I think it could go without saying that planners are concerned with the future of our communities. Whether a planner is a land developer, transportation planner, environmental land planner, regional MPO planner, or local government planner (like me!), we are concerned about the physical environment (roads, buildings, etc). We have an interest in smaller scale things (the number of bricks on a given building's facade) and on larger scale things (how the construction of the Three Rivers Gorge Dam in China affects the ability of our City to obtain concrete and steel to build our water tower - a thought I have actually perused).
In this month's copy of Planning, the professional journal for planners, there is an article about urban design. It is an excerpt from a book written by Emily Talen, a professor at Arizona State University. She writes that there are many things that a planner must be concerned about, but what makes a "planner" unique in the process is our ability to reach out to people and build relationships that are inclusive and diverse.
A community is not the buildings, roads, parks, etc, that make up the physical environment. I have written about how the built environment affects our psyche - we are affected by buildings we have only ever driven past, which weigh in our consciousness like clouds in the sky. But our communities, as I say, are NOT these things. Or rather, they are not composed solely of these things. A community is inherently more complex than the built environment - or even the affect of the built environment.
In the largest, most inclusive sense, a community is like a large web of interactions. Yes, the built environment plays an important role in all of this. But that's only a small portion of the web. What about the natural environment? The social environment? What about the transportation network? Commercial, retail, and industrial areas? Employment opportunities? Schools? Religion? And yes, even though the discussion of it may be taboo, what about interracial interactions? Do we afford people the opportunity to interact with one another on a meaningful basis? Do we provide appropriate spaces AND the impetus for gathering and social interaction?
Ms. Talen explains that there are five basic principles that urban design should rest on:
1. Sustainability. How are we ensuring that our design will be able to remain? Is there an appropriate mix of people, spaces, uses, ideas?
2. Incrementalism. This means that the city is built up slowly, over generations. The long term view is required for a good community to develop. Slow, methodical, and visionary approaches to planning and community development are what is most needed. Anything else looses the feel so desired and required by successful communities.
3. Social context. Careful attention should be taken to ensure that economic concerns do not override the need for people to have meaningful interactions in public spaces.
4. Policy and program. Having a clear vision informs the regulations required to get to the fruition of that vision.
5. Layers. Any successful design centers around viable options and alternatives. This becomes especially important as we plan for the very long term (10-20 years or more). These alternatives can become enmeshed into the fabric of the community, making something that is inherently stronger and more resilient than a top-down approach.
This was an interesting article. I think that planners and community leaders can often neglect things like social context and environmental justice. People, after all, make up our community. It's the people who live here that I serve and must consider as I work.
In this month's copy of Planning, the professional journal for planners, there is an article about urban design. It is an excerpt from a book written by Emily Talen, a professor at Arizona State University. She writes that there are many things that a planner must be concerned about, but what makes a "planner" unique in the process is our ability to reach out to people and build relationships that are inclusive and diverse.
A community is not the buildings, roads, parks, etc, that make up the physical environment. I have written about how the built environment affects our psyche - we are affected by buildings we have only ever driven past, which weigh in our consciousness like clouds in the sky. But our communities, as I say, are NOT these things. Or rather, they are not composed solely of these things. A community is inherently more complex than the built environment - or even the affect of the built environment.
In the largest, most inclusive sense, a community is like a large web of interactions. Yes, the built environment plays an important role in all of this. But that's only a small portion of the web. What about the natural environment? The social environment? What about the transportation network? Commercial, retail, and industrial areas? Employment opportunities? Schools? Religion? And yes, even though the discussion of it may be taboo, what about interracial interactions? Do we afford people the opportunity to interact with one another on a meaningful basis? Do we provide appropriate spaces AND the impetus for gathering and social interaction?
Ms. Talen explains that there are five basic principles that urban design should rest on:
1. Sustainability. How are we ensuring that our design will be able to remain? Is there an appropriate mix of people, spaces, uses, ideas?
2. Incrementalism. This means that the city is built up slowly, over generations. The long term view is required for a good community to develop. Slow, methodical, and visionary approaches to planning and community development are what is most needed. Anything else looses the feel so desired and required by successful communities.
3. Social context. Careful attention should be taken to ensure that economic concerns do not override the need for people to have meaningful interactions in public spaces.
4. Policy and program. Having a clear vision informs the regulations required to get to the fruition of that vision.
5. Layers. Any successful design centers around viable options and alternatives. This becomes especially important as we plan for the very long term (10-20 years or more). These alternatives can become enmeshed into the fabric of the community, making something that is inherently stronger and more resilient than a top-down approach.
This was an interesting article. I think that planners and community leaders can often neglect things like social context and environmental justice. People, after all, make up our community. It's the people who live here that I serve and must consider as I work.
3 comments :
good article. is it inherently impractical to have a city plan with a view greater than 20 to 30 years out? i never hear city leaders speaking in terms of an hundred year viability.
your plan on city quiet appreciable but it should be implemented in the states
http://envrionment.blogspot.com
Hand - Thanks! City plans tend to focus on things that are 20 to 30 years in scope for a number of reasons, some of which are practicality (as you mention), scale, service time limits (not many people live long enough to implement things longer than 30 years out), etc. Some of the goals, while worthy, will of necessity take 100 years to complete. Further, some goals must be pushed back because of environmental or economic situations. Thus, a good plan is not a static thing but is fluid and adapts to conditions as they arise and the ever evolving morals and desires of the community. The best plans are those that are revisited and revised on a regular basis (usually every five years or so).
A Lot - I agree that this kind of thing should be implemented on a state or regional basis. Currently there is no forum for that kind of thinking - the largest discussion we have is on the local-regional MPO or COG level (as opposed to a multi-state regional approach). Interesting idea! I wonder what can be done to get something like that started?
Post a Comment