Planning Theory vs Reality

dtzeigler · April 7th, 2009, 05:51 PM

Theory vs. Reality

One of the coolest things about my profession is planning theory. Studying how people live and interact with spaces has always been fascinating to me. Planning theory is an open conversation that almost anyone can have about how they experience the urban environment. You do not need to be a City Planner to enjoy Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. You also do not need a PhD either to discuss planning theory in depth. As one former co-worker told me, “this aint rocket science.” But the application of planning theory to the real world is…complicated.

One of the new theories that is all the rage in planning right now, is New Urbanism. To give you a quick summary of New Urbanism, it is the application of how main streets used to be planned, focusing on walkable streets and designing buildings with a pedestrian scale. New Urbanism seeks to replace the strip shopping center with large parking lot for a main street that pulls buildings closer to the street for easier pedestrian access. In a nutshell, New Urbanism seeks to create a sense of place.

As a planning theory, New Urbanism sounds great, what planner wouldn’t want to implement these guidelines to create walkable, auto-independent neighborhoods? What planner wouldn’t want to chuck their 300+ page zoning code for the simplicity of New Urbanist principles?

Well, the ultimate goal of New Urbanist principles is to help create a simple code that encourages land uses that we want to see instead of matrix of prohibited land uses, the process of determining that code is not simple at all. As life would have it, in trying to reduce the number of regulations in the code, applying New Urbanist principles can actually increase the regulation of land.

How can that be? Obviously some planner must be doing something wrong. Well when applying new urbanist principles many agencies create several standards of aesthetic design of how a building must look and how it is placed on the site. If a developer and property owner cannot conform to the new principles, then they risk having their building permit rejected. The trade off for the developer is that decisions on aesthetics are no longer made at the whims of a planning board and agency and for the public, planning decisions would not longer be done in a piecemeal fashion.

Sounds rather strict but fair, right? What would be the problem in creating a more consistent system on a more holistic level? The problem is that almost everything built in cities within the last 50 years was built in a piecemeal fashion…and I mean everything.

Streamlining sidewalk widths, I discovered there were over 10 different widths within my plan boundary (in fact some blocks had multiple sidewalk widths).
Regulating the distance of lampposts for better lighting, I discovered there was no rhyme or reason for the existing distance between lampposts.
Planters, everybody is going to make the planer the same size right? Wrong, I discovered my plan boundary had multiple planter sizes.
Awning size, how do you determine the correct size and position when every other store has different size, shape and color?

So what’s your decision? What arbitrary number do you choose to sync your new urbanist principles with existing conditions and be able to justify that number which will surely disenfranchise some property owner? Remember, these numbers have to hold before the critical eye of development attorneys. Complicated, right? And this was the easy stuff, I’m not even getting into the major details such as limiting building height, parking restrictions, reducing street widths and pre-determining building placement on lots.

While new heights and distances maybe arbitrary the existing dimensions of a piecemeal town or study area are not. Most of the times there are several concrete reasons of why there are different sidewalk widths of a town. In many cases, government may have mandated changes at the time of development or permit. Why does this matter? Well the most successful block in your town or plan boundary may employ none of the guidelines of your new urbanist principles and may have to be redesigned to meet the new standards. Or your town of plan boundary may include an historic district right smack in the middle of an area, planners have highlighted for increased density.

What do you do? If you force new regulations on the most successful block and historic district you will most likely destroy the sense of place that you were trying to create. On the other hand exempting the two areas will make your overall town or plan boundary inconsistent. What was a simple planning matter will now become a major political battle in which major constituents will let their opinions be heard to local politicians who must make that call.

Slartibartfas · April 7th, 2009, 06:40 PM

Is this a thread about comparing theorz vs. reality or a thread about how bad "new urbanism" is fitted for the real world.

Anyway, maybe I got something wrong, but where does it say that new urbanism means existing city parts have to feature all unified street width?

Why does a city have to be monolithic, is that something new urbanism demands?

What would be very interesting for this thread would be to get indeed practical examples of new urbanism and how they turned out in reality and if they failed, what the problem was and how the concept could be possibly improved.

PS:
I can't really see how it should be such an impossible job to determine some limits for specific features of new developments. Of course every limit has to be to a certain extend arbitrary, that does not mean it all however that the magnitude it is to be found in is just random.

dtzeigler · April 8th, 2009, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Is this a thread about comparing theorz vs. reality or a thread about how bad "new urbanism" is fitted for the real world.

Anyway, maybe I got something wrong, but where does it say that new urbanism means existing city parts have to feature all unified street width?

Why does a city have to be monolithic, is that something new urbanism demands?

What would be very interesting for this thread would be to get indeed practical examples of new urbanism and how they turned out in reality and if they failed, what the problem was and how the concept could be possibly improved.

PS:
I can't really see how it should be such an impossible job to determine some limits for specific features of new developments. Of course every limit has to be to a certain extend arbitrary, that does not mean it all however that the magnitude it is to be found in is just random.

It is about theories, I just used the latest theory, New Urbanism as an example since it is a theory that I deal with the most as a planner.

New Urbanism doesnt call for one standard street width but it does call for multiple street widths based on a development transect which can range from 3 to 5 given the sixe of your city. If a street doesnt align with the specified street then New Urbanism proposes it conforms to a new width.

As for providing examples, I do think taht is a good idea. What I was trying to get at in this post is that theories which can sometimes seem like no-brainers can actually be very hard to implement.

Slartibartfas · April 8th, 2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtzeigler

It is about theories, I just used the latest theory, New Urbanism as an example since it is a theory that I deal with the most as a planner.

New Urbanism doesnt call for one standard street width but it does call for multiple street widths based on a development transect which can range from 3 to 5 given the sixe of your city. If a street doesnt align with the specified street then New Urbanism proposes it conforms to a new width.

As for providing examples, I do think taht is a good idea. What I was trying to get at in this post is that theories which can sometimes seem like no-brainers can actually be very hard to implement.

Sorry if my initial response may have come across too harsh. I am fully aware that no theory is perfect, and most certainly new urbanism isn't either. I think I can fully agree with your statement that it can be very hard and tricky to implement it.

Its very interesting to hear from someone who really has to do with it on a professional basis.

See, I am not even sure if certain concepts belong to what is called "new urbanism". There might be slightly varying concepts in Europe but maybe its also just different names for very similar things. For example the Hafencity in Hamburg which is currently under construction and where we will see the heart of it, with a mixed use pedestrian shopping zone to be finished in maybe 2-3 years. The architectural style certainly is not very retro and as one could expect they did nothing which could be percieved as "fake", but in its functionality it pretty much tries to follow principles of traditional European urban centre rather than modernist goals.

While its in its nature a revival project of former docklands that quite a number of other cities have already realized, its in my opinion one of the most fascinating and at least in theory (

) convincing projects of that sort. Nearly all parts of the area will be constructed from scratch, several old buildings (the more representative ones from the former docklands) will be however restored, adopted and integrated to give the new district some exciting historical components as well. The entire district will and thats also interesting not function as strongly seperated exclave, but neatly add up to the existing old town / city centre right north of it.

Compared to those mall retrofits I guess the scale is pretty huge here. Even the more it will be highly interesting to see if all those theories behind it will come true and if this new district will become a success and maybe even more, what did not turn out as expected but nonetheless is successful.

Slartibartfas · April 7th, 2009, 07:11 PM

I have no idea if it falls into the category of new urbanism, but I am very interested in progressive suburban shopping mal retrofits. That means, old shopping malls get (perhaps only partially) torn down and replaced by urban concepts with open street retailing, mixed commericial residential use of a certain density.

The reason why this is fascinating is that these car dependend suburbs are oriented towards these shopping malls. They are therefore the best place where to start with a possible change.

An example for this is Cottonwood, Utah
www.ourcottonwood.com

Thats an artists impressio of the new centre. That its rather retro in architectural style is something I like, but certainly is not essential for the basic functionality. I would dare to claim that it adds however a lot to the liveability and quality of stay.

dtzeigler · April 8th, 2009, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

I have no idea if it falls into the category of new urbanism, but I am very interested in progressive suburban shopping mal retrofits. That means, old shopping malls get (perhaps only partially) torn down and replaced by urban concepts with open street retailing, mixed commericial residential use of a certain density.

The reason why this is fascinating is that these car dependend suburbs are oriented towards these shopping malls. They are therefore the best place where to start with a possible change.

An example for this is Cottonwood, Utah
www.ourcottonwood.com

Thats an artists impressio of the new centre. That its rather retro in architectural style is something I like, but certainly is not essential for the basic functionality. I would dare to claim that it adds however a lot to the liveability and quality of stay.

I think applying New Urbanist principles to redeveloped suburban shopping centers is a great idea and is the bext example of new Urbanism. I think the greatest challenge for New Urbanism is take urban environments that are seeking to improve and not looking to clean the slate and build anew. I really havent seen a New Urbanist project that took an urban environment and improved upon it without a total tear-down.

Slartibartfas · April 8th, 2009, 11:49 AM

Another project which has as target to create some sort of European urbanity with good PT access is still in its planning phase (The environmental impact planning has been just handed in for approval, the first mixed use phase should start with construction within a year or at worst within 2 years.)
Its the Flugfeld Aspern in Vienna. Located in a completely low density suburbian quarter with any major urban cluster pretty far away. So far there are two small old village cores which serve the neighborhood with services for daily needs. This project is very different therefore in nature from the Hafencity in Hamburg as it is pretty much planned to built an urban environment from scratch where nothing of this kind exists yet in the proximity. What are your guesses of that project to become a success? It looks risky in my eyes but even the more rewarding if it should succeed.

So far the best information about it, comes from the masterplan summary:
http://www.aspern-seestadt.at/resour...e-englisch.pdf

JPBrazil · April 8th, 2009, 03:32 PM

I'd like to see more examples of new urbanism.

Slartibartfas · April 8th, 2009, 04:18 PM

It seems to be that in the Netherlands you can observe something that seems to be quite close to New Urbanism. Its also pretty retro in style. They have several large projects there but I don't know too much about them either.

One example would be Brandevoort, a new suburb next to Helmond:

(Everything above the roundabout)

Its mostly residential, but the central, pseudo old town quarter is designed to host a major supermarket integrated in the overall streetscape as well with smaller shops services, public services (health, education etc) and a railwaystation.

April 7th, 2009, 05:51 PM	#1
dtzeigler Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 202	Planning Theory vs Reality Theory vs. Reality One of the coolest things about my profession is planning theory. Studying how people live and interact with spaces has always been fascinating to me. Planning theory is an open conversation that almost anyone can have about how they experience the urban environment. You do not need to be a City Planner to enjoy Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. You also do not need a PhD either to discuss planning theory in depth. As one former co-worker told me, “this aint rocket science.” But the application of planning theory to the real world is…complicated. One of the new theories that is all the rage in planning right now, is New Urbanism. To give you a quick summary of New Urbanism, it is the application of how main streets used to be planned, focusing on walkable streets and designing buildings with a pedestrian scale. New Urbanism seeks to replace the strip shopping center with large parking lot for a main street that pulls buildings closer to the street for easier pedestrian access. In a nutshell, New Urbanism seeks to create a sense of place. As a planning theory, New Urbanism sounds great, what planner wouldn’t want to implement these guidelines to create walkable, auto-independent neighborhoods? What planner wouldn’t want to chuck their 300+ page zoning code for the simplicity of New Urbanist principles? Well, the ultimate goal of New Urbanist principles is to help create a simple code that encourages land uses that we want to see instead of matrix of prohibited land uses, the process of determining that code is not simple at all. As life would have it, in trying to reduce the number of regulations in the code, applying New Urbanist principles can actually increase the regulation of land. How can that be? Obviously some planner must be doing something wrong. Well when applying new urbanist principles many agencies create several standards of aesthetic design of how a building must look and how it is placed on the site. If a developer and property owner cannot conform to the new principles, then they risk having their building permit rejected. The trade off for the developer is that decisions on aesthetics are no longer made at the whims of a planning board and agency and for the public, planning decisions would not longer be done in a piecemeal fashion. Sounds rather strict but fair, right? What would be the problem in creating a more consistent system on a more holistic level? The problem is that almost everything built in cities within the last 50 years was built in a piecemeal fashion…and I mean everything. Streamlining sidewalk widths, I discovered there were over 10 different widths within my plan boundary (in fact some blocks had multiple sidewalk widths). Regulating the distance of lampposts for better lighting, I discovered there was no rhyme or reason for the existing distance between lampposts. Planters, everybody is going to make the planer the same size right? Wrong, I discovered my plan boundary had multiple planter sizes. Awning size, how do you determine the correct size and position when every other store has different size, shape and color? So what’s your decision? What arbitrary number do you choose to sync your new urbanist principles with existing conditions and be able to justify that number which will surely disenfranchise some property owner? Remember, these numbers have to hold before the critical eye of development attorneys. Complicated, right? And this was the easy stuff, I’m not even getting into the major details such as limiting building height, parking restrictions, reducing street widths and pre-determining building placement on lots. While new heights and distances maybe arbitrary the existing dimensions of a piecemeal town or study area are not. Most of the times there are several concrete reasons of why there are different sidewalk widths of a town. In many cases, government may have mandated changes at the time of development or permit. Why does this matter? Well the most successful block in your town or plan boundary may employ none of the guidelines of your new urbanist principles and may have to be redesigned to meet the new standards. Or your town of plan boundary may include an historic district right smack in the middle of an area, planners have highlighted for increased density. What do you do? If you force new regulations on the most successful block and historic district you will most likely destroy the sense of place that you were trying to create. On the other hand exempting the two areas will make your overall town or plan boundary inconsistent. What was a simple planning matter will now become a major political battle in which major constituents will let their opinions be heard to local politicians who must make that call. __________________ http://bcplanningblog.blogspot.com/ A blog about city planning and urban culture

April 7th, 2009, 06:40 PM	#2
Slartibartfas Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Vienna Posts: 2,711	Is this a thread about comparing theorz vs. reality or a thread about how bad "new urbanism" is fitted for the real world. Anyway, maybe I got something wrong, but where does it say that new urbanism means existing city parts have to feature all unified street width? Why does a city have to be monolithic, is that something new urbanism demands? What would be very interesting for this thread would be to get indeed practical examples of new urbanism and how they turned out in reality and if they failed, what the problem was and how the concept could be possibly improved. PS: I can't really see how it should be such an impossible job to determine some limits for specific features of new developments. Of course every limit has to be to a certain extend arbitrary, that does not mean it all however that the magnitude it is to be found in is just random. __________________ --- Austrian for beginners: Chapter 27: Practice--- Find the proper translation for the following directions of movement: eini; owi; umi; aufi; umadum; außi

April 7th, 2009, 07:11 PM	#5
Slartibartfas Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Vienna Posts: 2,711	I have no idea if it falls into the category of new urbanism, but I am very interested in progressive suburban shopping mal retrofits. That means, old shopping malls get (perhaps only partially) torn down and replaced by urban concepts with open street retailing, mixed commericial residential use of a certain density. The reason why this is fascinating is that these car dependend suburbs are oriented towards these shopping malls. They are therefore the best place where to start with a possible change. An example for this is Cottonwood, Utah www.ourcottonwood.com Thats an artists impressio of the new centre. That its rather retro in architectural style is something I like, but certainly is not essential for the basic functionality. I would dare to claim that it adds however a lot to the liveability and quality of stay. __________________ --- Austrian for beginners: Chapter 27: Practice--- Find the proper translation for the following directions of movement: eini; owi; umi; aufi; umadum; außi

April 8th, 2009, 11:49 AM	#7
Slartibartfas Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Vienna Posts: 2,711	Another project which has as target to create some sort of European urbanity with good PT access is still in its planning phase (The environmental impact planning has been just handed in for approval, the first mixed use phase should start with construction within a year or at worst within 2 years.) Its the Flugfeld Aspern in Vienna. Located in a completely low density suburbian quarter with any major urban cluster pretty far away. So far there are two small old village cores which serve the neighborhood with services for daily needs. This project is very different therefore in nature from the Hafencity in Hamburg as it is pretty much planned to built an urban environment from scratch where nothing of this kind exists yet in the proximity. What are your guesses of that project to become a success? It looks risky in my eyes but even the more rewarding if it should succeed. So far the best information about it, comes from the masterplan summary: http://www.aspern-seestadt.at/resour...e-englisch.pdf __________________ --- Austrian for beginners: Chapter 27: Practice--- Find the proper translation for the following directions of movement: eini; owi; umi; aufi; umadum; außi

April 8th, 2009, 03:32 PM	#8
JPBrazil Third world democracy Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Belo Horizonte Posts: 3,309	I'd like to see more examples of new urbanism. __________________ Central - um blog sobre cinema. Do alternativo ao mainstream, os melhores filmes. Contact me: Blog - Twitter - Messenger - Flickr - Last.fm Visit my photo threads: Inhotim - Ouro Preto - MG-ES I - MG-ES II

April 8th, 2009, 04:18 PM	#9
Slartibartfas Registered User Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Vienna Posts: 2,711	It seems to be that in the Netherlands you can observe something that seems to be quite close to New Urbanism. Its also pretty retro in style. They have several large projects there but I don't know too much about them either. One example would be Brandevoort, a new suburb next to Helmond: (Everything above the roundabout) Its mostly residential, but the central, pseudo old town quarter is designed to host a major supermarket integrated in the overall streetscape as well with smaller shops services, public services (health, education etc) and a railwaystation. __________________ --- Austrian for beginners: Chapter 27: Practice--- Find the proper translation for the following directions of movement: eini; owi; umi; aufi; umadum; außi Last edited by Slartibartfas; April 8th, 2009 at 04:26 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode