The Planners: NIMBYism across the Pond

To give myself a respite from my flailing attempt to write a personal “Intro to Urbanism”, I’ll jump across the Atlantic Ocean and check out another episode of the BBC show “The Planners”, along with another couple of videos more or less pertinent to urbanism.

One aspect I love about British television is that the producers and directors don’t feel compelled to drive a point home.  They’re content to offer a vignette or two, leaving it to the discerning viewer to connect the dots.  It’s a lesson from which I could learn something for my own writing.

Thus, in episode six of season one, “The Planners” covers several land-use planning controversies in which NIMBYism plays a key role, without once pointing out the mirror images between two of the storylines.  (I’m probably being overly pedantic here, but I guess I should explain that NIMBY is an acronym for Not In My Backyard and refers to people who only participate in the land-use process when they fear that their own ox is about to be gored.)

In one storyline, neighbors, who themselves live in single-family homes recently built on former greenfields, argue against further single-family homes in the adjoining greenfields.  To offer an alternative, they identify an abandoned site in the village center, arguing that the community would be best served by putting new homes closer to existing density.

In another storyline, located elsewhere, neighbors, who live in urban flats, complain that student apartments proposed for the underused commercial site next door should go elsewhere because their neighborhood is already dense enough.  (Plus they suspect that students wouldn’t be good neighbors.)

So the folks who live in suburbs argue that growth should happen downtown and the folks who live downtown argue that growth should occur in the suburbs.  It’s typical of the illogic that results when NIMBYs get involved.

From years of working in the land-use field, I have a split perspective toward NIMBYs.  On one hand, I support the principle of everyone having a say in land-use decisions.  I don’t think that single-issue democracy is a good strategy for land use, but the adoption of community land-use standards followed by a broad and inclusive discussion of whether a particular project conforms to those standards is a fine approach.

But NIMBYs often make arguments that are irritating and unhelpful to either their own case or the overall process.  Rather than admitting the truth that is obvious to all, that they’re involved only because they have a personal interest in the particular decision, they try to invoke broad standards, usually in a way that is laughably wrong.

An example from the greenfield storyline is the neighbor who argues that approval would set a precedent that would inevitably result in numerous other parcels also being developed.  He’s forgetting that he lives in a relatively new home in a former greenfield.  If precedent were an inviolable principle, then his own home would have set the precedent and he wouldn’t have any opportunity to comment on the current proposal.  So invoking a concern about precedent only shows his naiveté.

But the BBC, in their understated British style, doesn’t make this point, instead leaving it to the viewer to connect the dots.

The episode contains two other storylines.  The first also pivots on NIMBYism as neighbors argue that a final proposal for a zoo expansion is sufficiently different from the earlier plan that the earlier preliminary approval should be overturned and the process started anew from the beginning.

Unfortunately, the point is one of English planning law that those of us on this side of the Atlantic can’t judge.  However, it was ironic to watch a zoo struggle with the English equivalent of an endangered species act.

The final storyline was about a grand old 18,000 square foot estate house with a historical designation that had been largely surrounded by the town.  The result of the encircling growth was that there were no buyers at a price that would allow the owner to avoid foreclosure.  At least that was the position that the owner was taking.

The owner’s proposed solution was to divide the existing home into flats and to add several new homes on the remainder of the estate grounds.  Although compliance with the historical preservation standards for the existing home would be expensive, the profit on the new homes would allow the overall project to proceed.  Overall, it seemed a fine solution, following a nearby precedent where an old army barracks had undergone a similar transformation.

However, the plan required the approval of the local historic preservation officer, who has appeared several times previously in “The Planners”, always with a strict, non-problem-solving approach.  Once again, he took the hard line, denying the conversion to flats and perhaps leaving the property closer to foreclosure.  Not having more than a few minutes of familiarity with the situation, it’s hard to know if the historic preservation officer was wrong in this case, but he strikes me as someone who is overly enamored with his authority.

As always, “The Planners” offers intriguing and nuanced looks at the world of land-use planning.  At least to us land-use geeks, it’s always a joy to watch an episode.

As long as we’re viewing videos, allow me to offer another couple of links.

If one considers parallel parking to be an essential skill in an urban setting, then the setting of a new world record for parking with the smallest bumper-to-bumper gaps would seem to be an urban sport.  Check out this video of the new record-holder doing the Tokyo drift with barely more than three inches to spare.

The video raises four questions.  Is parallel parking truly a spectator sport in Japan?  How come we don’t get to see the failed attempts at the world record?  Are the failed attempts the reason that parallel parking is a Japanese spectator sport?  And lastly, who has the contract for the auto body work that must go along with the failed attempts?

Finally, check out this video of a walk/don’t walk sign with dancing figures.  Using a temporary motion-sensing video studio, the dance moves of volunteer pedestrians are shown real-time in place of the standard walk/don’t walk figures.

It’s a fun and compelling video.  If the technology were to come to an intersection near me, I could settle on a bench and watch for hours.  It’s absolutely unscalable to the real world as ennui would soon result, but that’s okay.  Sometimes the most fun comes from one-off ideas.

Next up, I’ll return to my Intro to Urbanism, buttoning up my arguments on fiscal urbanism.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

The Planners: Preserving English Heritage

I’ve previously written thrice about the BBC show “The Planners”, here, here, and here.  With today being Boxing Day, with the afterglow of Christmas still lingering, and with further family activities perhaps still planned, it seems a good day to return to “The Planners”.  At least, it seems like a better idea than tackling a new and mentally challenging topic.

So, we’re onto the fifth episode of season one of “The Planners”.

I’ve heard from at least one reader who’s puzzled by my fondness for the show.  All I can say is that the favorite part of my career was the entitlement dance, the careful sculpting of a land use application, trying to balance the desires of the developer with the wishes of the community as expressed through its zoning code, the parry and thrust as the planning staff and review boards consider the application, and the final result, with its unexpected twists.  Take all of that, add English accents, and what’s not to like?

Relative to the earlier shows, the fifth episode breaks little new ground.  But the storylines are sufficiently interesting to be worthy of your attention.

A moderately affluent family sells their long-time family home to buy a unit in crescent-shaped block of homes that date from the Regency period.  Although listed as a historic resource, the two-centuries-old unit has fallen on hard times, most recently serving as a nursing home.  Inexplicably, the family assigns the project management to their 22-year-old daughter who, although she appears more adept than might have been expected, seems unqualified for the task.

The family’s plan requires the approval of the local historic conservation office, who several of the family members describe as “scary”.  The conservation officer takes a particular dislike to a new deck proposed for the rear of the house and the eventual result of the remodel project is uncertain.

A developer, who we never see, proposes three new homes at the end of an existing cul-de-sac, a textbook infill project.  A neighbor initially argues that the car maneuvering space is inadequate.  Emboldened by winning a concession on that point, the neighbor goes on to argue that any construction at all would potentially endanger neighborhood children, an argument that a planning councillor correctly notes could potentially stop almost all new home construction.

A fisheries advocate proposes a dramatic home of modern architecture in forested rural land near the border with Scotland.  The planning staff notes that the regulations require all new rural homes to be part of a cluster of at least four homes, in an attempt to avoid a scattering of single homes.  In this case, there are only two other homes nearby, so the proposed new home fails the test.

The potential homeowner, unwilling to surrender, notes that his land includes a portion of a grand carriageway that led to an 18th century country home.  He offers to restore the carriageway and the adjoining rolling, grassy hills to their 18th century grandeur if the authorities allow his home.  It seems an odd offer, with the possibility that restoring acres of manicured grass to its 18th century state isn’t even a good idea in the 21st century, but the review board seems willing to consider the offer.

A developer prefers to honor the past by tearing down aging buildings and constructing new buildings on the same sites, with the new building giving homage to the older architectural styles.  The local historic officer isn’t impressed by the demolition and rebuild strategy.

If you find a spare hour in your Boxing Day, please partake of episode five.  I hope you find it at least half as enjoyable as I did.

Next up, I’ll advantage of an improving weather pattern and finally return to my great streets mission, likely with a look at Calistoga and St. Helena.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Preserving the Shot Tower and English Code Enforcement

I promised that this post, weather permitting, would be the first report on my holiday search for great streets in the North Bay.  Weather didn’t permit.  There were a few breaks in the continuing storminess, but those breaks coincided with other obligations, so the great streets report on Petaluma and Cotati will wait until the next post.  The upcoming weather report promises a few more respites from the rain.

I may have been disappointed by the precipitation, but not greatly so because it gave me the opportunity to enjoy another episode of “The Planners”.

Some say, notwithstanding “I Love Lucy”, “Gunsmoke”, and “The Dick Van Dyke Show”, that we’re currently in the golden age of television.  Those folks generally point to the production values and engrossing story arcs of shows like “The Wire”, “Breaking Bad”, and “Fargo”.  I concur with the argument.  And, at least to me, “The Planners”, with its BBC standards and its compelling stories, is also a small element of that pantheon of television greatness.  Or maybe I’m just a planning groupie.

In the fourth episode of season one, we watch the planners and planning councillors (the folks we’d call planning commissioners in the U.S.) face one of the fundamental issues of urbanism, preserving history while allowing new development.

The Lead Works in Chester were in use for nearly two hundred years, making lead shot to defeat Napoleon and later to expand and protect the British Empire.  But the world has moved on and the factory now stands unused and mouldering.  Of particular interest to preservationists is the 180-foot tall “shot tower”, down which molten lead was dropped to form shot when it hit water below.

A developer is willing to preserve the tower as part of a 53-unit housing project on the remainder of the abandoned site.  But the local historic preservationists dislike the design of the housing, which is contemporary and clad in lead-grey panels to reflect the heritage of the site.

Part of the problem is that the architect is a twit who argues that the primary role of architecture is to be controversial.  I have no problem with architecture being controversial and even believe that it sometimes must be so.  But the primary role of architecture should be facilitating well-lived lives and thriving communities, not controversy.

Elsewhere, a self-taught builder in the Scottish borderlands wants to build a large Balinese-themed home in his small village, thinking that the scale and architecture will give focus to the village.  The villager protector, whose only credential seems to be that his great-uncle was a renowned Scottish folksinger, is appalled.

Also, a former DJ, now heir to an English manor house, wants to add a large wedding venue to the estate, arguing that the income is necessary to avoid dismantling the land holdings which have been in his family for 750 years.  The neighbors fear that he only wants a stage for loud parties that will disturb their sleep.

(In a surprisingly mean-spirited production decision, one of the planning councillors weighing the wedding venue proposal comes across as inept, noting that she fell behind in her review of the project because she “had a weekend-long date with her couch and telly” and is “too fat” to retrieve the planning document from under the car seat.)

Rounding out the episode was a couple of code enforcement issues.

In the first, a small group of pub-goers, after years of debating the merit of Britain versus Sweden with the Swedish member of their group, waited until the Swede was out of town and repainted his house into the Cross of St. George.  They did a fine job, with a sharply-delineated red cross on a white background reaching the full width of the row house and from sidewalk to second story eaves.

The problem was that the home was in a historic neighborhood where the paint job violated the historic standards, so code enforcement became involved.  It’s interesting that what is considered a code enforcement issue in England would be considered vandalism in the U.S.

The other code enforcement issue was more mundane, where a simmering dispute between philosophically incompatible neighbors reached a boiling point over closed circuit cameras. 

Enjoy the stories.  And absorb the lessons necessary to become an effective land-use advocate for urbanism.

Next time, I’ll truly get to great streets assessment of Petaluma and Cotati, no matter how much rain may fall.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

“The Planners” Keeps Hitting the Mark

I’ve previously offered praise  for the BBC show “The Planners”.  I find my enthusiasm continues to grow with every episode I watch.  Nor am I alone in my approval.  Writing in CityLab, Feargus O’Sullivan expresses similar feelings about the show, noting the captivating conundrums presented by the producers and the insights to English land-use philosophy.

Some readers may remember the U.S. television show “Picket Fences” from the mid-1990s.  The well-constructed scripts made it perhaps my favorite show ever.  The writers would select a potentially controversial aspect of everyday life, whether personal privacy, May-December romances, or school busing, construct a scenario that evenly balanced the points on both sides of the equation, and then allow the characters to become emotionally invested in arguing the pros and cons.

Many episodes ended at the courthouse, where Judge Bone would hand down his gruff, but Solomonic judgments, neatly cutting through the Gordian knots that had entwined the adversaries.  Although reality rarely plays out as neatly as Judge Bone would have it, “Picket Fences” still provided an introduction to ethics and morality in the modern era.

“The Planners” is the reality equivalent of “Picket Fences”, reaching similar heights in the land-use issues that are selected for the show.  Whether the balancing the rights of homeowners to mount solar panels on slate roofs versus the rights of historians to preserve medieval vistas or comparing the rights of farmers to build a new chicken facilities with the rights of neighbors to be free of chicken aromas, the land-use decisions to be made are neatly positioned on the blades of knives.

If there is a place where “The Planners” falls short, it’s the absence of a Judge Bone to rule with wisdom and curt certitude.  Although many of land-use decisions are ultimately reasonable, the planners often seem overly confined by the rule book and the planning councils (what we call planning commissions in California) often seem arbitrary, perhaps beholden to political interests that we don’t see.  But that’s often the nature of land-use reality.

Episode three of season one meets the standards established in the first two episodes, and perhaps even raises the show to a new level.  I highly recommend enjoying it while awaiting sandwiches of leftover turkey and dressing.

The four stories in the episode are summarized below, although you’ll have to watch the video for the decisions.

A family-owned development company owns a small brownfield site about a mile from an English village.  On several earlier occasions, they proposed a small housing project and renovation of the abandoned pub on the site.  The planning council rejected the earlier proposals because of a lack of transportation options to the village except for driving on the busy highway.  The council argues that the absence of a bicycle/pedestrian alternative makes the development “unsustainable”, a very different definition of sustainable than is typically found in the U.S., but one that I endorse.

The family is now proposing the same project, but with a mile-long footpath along the highway.  Rejection might cost the family their business and home.  Confounding the situation further, several national builders are proposing residential subdivisions on greenfields closer to the village.

An overcrowded mosque is proposing a major expansion.  But the addition would be architecturally banal and only provide three parking places compared to the 115 required under the code.  The members of the mosque argue that their use is primarily evenings and weekends when the adjoining industrial uses are quiet, so shared street parking would work fine.  The planner responds that the mosque could sell the building to another user who would need daytime parking.

A mechanical hobbyist has built, without planning approval, a backyard shed for his overly large toys.  Some neighbors are convinced that he must be running a truck repair business in his backyard, which is forbidden under the code.

A homeowner has replaced a four-foot high hedge with a two-foot tall picket fence to better contain his rambunctious toddler.  A by-the-book neighbor notes that fences are prohibited under the rules governing the homes.

All four are good planning conundrums.  And all four offer compelling television, at least for land-use geeks.  Enjoy.  There are lessons to be learned that can be applied to arguing effectively for urbanism.

Next time, I’ll talk about a holiday season plan to explore the best streets in the North Bay.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

“The Planners”: Getting Underway

I’ve mentioned the BBC show “The Planners” several times.  The show is English reality television, showing land use permitting processes on the other side of the pond.  In those earlier mentions, I expressed the hope of learning something about land use entitlement under a different set of rules and complained that I couldn’t find the show on my cable system or on the BBC website.

 Eventually, a reader took pity on my naiveté and emailed me that all the episodes were available on YouTube.  He was right.  Nuts.

So I was finally able to begin watching the show.  As I had expected, there were differences between the land use processes in England and California.

But what was more striking was the similarity between the personalities on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.  For nearly every person I watched on “The Planners”, from self-righteous applicants to dowdy planners to haughty planning councilors to unhappy neighbors, I’d seen their parallels during my years in land use.

Starting today and continuing occasionally, I’ll provide links and comments about episodes.  If your time permits, I recommend watching the show.  It’s not necessarily great television.  If you have fun social plans on your calendar, I wouldn’t cancel them to watch the show.  But if you were planning on watching “Big Brother” or another of its ilk, I’d encourage you to try “The Planners” instead.  You might gain some insight to land use planning, and to the personalities that populate the land-use world.

Season 1, Episode 1

The most significant storyline was about 540 homes proposed for open fields near a town.  The proponents argued that more housing was needed and that the economy needed a boost.  (I can think of North Bay parallels.)  The opponents were looking for every argument possible to stop the project, including flailing about in the mud looking for great-toed newts, hoping to prove that the land was critical wildlife habitat.  (Once again, the North Bay parallels are too obvious to be missed.)

To me, I think the issue came down to two points that were seen only as flashes on the screen.  The site plan, seen only in passing, seems sprawling.  Perhaps the homes were modest in size, but they were sited on large lots that were unlikely to be walkable.  In another passing moment, an opponent outside the hearing was carrying a placard calling for “Infill, not Fields”.  Even in England, urbanism is fighting an uphill battle.

One interesting comment was the suggestion that the Planning Council would be liable for damages if they rejected a project that was later approved at a higher level.  I truly hope that the comment was wrong because that type of rule would have a chilling effect on the permitting process.

Other storylines included a neighbor peevishly complaining that a proposed dining room addition next door would block too much of her sun and an applicant peevishly complaining that it was too hard to park her BMW station wagon in the parking yard off the alley and that she should be allowed to park in her front yard like many of her neighbors.  No matter where you go, peevishness has a role in land-use planning.

The latter tale included an official suggesting that it might be “churlish” to deny the applicant the right to park in her front yard when so many of her neighbors had seemingly established a precedent.  I live for the day when I hear “churlish” used in an American land use hearing.

But the best story of the episode was a married pair of retired doctors, both in their eighties, who wanted to put solar panels on their roof.  They knew that they likely wouldn’t live long enough to garner the economic benefits, but thought they owed it to the next generation to reduce their carbon footprint.

The highlight was when they confronted the town historical preservation officer who was opposing the application because of the conflict with the adjoining town wall that dated to the Roman era.  The woman pertly advised the historical officer that he was on the wrong side of history and that within a decade solar panels would be as ubiquitous as bicycles.  It might have been the best single moment of television I saw this year.

Season 1, Episode 2

The biggest story in the second episode was the proposed expansion of an egg farm near the Scottish border.  Unfortunately, it was a story that depended on competing scientific studies about whether chicken dung particles could be airborne during handling and whether the particles would pose a health risk.  As well “The Planners” is produced, it was a difficult storyline to squeeze into the format and became very forgettable.

A second storyline, about a proposed home of modern architecture in an older neighborhood, also fell short when it ended in an anticlimax.  (Thankfully, English reality television folks don’t feel a need to pump drama into every situation.)

But there were a couple of stories that redeemed the episode.  There was a code enforcement officer, who a citizen from an earlier enforcement action described as being like “a terrier at a trouser leg”, effectively resolving a rubbish-filled backyard.

And there was the story of the Lemon Field, a one-acre stone-walled site on the edge of a village, that had been vacant for 300 to 400 years.  The applicant was proposing a private cul-de-sac with seven homes of undistinguished architecture.  (Side note: Even on the other side of the Atlantic, planners prepare renderings of “walkable” communities with the most dominant feature being a car driving into a cul-de-sac.)

Not surprisingly, the village preferred to retain their little bit of the countryside.  A local dairywoman described the proposal as”knocking Gloucester Cathedral to put up a multi-story car park”.  However, the eventual decision seemed to focus more on the architecture than on the preservation of the open field.

If time permits, I hope you enjoy “The Planners”.

In my next post, I’ll write about the beginning of the election season.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)