broad understand-ing of the relationships among people, the naturalenvironment, and the built environment. To contrastthem, Healthy Cities-type projects focus more on humanhealth and well-being, whereas sustainable communityprojects focus on the interaction between the naturalenvironment and the economy (Roseland 1998).

Mark Roseland, professor of Resource Managementat Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, BritishColumbia, has written extensively on sustainabilityand has made the following four observations aboutwhat the sustainability movement can learn from thehealthy communities movement.

• Wide community participation. Like sustainabilityprojects, Healthy Communities efforts seek toinvolve people from all walks of life. Bothapproaches frequently use dialogue and consensus-based processes to assist citizens and stakeholdersto envision a desired future for their community.

• Multi- or intersectorial involvement. Both approachessee the necessity of involving experts from govern-ment, business, nonprofits, and citizen organizationsin cooperative and collaborative efforts to improvethe community using the “dimensions [that each sec-tor] emphasizes.”

• Local government commitment. The “healthy com-munities” approach (outside the United States)places greater emphasis on broad local governmentinvolvement than does the community sustainabilityapproach, which tends to rely on grassroots-basedinitiatives.

• Healthy public policy. In the Healthy Cities model,local governments may respond to ongoing publichealth problems (e.g., rising obesity rates in bothyouth and adults) or new crises (e.g., bioterrorism) byenacting new legislation or adding new services. The“local sustainability” tradition is very cautious aboutadding new specialized services, as opposed to alter-ing existing services. Both movements emphasize theresponsibility for health lies with citizens and local pri-vate, governmental and nonprofit organizations.

RELATIONSHIP OF THE HEALTHYCITIES MOVEMENT TO PLANNINGAND URBAN DESIGN

Planning and Healthy CitiesMany of the tools and approaches for engaging thepublic that are applied in the Healthy Cities move-ment rely on the same citizen participation techniquesused through a comprehensive or neighborhoodplanning process. In current planning practice,laypeople come together over a series of weeks,months, and even years with planners, urban design-ers, and others to discuss their shared values, currentobstacles, and goals for the community with respectto land use, transportation, safety, housing, and otherelements. A visioning process for a community

launching a Healthy Cities initiative involves the samesort of identification of values, goals, and problems,but with a greater emphasis on health outcomes thanin a comprehensive planning process. In both con-texts, the public is guided through a similar process toidentify problems, explore solutions, develop feasiblealternative policies for the future, and, ultimately,decide on the most appropriate course of action.

Urban Design and Healthy CitiesWith respect to urban design, both Healthy Cities ini-tiatives and local plans commonly call for physicalimprovements to the built environment. Such improve-ments include making neighborhoods more walkable,reducing dependence on the automobile by buildingor extending transit systems, taming traffic in neigh-borhoods to reduce pedestrian and bicycle injuries,connecting open space on a communitywide orregionwide scale using greenways or linear parks, andplanting street trees to provide shade and mitigateheat, among many other efforts. These improvementswould ordinarily be codified in a municipal ordinance,and design guidelines would be prepared for devel-opers and property owners to understand what isrequired of them and what capital improvements thatmunicipality will provide.

Recent Connections Finally, beginning in the mid- to late-1990s, the pub-lic health field arrived at the conclusion that improvedurban design and planning could be a key part of thesolutions to significant health problems, such as obe-sity, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and mentalillness. In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention and several private foundations, the largestof which is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,funded numerous studies to discern which changes tocommunity design have the highest likelihood ofimproving public health. Some of the urban designtools being analyzed include increased developmentdensities to create walkable neighborhoods, mixed-use development, transit system planning, and bicycleand pedestrian systems. At the same time research isunderway to form a base of evidence on the relation-ships between the built environment, physical activity,and health, many citizen advocacy groups haveemerged with a focus on the relationship betweenhealth, physical activity, and the built environment.Also, numerous nongovernmental organizations,including the American Planning Association, theInternational City/County Management Association,and the American Institute of Architects are preparingtraining sessions and other resources for their mem-berships and the public on this issue.

REFERENCES

Hancock, Trevor, and Leonard Duhl. 1988.“Promoting Health in the Urban Context.” WHOHealth Cities Papers, No. 1.

Roseland, Mark. 1998. Toward Sustainable Communities:Resources for Citizens and Their Governments. GabriolaIsland, BC: New Society Publishers.

Tibbetts, John. 2003. “Building Civic Health.” Environ-mental Health Perspectives. 111, no. 7 (June): p. A400.

See also:SidewalksStreet Networks and Street ConnectivityWalkability

HEALTHY CITIES AND COMMUNITIES

Marya Morris, AICP, American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois

APA_Part1 11/10/05 2:43 PM Page 96

Date post:	06-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

catalogimages.wiley.com › images › db › pdf › 9780471475811… · 4 Plan Making PART 1...

Documents