Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

9/10 SAT 10:00 | Keynote: John Landis

1,277

Published on

Planning as a discipline pays inadequate attention to evaluating its success and failures. As a result, planning “successes” often get defined by others, usually as a lack of success. John Landis, …

Planning as a discipline pays inadequate attention to evaluating its success and failures. As a result, planning “successes” often get defined by others, usually as a lack of success. John Landis, Crossways Professor and Department Chair of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania, will provide insight and case studies on planning success stories, as well as provide
advice on how to institutionalize success into our efforts. Professor Landis teaches courses in urban economics, property development, land use planning, and green development, among
others. His research interests span a variety of urban development topics including growth management, infill housing, and the geography of urban growth. Professor Landis is currently
completing a National Science Foundation–funded project to model, forecast, and develop alternative spatial scenarios of U.S. population and employment patterns and their impacts on
travel demand, habitat loss, and water use through 2050.

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,277
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 30 Planning and Urban Development Success Stories from Around the Globe: A Preliminary List John D. Landis Department of City & Regional Planning University of Pennsylvania September 2011
  • 2. OUTLINE <ul><li>Why Study Success? </li></ul><ul><li>Defining Success </li></ul><ul><li>The Global List </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transportation Projects (5) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Redevelopment and Regeneration Projects (9) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disaster Recovery (2) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Environmental Planning (6) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Housing and Community Development (5) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Large-scale Urban Master Planning (4) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ones to Watch </li></ul><ul><li>Cross-cutting Takeaways/What to Avoid </li></ul>
  • 3. WHY STUDY SUCCESS? <ul><li>Planning rarely pays adequate attention to evaluating its success and failures. WHY NOT? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning interventions are mostly long-term; values and tastes change; people move on in their concerns. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effort and process are sometimes regarded as more important than outcomes. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Predictive theories and models against which to evaluate success are lacking. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning education doesn’t stress the importance of evaluation, or evaluation methods. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project budgets rarely fund ex post evaluations . </li></ul></ul>
  • 4. WHY STUDY SUCCESS? <ul><li>As a result, planning “successes” (or the lack thereof) too often get defined by others as a lack of success . This has fostered multiple systemic critiques of planning, especially in North America: </li></ul><ul><li>COMPETENCE CRITIQUE : Even if the idea is good, they’ll screw up the implementation. </li></ul><ul><li>PUBLIC INTEREST CRITIQUE : Planning is too easily captured by established political and business interests. </li></ul><ul><li>INCOMPLETENESS CRITIQUE : Traditional public choice criteria (for undertaking projects) are too narrow, and typically fail to adequately consider externalities, incommensurables, and distributional impacts </li></ul>
  • 5. WHY STUDY SUCCESS? <ul><li>OVER-REACHING CRITIQUE : Planning characteristically over-reaches, while ignoring the possibility of adverse responses. </li></ul><ul><li>CONSERVATIVE CRITIQUE : Government (and by extension, planning) initiatives displace more responsive and efficient private efforts. </li></ul><ul><li>PETER HALL “HUBRIS” CRITIQUE ( Great Planning Disasters ): Post-War planners worldwide suffered from a naïve: (i) over-fascination with technology; (ii) belief in mega-projects; (iii) belief that existing cities could be massively reshaped; (iv) faith in normative plans implemented through regulation; and, (v) a skepticism of markets, competition &amp; and incentives. </li></ul>
  • 6. HOW SHOULD WE DEFINE A PLANNING SUCCESS? <ul><li>As the result of a sanctioned and robust planning process? </li></ul><ul><li>As a plan or policy that is implemented and doesn’t just sit on the shelf ◄ TOO SIMPLISTIC. </li></ul><ul><li>As a plan, policy or program that achieves most of its goals and objectives ◄ WHAT ABOUT COST? </li></ul><ul><li>As a plan, program, or project that generates measurable (and quantifiable?) benefits in excess of costs ◄ NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE FULLY MONETIZED AND DISCOUNTED. </li></ul><ul><li>Local and public initiative focusing on the built or natural environment which results in a net private and social benefit, and which can serve as model for similar efforts. </li></ul>
  • 7. PARSING SUCCESS (LANDIS 2009) <ul><li>Local and public initiative focusing on the built or natural environment which results in a net private and social benefit, and which can serve as model for similar efforts . </li></ul>Does NOT include projects initiated by federal agencies, by private businesses or business councils, by private landowners or developers, or by public-private-partnerships or community development corporations lacking public accountability. Projects which have physical or place-based dimension to them, including most types of land use and environmental regulations Must be spatially-based. Does NOT include national policy initiatives or programs. Should work as projected and be replicable in comparable circumstances.
  • 8. 12 U.S. PLANNING SUCCESSES (LANDIS 2009) <ul><li>California Coastal Act &amp; Commission </li></ul><ul><li>Chesapeake Bay Program </li></ul><ul><li>Planning-Zoning Consistency Laws </li></ul><ul><li>Northeast Corridor Improvement Project </li></ul><ul><li>Portland Urban Growth Boundaries </li></ul><ul><li>NYC Public-Private Partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program </li></ul><ul><li>Historic Preservation Tax Credits </li></ul><ul><li>New Urbanist Communities </li></ul><ul><li>Downtown Ballparks </li></ul><ul><li>Local Land Trusts </li></ul><ul><li>Chicago’s Millennium Park </li></ul>… plus urban waterfronts, festival marketplaces, anti-pollution laws, HOPE VI, inclusionary zoning ordinances &amp; thousands of local comprehensive plans
  • 9. DEFINING PLANNING SUCCESS (GLOBAL VERSION) <ul><li>“ An aspirational but results-oriented plan, policy, program or project which addresses an important environmental or urban development problem in an effective, innovative, and potentially transferable way.” </li></ul><ul><li>Local initiatives preferred but national initiatives are OK as long as the results are place-based. </li></ul><ul><li>Need not be publicly-initiated. </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstration of positive benefit-cost performance helpful but not essential. </li></ul><ul><li>No individual building projects or national policies. </li></ul><ul><li>During the last 25 years (since 1986) </li></ul>
  • 10. FINDING PLANNING SUCCESSES (Research Approach) <ul><li>Literature Review (Google Scholar) looking for “Planning Success”, “Slum Upgrading Success,” and so on ◄ Not a lot of hits. </li></ul><ul><li>PLANET appeal ◄ A few responses; good, but the usual suspects [Planning academics don’t focus on success] A formal web survey would have worked better. </li></ul><ul><li>Corralled my friends and colleagues at Penn ◄ Good approach, but I don’t have enough friends and my colleagues soon learned to avoid me [In planning, success is a lonely business]. </li></ul><ul><li>Supplemented by Wikipedia ◄ But only if there were multiple and live references. </li></ul><ul><li>Caveats : (1) List is partial; (2) Successes may be neither unilateral nor unambiguous; (3) No new empirical evaluations ◄ One man’s opinion. </li></ul><ul><li>I invite you to suggest success I missed! </li></ul>
  • 11. THE GLOBAL SUCCESS LIST <ul><li>Transport Planning Projects </li></ul><ul><li>TGV HSR System (France) </li></ul><ul><li>Curatiba’s Integrated BRT System </li></ul><ul><li>Freiburg’s Coordinated Land Use and Transport Planning System </li></ul><ul><li>Hong Kong International Airport </li></ul><ul><li>London’s Congestion Charging Zone </li></ul><ul><li>Urban Redevelopment Projects </li></ul><ul><li>NYC Public-Private Partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>London’s Canary Wharf </li></ul><ul><li>Vancouver’s Downtown Living First Plan </li></ul><ul><li>1992 Barcelona Olympics </li></ul><ul><li>Bilbao </li></ul><ul><li>Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority </li></ul><ul><li>Berlin Redevelopment </li></ul><ul><li>Chicago’s Millennium Park </li></ul><ul><li>Cheonggyecheon (Seoul, Korea) </li></ul><ul><li>Post-Disaster Rebuilding </li></ul><ul><li>1995 Kobe Earthquake </li></ul><ul><li>Croatia Rebuilding </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Seoul Greenbelt </li></ul><ul><li>Costa Rica’s Sustainable Forestry Practices </li></ul><ul><li>Montreal Protocol </li></ul><ul><li>Local Land Trusts (US) </li></ul><ul><li>Patagonia National Park (Chile) </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainable Stockholm </li></ul><ul><li>Housing and Community Development </li></ul><ul><li>Kampung Improvement Program </li></ul><ul><li>Low Income Housing Tax Credit (US) </li></ul><ul><li>Soweto Electrification </li></ul><ul><li>Amsterdam Docklands Housing </li></ul><ul><li>Minha Casa, Mina Vida (Brazil) </li></ul><ul><li>Large-scale City Master Planning </li></ul><ul><li>Singapore </li></ul><ul><li>Shenzhen (China) </li></ul><ul><li>Hsinchu Science Park (Taiwan) </li></ul><ul><li>The New Urbanism </li></ul>
  • 12. Transportation Projects
  • 13. Transportation Projects – Success Takeaways Planning-Initiated? Top-down or Participatory Planning Process? Success Takeaway France’s TGV HSR System Yes Top-down Enough speed to be competitive (center to center). Start with higher travel density corridors. Curatiba Integrated BRT System Yes Top-down System requires enough speed and convenience to be competitive. Positive feedback links with longer-term development and density plans. Freiburg’s Integrated Transport &amp; Land Use Planning System Yes Mostly top-down Maximize local, multi-modal mobility: Make it easy (not just easier) to walk or bike. Restrict car use in high-density, short-trip areas; expand bicycle facilities for local and cross-town trips; expand tram service in high-demand corridors Hong Kong International Airport Yes Top-down Maximize traveler convenience, including landside access modes. Include space for subsequent expansion. London’s Congestion Charging Zone No None Spend revenues in ways that improve broad accessibility and convenience. Congestion charging will always be political .
