“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)

New Year’s Resolution (Singular)

Welcome to 2013!  I’d like to think that we made some urbanist headway in 2012, at least in education.  But the road ahead remains daunting.   Luckily, most of us urbanists like challenges.

New Years is traditionally a time of resolutions, goals, and other lists.  And I tend to do some of that.  But sharing a list seems trite, so I’ll offer only a single goal.  For which I must give a short back story.

Last weekend, I met with group of North Bay urbanists.  I had scheduling conflicts, so my attendance time was short.  But it was inspiring to listen, even for a short time, to the stories of others who are arguing for urbanism in the region.

At one point, the organizer of the meeting turned to me and said, “I’ve been reading your blog for awhile.  You’re more of a generalist.”  I’d never thought of myself that way.  But I realized that he was right.  The other people in the room were mostly tackling urbanism from a transportation angle.  Less reliance on freeways.  Streets that serve a broader range of transportation options.  Effective use of transit.

Transforming how we build and utilize transportation is essential to urbanism.  But my personal feeling is that urbanism can’t come to full flower if we predominantly focus on transportation issues.  Or on any single issue.  Instead, we need to spread our attention over housing, public places, retail, jobs, sustainability, energy, and a host of others, including transportation.

Viewing urbanism as a far ranging list of interrelated issues, all of which must be solved, is sort of like going to sea in a colander.  It seems a nearly impossible task, but with enough believers, enough enthusiasm, and enough problem solving, it’s achievable.  And it’s essential if we are to provide the urbanism needed to save ourselves in the coming century.

And that is my one resolution for 2013.  To embrace that I’m an urbanism generalist and to promote the generalist perspective.  (Actually, that sounds more like one-and-a-half, but we’ll round down.)

Other urbanists weren’t as hesitant to share lists, some of which were quite good.  The best are offered below:

Brent Toderian uses Planetizen to issue a 2013 call to action for all urbanists.  He admits to writing the piece with his thumbs.  I wish I could write as well with all ten fingers.  If you only follow one link today, this is the one.

Kaid Benfield of the National Resources Defense Council nominates his best of 2012 across a number of sustainable urbanism subjects.  To me, walkable urbanism is so much more sustainable than drivable suburbanism that I’m less excited about rain gardens and their like.  But I’m pleased that Benfield is paying attention.

Lastly, Lauren Drell writes on Mashable about the 25 technologies that cities should have to provide more effective urbanism.  Most you’ve probably read about before, but there are a couple that were new to me, such as a trashcan adopting app.

Here’s to keeping resolution(s) in 2013!

Schedule Note

The next meeting of Petaluma Urban Chat will be Tuesday, January 8, 5:30pm, at the Aqus Café.  Newcomers are always welcome.  Make a New Year’s resolution to join us this year.

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

Olympics Hangover – Part 2

In a continuing post-Olympics review of what the land-use planning world is saying about the London Games, today we’ll look at the housing problems in East London, both before and after the Games and at the sustainability of the Olympic improvements.  Once again, I’ll add a couple of “North Bay Lesson” notes.

A Bloomberg article highlights the housing issues around the London Olympics site.  The chance to address housing deficiencies was a key element of the London Olympic bid.  To show their sincerity, the London Olympic Committee took local residents to a meeting of the International Olympic Committee.  But through the opening of the Games, few improvements have been accomplished.

Instead, the international economic problems and the loss of existing housing to redevelopment have resulted in illegal “sheds with beds”, many of which have plumbing so deficient that the 19th century blight of raw sewage running in the street has returned.

New housing is being built, but much of it is beyond the financial capability of the current residents, raising the specter that “gentrification is likely to be part of the [Olympic] legacy.”

As the director of a London non-profit notes, “London councils are reluctant to set aside land for cheap housing because they earn so much money by selling to developers.  Without cheap housing, people have to move away from their families.”

Ricky Burdett, writing for British Politics and Policy at the London School of Economics, takes the long view of the London Olympic land-use issues.  He notes the depth of the problems to be solved in East London.  The points of concern have long included employment, housing, infrastructure, and public health.  “[The] life expectancy of a man, for example, is five years lower in east London compared to parts of west London.”

Burdett goes on to argue that the land-use process around the London Olympics is generally similar to how London land-use issues are usually addressed, only on a far quicker schedule.  “The project has become an elaborate chess game in time and space that mirrors, in an accelerated fashion, the normal, organic planning process that determines London’s DNA.”

He also noted the higher level of sustainability which London targeted, including the possibility that the velodrome, basketball arena, and other stadiums will be dismantled and shipped to Glasgow for the 2014 Commonwealth Games or to Rio de Janeiro for the 2016 Olympics.  “London has invented a new planning methodology for the construction of the games and what it leaves behind for its so-called “Olympic Legacy.”

Burdett closes with the same warning as many others.  “But all this will only be possible if city government retains control and ownership of the land, and puts in place checks and balances to ensure that land values and gentrification do not push existing communities in the vicinity out.”

North Bay Lesson: Once again, the Olympics are orders of magnitude above any likely North Bay land-use issues, but lessons about creating housing options for all demographic are applicable.  As someone noted at a recent OneBayArea public meeting, those with resources can always find places to live.  But we must remain attentive to the lower-income housing options.

Lauren Parr of the Urban Land Institute describes the London Olympics land-use process as working in reverse, as having a vision of where the future of East London lay and then working an Olympics into the shorter-term picture.  From Bill Hanway of AECOM, “We always knew what we wanted to end up with; we worked backwards.”

Parr notes that making places for education was also important, “Historically, many of the major regeneration projects in London have begun with educational facilities, which are valuable in their contribution to place creation.”

North Bay Lessons: Regardless of the size of the community, visualizing where the community wants to be in twenty years should be a key step.  In California, General Plans fill some of that role, but the question is whether the community as a whole, and not just the 200 citizens who participate in the process, buy into the vision.

 The American Planning Association offers a write-up of the obsolete industrial site, known as the Lower Lea Valley, that existed before the Olympic redevelopment began, describing it as “an unregulated valve where the city could let off steam.”

After an extended word tour of the Olympic park, the writer notes the key design challenge is to avoid making the park look like it was constructed solely for the Olympics.  The goal was to create “the impression of a park in which the Olympics happens to be taking place, rather than a relentless campus tailored to this one-off event. “

The writer then concludes with a worry about the future of the park site and whether it can be made to integrate with its surroundings.  “It relies on the London Legacy Development Corporation – which will manage the park for at least the next ten years – and the nature of the forthcoming neighborhoods to ensure that the place does not become a privatized enclave of gated communities and sponsored mega-events, forever sold off to the highest bidder.  Any sense of the old Lea might have been smothered for now, but it must be allowed to return to give this place the character it needs.”

To close, the Sustainable Cities Collective provides a summary of the sustainability measures met by the London Games.  And the San Francisco Chronicle adds thoughts on the design of the event venues, noting that the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium will be reduced for 25,000 seats for future uses and that most venues will be dismantled and taken away, so that “a ghost town of sports venues isn’t left behind.”

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