Developers and Cities

Developers and cities often have a love - hate relationship that in some cases leaves developer and the city in an adversarial condition. It's unfortunate that well-intentioned people cannot strive for greater understanding and respect. The relationship between people who share common goals (although perhaps for different ends) should be constructive, meaningful, and positive. Instead, we run into problems when decisions made by city officials seem to be restrictive of growth and development. The situation becomes exacerbated by example after example across the country where some developers have the feeling that the communities in which they are legally required to work are against development of any kind.

The truth is somewhere in between. Most communities are pro-development. Every community wants to grow to be able to provide better services to its citizens. Communities need a variety of housing types, shopping opportunities, employment and education opportunities, and places to gather for community events, in addition to providing all the emergency and policing services that people require. They only differ in how they best provide opportunities for growth and regulations which promote various values.

Developers, on the other hand, are often only responsible to their shareholders who want to know how a particular action will affect their bottom line. Thus, there is a careful balance that must be found between the need to create economically efficient houses and buildings, meeting the market demands, and the requirements of the city.

Despite these different ends, cities and developers want the same thing: an attractive, well-functioning community.

Cities are responsible to the citizens of the city for the way they fulfill their duties. They have to make and enforce laws which will promote the values of the city. Often this promotion will have a negative effect on the income of the developers. For example, properly draining a plot of land is of vital importance to a community (who wants water in their house when it rains?). It falls to the city council and city staff to figure out what is proper drainage. Now, any drainage costs the developer money, and developers will often grouse at the amount that is being demanded of them. On the other hand, properly drained lots are more attractive and will sell for more. Those costs, however, are found later on and trickle in, while mass-grading a site costs developers now.
The role of an effective planner is to reach across this divide to create bridges of understanding. An effective planner has a vision for the community, informed by the values of the community, which the planner is able to effectively communicate to every member of the process - from the city council to the developer to the individual citizen. This ability to communicate the community's vision is perhaps the most important thing a planner can do because this enables the planner to generate the buy-in from the players to create laws and abide by them.

The old phrase about fighting city hall is unfortunate. We shouldn't be fighting each other. We should be fighting the true evils in our society - ignorance, apathy, and despair. Developers, city officials, and community members have the right to expect mutual understanding in growth.

City Planners as Bloggers

I don't know why this is, but I appear to be one of the few active city planner bloggers, at least on blogspot. Since blogspot is free, I would have assumed that there would be more. Maybe they are all more diligent than I am. Or maybe they don't think that this is an interesting way to interact with people. So far, of course, there hasn't been a whole lot of what I would call interaction...

If you were to click on my profile (over there to the right where it says view my complete profile or whatever it says) you would see some interesting things about me. If you were to click on the city planner words next to occupation it would take you to people who have also put in city planner in that spot. Most of them are inactive, but there are some that are active and some that are actually related to planning... I guess that some people view a blog as a kind of journal for getting their families onto the web so others can see them - not that there's anything wrong with that. My goal has been to get people more interested in the community of Mont Belvieu and what's going on here.

It seems that some of you have been looking for postings of new things that are going on in Mont Belvieu. I could tell you - I have a very definite idea of what is going on for almost every parcel in our City. But I prefer this space to talk about how communities are made great, which often has little to do with what is currently going on. Development happens, it's true. But how to do it properly and how to appropriately care for the people who will eventually live there is of greater concern to me than the actual buildings.

Maybe that's strange, but that's where I am.

For now.

If you want to talk about new things going on in Mont Belvieu, come on in or send me an email. I promise I will respond with more information than you ever wanted...

What is a City Planner?

Based on the site meter at the bottom of the blog, most of you have come to this website wondering what a planner does. But no one stays for long. Why is that? What are you looking for? And why wouldn't you believe someone who does planning everyday? Am I boring? Is that it? Or are you looking for something that seems more authoritative?

I have a master's degree in urban planning. I have been invovled with planning for almost two years now, and I have moved from a planning intern to planner I to now the city planner for the City of Mont Belvieu, where I have been for the last 6 months. I may have something to say about how to plan. There are more authoritative sources, I am sure. But I certainly have my own ideas. And besides, look around. Are you satisfied with the way things are? If not, why do you go to those tired old sources for more of the same? Don't you want to look at someone's ideas who are different? Someone who may not have been published (yet). Someone who is doing the job everyday. Someone who shares your values and ideas, has a vision for the future and knows how to share it, and can do something about it. Well, look no further.

Planning is all about vision. Look at the past and learn. Look at the present and apply. Look to the future and dream. Do you like the way your city looks? Functions? Are there enough opportunities for you to share and be involved? What about the youth? The elderly? Those with no children? Those with 14 children? Alternative lifestyles (not just gay and lesbian, but other non-traditional household groups - siblings, for example - living together to share mutual benefits)? How about the environment? Who is concerned about that? What can city planning do to help these folks, concepts, values, and priorities? Anything?

I think so. It's what gets me out of bed in the morning. There is a lot of the day-to-day regulation that is required as a city planner. But the things that keep a person returning to the job are the potential to affect things for the better, to speak to someone about their problems, and to reach out across perceived divides to create bridges of understanding. What do you need? Tell me about it. What is important to you? If you never speak up, nothing will ever happen that will improve the situation. And the things that are important to you may not be important to others, particularly those with the ability to make changes. But if you speak with a voice that cannot be silenced, people must listen.

I am listening.

Family - The Fundamental Unit of Society

According to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

I don't think anything could be more clear or irrefutable. I also don't think that there is any idea that is under greater pressure and attack, both aggressively and passively.

It is the responsibility of conscientious leaders (planners included) to determine ways in which appropriate family activities may be sponsored in an effort to foster stronger families.

Ultimately, the functions of a good city are all directed towards this end - the creation of roads serves to get goods and services in support of families, subdivision of land allows for jobs, homes, and recreational activities within the city, city and state protective services are formulated to protect families, and city laws and governments have as their highest and best consideration, "how will this action affect families within our city?"

The question is then well posed - what is a family. Traditionally, a family consisted of a mother and father, children, and occasionally extended family members. This continues to be the most common kind of family.

Recently, however, there has come a shift from traditional to non-traditional families. Single-mothers and fathers, widows and widowers, sibling groups, and same-gender households all have seen dramatic rises in number and prominence. And even within traditional families, specific needs change as the family changes - children at one age need some kinds of services, while others may not need those at all (day care needs change to recreation opportunities change to educational requirements ultimately lead to employment opportunities). Effective cities allow for housing, education, vocational/professional, and recreation opportunites without having to go too far to acquire them. As the population of the United States ages, there will be additional requirements for health services, elder care, and low-maintenance housing. As we look forward to the future, steps must be taken to preserve the lifestyles of all people, not just the rich and famous.

Monster House - McMansion - Garage Mahal

So last night I had this dream. This was really a dream - that wasn't a clever way to begin this post. In my dream, I was back working for DesignTeam in Salt Lake City doing a flooring bid estimate take off for a house that obviously still haunts me. The house was for a prominent local entrepreneur and was over 10,000 square feet. Yes, that's right. His house was bigger than many suburban residential lots. There has been a trend over the last 100 years to want a bigger house - and now the average garage is bigger than the average home back in the 40s and 50s. Why?

The person I am referring to had 2 children. The house had a hidden space behind a bookcase (now you all know about it - some secret, huh?) Meanwhile, there are people in the world, even in our own country, who don't have anywhere to live.

I don't know this person. I don't know how much he does for the poor. I am not judging him on anything other than the number of square feet per person in his household. It works out to 2,500 square feet. That's bigger than my house. Again, there are people who don't have anywhere to live.

I am a big believer in the sanctity of the home. A person's home should be the place in the world where one can feel safe, comfortable, and peaceful. It is a place where children are nurtured and nourished, where fond memories are created and activities are experienced. We can all remember the house where we grew up. The question I have is, does bigger mean better? Just because we can afford to build a gi-nomous house, should we? Wouldn't our resources be better used in other ways, including educating, feeding, clothing, and housing the many, many people all over the world who could use some of those resources?

I know the arguments - that I am the one who worked for my money. I can use it how I want. Or that I gave at the door, and now it's time for me to get my own. Or that it's a waste of time and money to throw it away on people who don't know how to use it. These arguments are so full of logical fallacies manufactured to assuage the collective consciences of the McMansioners that it is almost laughable. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I have always been taught that where much is given, much is required. We have been given stewardship over the earth and it's resources (it really doesn't belong to us - we belong to it: we came out of it and will eventually return). So what we do with our time here will be viewed under the microscope of history as either positive or negative. And ultimately, the best judge may be how well we used our resources to care for each other.

I don't think that this is appropriate.

Especially in light of this: