For now, this
will be my last post about CNU 22, the 22nd annual meeting of the Congress for
the New Urbanism that was conducted in Buffalo earlier this month. After today, I’ll move closer to home and
write about subjects of more immediate importance to the North Bay. But the topics that were discussed at CNU 22
will help set the future of urbanism throughout the U.S, including the North
Bay, so I’ll return to CNU 22 multiple times as the summer progresses.
Today, I’ll
focus on a subject that arose several times during the course of CNU 22, the
reaction of the planning community on both sides of the Atlantic to the planning
failures of the decades after World War II.
The subject first
arose during a presentation the night that CNU 22 opened. In laying the background for a “unified
theory of urbanism”, Andres Duany spoke about how English planners responded to
the failures of most “new towns”, the communities that were built for veterans
returning from World War II. Only a handful of new towns became viable
communities. The others quickly became
undesirable backwaters or even slums.
In Duany’s
opinion, the English planning community responded to the failure of the new
town concept by becoming distrustful of every proposed project. In their timidity, they found security only
in delays of project approvals, often through repeated requests for additional
information or further studies.
Duany told a
story, almost certainly exaggerated and perhaps apocryphal, about meeting with
a young English planner to complain about the years that had already been taken
to review a project for which approvals were still not in sight.
In Duany’s
version, the young planner tremulously asked, “Well, Mr. Duany, how long do you
think project approvals should take?”
To which
Duany responded “I don’t know, but perhaps less time than it took to defeat
Hitler?”
Although I
haven’t yet found a way to watch an episode, BBC Two created a series called “The
Planners”, which takes a reality television approach to following
real life land-use actions in England.
From the plot synopses and other on-line comments, the presentation of
English land-use approvals seems much as Duany describes it. Indeed, it’s significant that the show was
renamed to “Permission Impossible” for its second season.
With Duany
having broached the subject of planner nervousness, it seemed that the
floodgates had been breached. Over the
course of CNU 22, several other speakers painted a picture of the state of U.S.
planning that was much the same as the image Duany provided of the
English. A reactionary, checkmark-all-the-boxes
approach that is focused on process almost to the exclusion of good results.
Some may
cheer this planning caution, supposing that it may result in better
projects. I disagree, believing that the
same or better results can be achieved on a more expedited schedule.
But more
importantly, slower processing disadvantages the fine-grained walkable urban
projects that best meet the needs of our cities.
To give one hypothetical
example, the national developer of a 250,000 square-foot shopping center has far
more sticking power than the local developer of 6,000 square feet of storefront
retail with a dozen upstairs apartments.
If both projects are subjected to extended entitlement processes, the
shopping center developer is more likely to reach the finish line, which isn’t the
result for which we should be hoping.
So, in an ironic
twist, planners, dismayed by the failures of drivable suburban development, are
fostering timorous, reactive entitlement processes that favor drivable suburban
development. If it wasn’t such an
unfortunate result, it’d be laughable
There is one
last perspective to ponder. If drivable
suburban development was a sufficient failure to create a generation of
shell-shocked planners, how do we prevent a similar result if walkable urbanism
doesn’t hit all its objectives?
The best
answer was provided by outgoing CNU board chair, Professor Ellen Dunham-Jones
of Georgia Tech. She highlighted the
need to keep urbanism fresh, to learn from missteps, and to use the annual
meetings as an opportunity to learn from each other, not to have dicta handed
down. In her phrase, CNU is a “forum,
not a formula”. Her words are wise.
A few months
back, I wrote about historic preservation versus urbanism and a handful of
upcoming Petaluma demolition applications that were providing interesting test
cases. In my next post, I’ll check back on
those situations.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment