The French Quarter in New Orleans before the tourists arrive |
I’ve written
twice about “The Trouble with City Planning” by Kristina Ford. In the first post, I found the middle of the
book to have useful insights into the planning process,
particularly on the role of general plans.
Later, I described the same worthwhile middle section as awkwardly conjoined to ill-conceived
introductory and closing sections that seemed to have been the ideas of a
market-focused editor rather that of the author.
Despite the
latter concern, I still found the book sufficiently useful that I kept it on my
reading table for the occasional riffle through the stronger portions.
It was
during one of those riffles when I again came across a paragraph that was a
particularly egregious example of another concern with the book. Not enough of a concern to cause me to set
the book aside, but one that made me twitch.
Before I expound, let me share the section.
“In
preparing for public discussion, planners rely on their professional
training. They of course are aware of
the more generalized textbook ways by which various uses of land produce
adverse effects. Planners can, for
instance, accurately predict the amount of increased traffic a new commercial
enterprise will occasion, and can predict in advance the air and water
pollution caused by new industrial plants.”
Really? Land planners can model traffic generation
and perform environmental science? And
those are only examples of the skills that planners have, meaning they have
even more talents? Why would they ever
need anyone else on the team if they have all those abilities? Ford makes it seem as if planners can play all
the instruments in the orchestra and then fly home with capes fluttering behind
and giant red P’s on their chests.
I’ve known many
land planners in my years as a civil engineer.
Sometimes, I’ve sat across the table from them. Other times, we’ve been members of the same
team. But I’ve never come across a
planner who had the skills implied by Ford or even pretended they did. Nor do I want to.
For most
planning tasks, the role of a planner is to assimilate and process information
that has been developed by others and is beyond the range of their own
technical expertise, such as predicted traffic or environmental
contaminants. It’s not a trivial
task. To integrate technical data from
multiple specialists into a coherent document and to later defend that document
in public hearings takes a special ability.
But it’s a different ability from having the full breadth of technical
skills that Ford implies.
If the
offending paragraph noted above had been the only instance of this attitude in
the entire book, I would have ascribed it to sloppy editing and never mentioned
it here. But it’s not. Throughout much of the book, Ford offers
glorious testimony to the vast breadth of technical knowledge possessed by
planners.
I’m
perplexed by how Ford came to have her overinflated opinion of the skills of
planners. I can’t imagine she’s come
across planners with the breadth of skills she describes. And yet, with a nearly decade as the New
Orleans Planning Director and other earlier planning employments, she must have
worked with hundreds of planners. It’s a
puzzle.
Is it a
problem that Ford has an odd view of planners?
Not really. If a reader’s first
introduction to planning is this book, they may come away with a false
impression of the breadth of planners’ technical knowledge. But if a reader is first encountering
planning through this book, they already have a problem. This tome better serves as a source of
helpful nuances and alternative perspectives to a planning education begun
elsewhere.
At the
bottom line, my point is that, while the beginning and end of the book have a
tacked on feel and while the author has an overly exalted view of her
profession, the book still offers points worth pondering. Readers shouldn’t be easily deterred, but
should instead brush away the dross and keep digging. I found the effort worthwhile.
In my next
post, I’ll describe an anti-urban overreach by the NFL in their planning for
Superbowl 50. Although it seems that
common sense will prevail, the story still provides an object lesson.
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