  • 14. FRANCE’S TGV HSR SYSTEM <ul><li>Modeled after the Japanese Shinkansen bullet train developed in the 1960s, TGV ( Très Grande Vitesse) high-speed rail service connecting Paris and Lyon began in September 1981. </li></ul><ul><li>Additional links were added in 1989 (connecting Tours); 1992 (connecting to Valance); 1993 (connecting to Calais and Belgium); 2001 (connecting to Marseille) and 2007 (connecting to Strasbourg). </li></ul><ul><li>Altogether, the TGV system includes 550 trainsets, 1,900 km of high-speed track, and nearly 200 stations (including international connections). </li></ul><ul><li>TGV travel takes 3 hours and 20 minutes between Paris and Marseille, 2 hours and 10 minutes between Paris and Lyon, 4 hours between Paris and Frankfurt, and one hour and 40 minutes between Paris and Brussels. </li></ul><ul><li>In 2010, the TGV system carried 160 million passengers (including international links). </li></ul><ul><li>Per capita, the French traveled 1,370 km by rail in 2008, third behind Switzerland (2,422) and Japan (1,995). </li></ul><ul><li>The TGV is the model for other European HSR systems. </li></ul>
  • 15. CURATIBA’S INTEGRATED BRT SYSTEM <ul><li>In response to the threat of unchecked population growth and traffic congestion, Curatiba’s 1965 master plan stipulated that future growth would occur along designated boulevards upgraded to high-density surface transit corridors. </li></ul><ul><li>Five high-capacity Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines (fed by neighborhood-serving minibuses) operate as spokes linking outlying districts to Curatiba’s downtown hub. </li></ul><ul><li>BRT vehicles operate in dedicated lanes and stop at cylindrical Plexiglas boarding platforms (designed by Curatiba’s visionary Mayor, architect Jaime Lerner) that enable rapid wheelchair access, protect from the elements, and enable pre-boarding fare payment. </li></ul><ul><li>Passengers pay a single fare (regardless of transfers) but BRT operators (all private) are allocated revenues based on distance traveled not passenger volumes. </li></ul><ul><li>Parcels within two blocks of the BRT corridors were up-zoned to higher densities. </li></ul><ul><li>Compared to other Brazilian cities of comparable size, Curatibans use about 30% less fuel per capita. </li></ul>Source: Goodman, Laub, and Shwenk, FTA
  • 16. FREIBURG’S INTEGRATED LU &amp; TRANSPORT PLANNING SYSTEM <ul><li>Currently about 210,000 residents; 1% annual population growth rate; long tradition of environmental and planning leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Planning Chronology </li></ul><ul><li>1969 Early innovator: First transportation plan integrating bicycle traffic </li></ul><ul><li>1972 City council decides to expand tram network </li></ul><ul><li>1973 City center made car-free </li></ul><ul><li>1979 New plan giving walking and biking equal priority </li></ul><ul><li>1983 New tram line opens </li></ul><ul><li>1989 Comprehensive, multi-modal land use and transportation plan adopted with explicit goal of reducing citywide car use and traffic. </li></ul><ul><li>1997, 2004, 2006 New tram lines open </li></ul>Source: Peter Schick, Freiburg City Administration: 2007
  • 17. CENTRAL LONDON’S CONGESTION CHARGING ZONE <ul><li>Established in 2003, the CCZ was enlarged in 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>PURPOSE : To reduce traffic congestion in central London and raise revenues for public transport investments. </li></ul><ul><li>Charge of £10 per day (up from £8 in 2007) for private vehicles entering central London on weekdays. </li></ul><ul><li>Uses cameras (not sensors) to monitor license plates. </li></ul><ul><li>Buses and taxis are exempt, CCZ residents are eligible for 90% discount. </li></ul><ul><li>Initially a 25% reduction in traffic congestion; more recently, 5-10%. </li></ul><ul><li>Net revenue increase to TfL of £90+M; bus ridership up by about 35% in central London. </li></ul><ul><li>No obvious effect on business activity or revenues. </li></ul><ul><li>The CCZ’s 2007 enlargement was very controversial, and may have played some role in Mayor Ken Livingstone’s election loss to Boris Johnson in 2009. </li></ul>
  • 18. Transportation Projects – Success Takeaways Planning-Initiated? Top-down or Participatory Planning Process? Success Takeaway France’s TGV HSR System Yes Top-down Enough speed to be competitive (center to center). Start with higher travel density corridors. Curatiba Integrated BRT System Yes Top-down System requires enough speed and convenience to be competitive. Positive feedback links with longer-term development and density plans. Freiburg’s Integrated Transport &amp; Land Use Planning System Yes Mostly top-down Maximize local, multi-modal mobility: Make it easy (not just easier) to walk or bike. Restrict car use in high-density, short-trip areas; expand bicycle facilities for local and cross-town trips; expand tram service in high-demand corridors Hong Kong International Airport Yes Top-down Maximize traveler convenience, including landside access modes. Include space for subsequent expansion. London’s Congestion Charging Zone No None Spend revenues in ways that improve broad accessibility and convenience. Congestion charging will always be political .
  • 19. Urban Redevelopment and Regeneration Projects
  • 20. Regeneration Projects – Success Takeaways Planning-Initiated? Top-down or Participatory Planning Process? Success Takeaway NYC Public-Private Partnerships Yes Mostly top-down Complex deals require thoughtful, competent and patient deal-makers. Land assembly matters. Canary Wharf Slightly Top-down Inexpensive land, and accessible location, liberal zoning, and cheap finance still count for a lot. Vancouver’s DT Living First Plan Yes Mostly top-down Livability can be designed-in. Local context matters. Be aware of your market. 1992 Barcelona Olympics Somewhat Top-down Plan for the day after. Focus on re-purposing districts as well as individual projects. Bilbao Yes Mostly top-down Promoting heritage-based tourism as a development strategy can work, even in lesser-known places. Innovative marquis projects help. Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Yes Mostly top-down Development can co-exist with conservation and environmental protection, especially when based on consistent and tested principles. Berlin Redevelopment Yes Mostly top-down Design competitions are a useful vehicle for identifying innovative redevelopment options. Millennium Park No None Innovative and careful space programming coupled with strong political leadership Cheonggyecheon (Seoul) No Top-down Innovative and transformative projects can succeed if they resonate with the public.
  • 21. NYC PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: TIMES SQUARE AND BATTERY PARK CITY <ul><li>TIMES SQUARE: Re-invented in early 1990s as family entertainment destination zone coupling theatres, movies, retailing, food &amp; neon. Now #1 attraction in NYC. </li></ul><ul><li>BATTERY PARK CITY: Largest, densest, and most urban new community anywhere in US. Couples offices, residential, and neighborhood commercial and public uses. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Both developed thru sophisticated public-private partnerships coupling private equity and public debt. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple false starts. Require public development programs and real estate/financial markets to be in synch. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Built on programmatic flexibility and public-private professionalism. </li></ul></ul>
  • 22. <ul><li>Faced with immigration-fed population growth and accelerating suburbanization in the 1980s, the Vancouver Planning Department developed a “Living First” strategy emphasizing housing intensity and diversity; coherent, identifiable neighborhoods; and regional urban design principles. </li></ul><ul><li>This proactive planning agenda, combined with foreign immigration patterns and a booming resource and Pacific Rim economy contributed to a period of dramatic growth. Since Living First was adopted, Vancouver’s downtown population has more than doubled, reaching more than 100,000 residents. Some eight million square feet of underutilized commercial space was rezoned to residential and mixed uses. Railyards and industrial zones along Vancouver’s older waterfront areas were likewise earmarked for housing. When communities such as North False Creek, Coal Harbour, CityGate and the South False Creek (2010 Olympic Village) are fully built-out, more than 120,000 people will live in or adjacent to downtown Vancouver. </li></ul><ul><li>Along the way, Vancouver created and implemented an integrated set of locally-based urban design principles and practices intended to mix public and private uses, spaces and facilities in ways that maximized neighborhood-scale pedestrian activity, recreation, and retail activities. </li></ul>VANCOUVER’S DOWNTOWN LIVING FIRST PLAN . Downtown Vancouver North False Creek Plan South False Creek (Olympic Village) Plan
  • 23. BILBAO <ul><li>Between 1975 and 1995, Bilbao lost 60,000 manufacturing jobs – almost half of its industrial jobs base. The city’s political leaders—enabled by traditional Basque autonomy—were quick to see the handwriting on the wall. </li></ul><ul><li>The 1989 preparation of a regeneration framework plan and the 1992 creation of an implementation-oriented redevelopment agency (Bilbao Ría 2000) targeted the cultural reuse of abandoned industrial sites. </li></ul><ul><li>Building on his successes in Battery Park City, architect Cesar Pelli was commissioned to develop Bilboa’s central waterfront regeneration master plan. The keystone of Pelli’s plan was the Bilbao Guggenheim Museum, the cost of which, €144 million, was covered entirely by the provincial and regional governments. Substantial supporting transportation and environmental remediation investments were also undertaken. </li></ul><ul><li>The Guggenheim has attracted an average of 1 million visitors per year since opening in 1997. Tourism in Bilbao has increased sharply, with the number of arriving airport passengers rising from .4 million in 1994 to 3.8 million in 2005. While fewer than 1,000 direct jobs have been created in the tourism sector, the huge increase in tourism is credited with generating thousands of new jobs in smaller service outlets, bars, shops, cafes, small hotels, and restaurants. </li></ul>. Source: Jorg Plogger, Center for Analysis of Social Exclusion, 2006
  • 24. SYDNEY HARBOUR FORESHORE AUTHORITY <ul><li>The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) was created in 1998 by the Government of New South Wales to protect and preserve the significant natural and cultural heritage resources of Sydney Harbour; and to manage the economic and real estate development of the waterfront area in an economically sound and sustainable way. In April 2011, the SHFA became a division of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure. </li></ul><ul><li>The Authority&apos;s places include The Rocks, Darling Harbour, Darling Island White Bay Power Station and Rozelle Railyards and its projects include Bays Precinct, Darling Walk and the recently completed Ballast Point. </li></ul><ul><li>By carefully balancing site-appropriate real estate development with heritage conservation, environmental protection, public waterfront access, the SHFA and its precursors (City West Development Corporation, Darling Harbour Authority and Sydney Cove Authority) are principally responsible for transforming Sydney harbor from a rundown post-industrial landscape into the world’s most interesting, vital, and diverse urban waterfront. </li></ul>. The Rocks Darling Harbour
  • 25. MILLENNIUM PARK <ul><li>Just 24.5 acres in size, built on top of 19 th C railyard. </li></ul><ul><li>Programmed for maximum urban/green experience. </li></ul><ul><li>Iconic features and structures. </li></ul><ul><li>Historic location on Michigan Avenue. </li></ul><ul><li>Substantial private funding &amp; sponsorship. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Single client: Mayor Daley </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Brilliant space programming </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OMG novelty factor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intended as amenity for nearby residential towers, as well as for tourists &amp; downtown workers. </li></ul></ul>
  • 26. <ul><li>Cheonggyecheon is a 5.8 km creek flowing west to east through downtown Seoul. During the 1950s, Cheonggyecheon was covered with concrete. In the 1970s, an elevated highway was built over it. </li></ul><ul><li>In July 2003, now-President (then-Seoul mayor) Lee Myung-bak initiated a project to remove the highway and restore the stream as a pedestrian recreation area. Because the stream had been cut off from its source, this required that 120,000 tons of water were to be pumped in annually from the Han River and its tributaries. </li></ul><ul><li>Despite opposition from the previous mayor and fears of business loss/gentrification, the project was completed in September 2005 at a cost of US$384 million. </li></ul><ul><li>Cheonggyecheon has since became a center for cultural activities and economic /real estate investment. Some 90,000 pedestrians visit the stream banks on an average day. </li></ul><ul><li>On the environmental side, fish, birds, and insect species have increased significantly; and stream flows have helped cool down the (summer) temperature of nearby areas an average of 3.6 °C compared to other parts of Seoul. </li></ul><ul><li>Source: Adam Stein, 2009 (www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/seouls-river) </li></ul>CHEONGGYECHEON .
  • 27. Regeneration Projects – Success Takeaways Planning-Initiated? Top-down or Participatory Planning Process? Success Takeaway NYC Public-Private Partnerships Yes Mostly top-down Complex deals require thoughtful, competent and patient deal-makers. Land assembly matters. Canary Wharf Slightly Top-down Inexpensive land, and accessible location, liberal zoning, and cheap finance still count for a lot. Vancouver’s DT Living First Plan Yes Mostly top-down Livability can be designed-in. Local context matters. Be aware of your market. 1992 Barcelona Olympics Somewhat Top-down Plan for the day after. Focus on re-purposing districts as well as individual projects. Bilbao Yes Mostly top-down Promoting heritage-based tourism as a development strategy can work, even in lesser-known places. Innovative marquis projects help. Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Yes Mostly top-down Development can co-exist with conservation and environmental protection, especially when based on consistent and tested principles. Berlin Redevelopment Yes Mostly top-down Design competitions are a useful vehicle for identifying innovative redevelopment options. Millennium Park No None Innovative and careful space programming coupled with strong political leadership Cheonggyecheon (Seoul) No Top-down Innovative and transformative projects can succeed if they resonate with the public.
  • 28. Post-Disaster Rebuilding
  • 29. Post-Disaster Rebuilding – Success Takeaways Planning-Initiated? Top-down or Participatory Planning Process? Success Takeaways 1995 Kobe Earthquake Yes Top-down Infrastructure rebuilding first, then housing reconstruction. Don’t rush. Upgrade codes and construction technologies. Use allowances and certificates to deal with immediate shelter and service needs. Strong political leadership is extremely important. Post-war Croatia Partially Top-down Start with a comprehensive (but quick) survey of rebuilding needs. Develop a robust but transparent prioritization system for addressing them. Work to integrate outside financial and in-kind assistance into locally-generated rebuilding program.
  • 30. <ul><li>On January 17, 1995, a 6.8 magnitude earthquake hit Kobe Japan, resulting in 6,400 deaths and approximately 10 trillion yen worth of property and economic damage, the equivalent of 2% of Japan’s GDP. After the earthquake, officials estimated that it could take 10 years to recover. </li></ul><ul><li>After only 15 months, however, Kobe’s manufacturing had recovered to 98% of its pre-quake level. Kobe’s infrastructure was fully rebuilt in two years, and within five years, more than 140,000 housing units were constructed, exceeding the number of demolished units. </li></ul><ul><li>Experts attribute Kobe’s quicker than expected recovery to : </li></ul><ul><li>A focus by Japan’s national government on quickly rebuilding key infrastructure (Downside: too much too fast) </li></ul><ul><li>The adoption of a 2-month moratorium on rebuilding to give city officials time to formulate more comprehensive strategies. </li></ul><ul><li>Strong political leadership by Kobe’s former mayor (Yukitoshi Sasayama), a planner by training. </li></ul><ul><li>The fortuitous adoption of a far-sighted citywide Comprehensive Plan on January 13, 1995; and the extensive citizen participation efforts that had occurred around that plan. </li></ul><ul><li>The use of numerical rebuilding targets, and real-time recovery indices. </li></ul><ul><li>The quick adoption of more stringent seismic building codes. </li></ul><ul><li>The government distribution of 500,000 damage “certificates” to help victims quickly access rebuilding services. </li></ul>1995 KOBE EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY . Collapsed ▲ and rebuilt ▼ highway Source: Hayashi, Haruo, 2007. Journal of Disaster Research
  • 31. <ul><li>Although 1991-1995 War in the Balkans (aka the Croatian War of Independence) ultimately resulted in Croatia’s independence from Serbia, it also left much of Croatia devastated, with damage estimates ranging from 21–25% of its economy destroyed and an estimated $37 billion in damaged infrastructure, lost output, and refugee-related costs. Hardest hit were the cities of Dubrovnik, Vukovar and Slavonski Brod, both of which were substantially destroyed by shelling. </li></ul><ul><li>At the war’s conclusion in 1996, President Franjo Tuđman introduced a comprehensive plan for reconstruction. The plan (enacted as an act of law) prioritized Croatia’s municipalities and rural villages into three groups depending on their need for reconstruction aid. The first two groups identified specific cities and towns designated to receive rebuilding assistance, with the third group left open to all other places meeting the plan’s criteria. Longer-term, the plan identified the promotion of tourism and foreign economic investment as essential strategies. </li></ul><ul><li>Between 1992 and 2003, the Croatian Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction spent $2.4 billion reconstructing 126,000 fully or partially-destroyed homes; $273 million fixing damaged infrastructure and utility systems; and $98 million repairing 342 damaged schools. For the most part, the distribution of rebuilding expenditures was consistent with priorities identified in the nation plan. Additional hundreds of millions of dollars for rebuilding historic structures and the preservation of heritage sites were provided by UNESCO and the International Council on Monuments and Sites, a preservation-oriented NGO. By 2002, the reconstruction of Croatia was essentially complete. </li></ul>REBUILDING CROATIA . Source: David Elden, 2004. unpublished Master’s thesis. Shelling damage in Dubrovnik ▲and Vukovar▼
  • 32. Environmental Planning
  • 33. Environmental Planning – Success Takeaways Planning-Initiated? Top-down or Participatory Planning Process? Success Takeaway Seoul Greenbelt Partially Top-down Act “while the iron is hot.” Include room for anticipated growth. Costa Rica’s Sustainable Forestry Practices Partially Initially top-down; later mix Political leadership is essential when taking on property interests. Montreal Protocol No Top-down Act while the iron is hot. Allow for liberal phasing-in of regulations while pre-empting potential backsliding. US Local Land Trusts No Bottom-up Buying land locally is the best, most durable, and least controversial way to protect it; but works best when part of a larger conservation plan. Patagonia National Park (Chile) No Top-down Buying land is the best way to protect it, but make sure you buy the “best” land. Sustainable Stockholm Yes Both No silver bullet: Coupled multiple, incremental, and synergistic technological, design and institutional changes.
  • 34. COSTA RICA: FOREST SUSTAINABILITY AS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY . Source: Silva, 2003. Latin American Politics and Society Historically, Costa Rica—like many tropical countries—suffered high rates of deforestation. By 1987, only 29% of Costa Rica was covered by forests, down from 85% in 1900. The administration of President Daniel Oduber (1974-78) was the first to turn this around, putting forest conservation on par with timber harvesting operations, and creating a national park system. These efforts continued under subsequent Costa Rican presidents, especially Oscar Arias (1986-1990), whose administration combined administrative responsibilities for overseeing natural resources planning and energy and mining production into a single high-level ministry. A national reforestation program was subsequently started in the late 1980s with the help of the Dutch government. The resource conservation agenda was further broadened during the late 1990s under the administration of President Jose Figueres Olsen to include biodiversity and ecotourism as a vehicle for national economic development. More importantly, the responsibility for administering conservation efforts was decentralized from the central government in San Jose, to eleven regional offices. Today, w ith nearly 30% of its landmass held in parks and conservation reserves, Costa Rica produces over 90% of its electricity through renewable means such as hydroelectric, geothermal and wind power. Costa Rica is ranked 128 th among nations in terms of per capita CO2 emissions—lower than any other county of comparable per capita GDP. Tourism, much of it eco-tourism, is currently the first or second largest sector of Costa Rica’s economy.
  • 35. LOCAL LAND TRUSTS (US) <ul><li>Private protection of undeveloped land through conservation easements, pro-active conveyance to government entity, and fee-simple ownership. </li></ul><ul><li>As of 2005, more than 1,650 local land trusts protecting 12M acres. </li></ul><ul><li>Predominantly used to protect “working” landscapes: wetlands, river corridors, watersheds, farm and ranch lands. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Works by providing “bottom-up” common benefit. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More durable than alternatives, especially zoning. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funds can be set aside for management. </li></ul></ul>Yolo County, CA
  • 36. PATAGONIA NATIONAL PARK (CHILE) . Source: http://www.conservacionpatagonica.org/buildingthepark.htm In the late 1990s, The Conservation Land Trust (funded by American entrepreneur Doug Tompkins) established Pumalin Park, a 756,000-acre sanctuary in south Chile to protect native wildlife from mining, agricultural intrusion, and proposed dam construction. In 2002, a successor trust, Conservacion Patagonica (CP), secured 165,000 acres of coastal wilderness in Argentina for the new Monte Leon National Park. In 2004, CP took on the creation of the 650,000-acre Patagonia National Park in Chile&apos;s Chacabuco Valley by purchasing the 173,000-acre Estancia Valle Chacabuco, formerly one of Chile&apos;s largest sheep ranches. Subsequent years saw additional ranchland purchases. CP’s plans call for coupling these 200,000 privately-acquired acres with 460,000 acres that are currently part of Chile’s Jeinimeni and Tamango National Reserves. CP’s stated goal is to convert existing sheep and cattle ranch lands back to their original status as wildlife grasslands, and to spark a local economy based on conservation, not unsustainable sheep ranching. These efforts have not been uncontroversial, with some local stakeholders concerned over the efforts of foreigners, especially Americans, to purchase large land holdings and stipulate their future uses.
  • 37. Housing and Community Development
  • 38. Housing and Community Development Planning-Initiated? Top-down or Participatory Planning Process? Success Takeaway Kampung Improvement Program Mostly Participatory Successful community upgrading requires a range of locally-identified and synergistic (but not necessarily expensive) strategies and programs. Soweto Electrification Program No None Availability of basic urban services (power and water) trumps housing or building quality. US Low-income Housing Tax Credit No Top-down Competition recognizes and rewards quality and responsive development. Program is transparent but not easy. Success build capacity. No federal bureacracy. Amsterdam Docklands Housing Projects Yes Top-down There is a strong market for “distinguished” density, especially when it pays attention (but is not a slave to) the local context. Minha Casa, Minha Vida Partially Top-down Low-income mortgage assistance programs work best when tiered and targeted and connected to a construction pipeline.
  • 39. <ul><li>Kampungs are informal and unplanned settlements in Indonesia. Although not regarded as slums, per se, they typically lack adequate urban services. Since 1968, the Indonesian government has sought to upgrade urban service levels in Kampungs, most notably in Jakarta and Surabaya, through a community involvement process known as the Kampung Improvement Program, or KIP. World Bank funding for KIP was secured in 1976, but ended in the mid-1990s. </li></ul><ul><li>KIP initiatives include four program components: (1) Water, sewer, and roadway system upgrading; (2) Job training and business loans; (3) Housing upgrading, including water supply and sewer connections; and (4) Land management, including title certification. </li></ul><ul><li>KIP works as follows: (1) Communities members work with professionals to survey, map, identify, and prioritize local problems; (2) Community workshops are held (including government officials) to identify feasible strategies and solutions; (3) Development funds are awarded to newly-formed community organizations which are responsible for program implementation and supervision. </li></ul><ul><li>Between 1984 and 1990, the KIP program in Surabaya is credited with upgrading 220 km of roads and paths, constructing 93 km of drains; laying 56 km of water pipes; building 86 public washing and sanitation facilities, improving solid waste collection, and constructing new schools and public health centers. </li></ul><ul><li>Surabaya’s KIP program received the 1986 Aga Khan award for Architecture and the 1990 UNEP Award. </li></ul>KAMPUNG IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (INDONESIA) . Source: Dr. Shobhakar Dhakal, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2002 New KIP-funded housing project Drainage canal and path before ▲ and after ▼
  • 40. LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (US) <ul><li>Allows affordable housing developers (chiefly non-profits) to sell tax credits to companies and investors in exchange for upfront cash up to 50% of total development cost. Funds rental housing construction affordable to families with 50% or less of area median income. In Philadelphia, that’s $36,000 for a family of four. </li></ul><ul><li>More than 2M affordable units built since 1986. </li></ul><ul><li>Annual allocation limited to $1.75 per capita, awarded by state housing finance agencies. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Works thru tax code. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nicer than your house : Competition rewards high-quality development. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transparent but not easy. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverages other funds. </li></ul></ul>
  • 41. <ul><li>KNSM Island is a man-made peninsula in Amsterdam named for the Royal Dutch Steamboat Shipping company which used to have its headquarters and docks on the island. </li></ul><ul><li>In the 1990s, KNSM Island was redeveloped as a residential community according to a plan by Dutch architect and planner, Jo Coenen. Breaking with the trend toward smaller, more fine-grained projects, Coenen proposed the development of &amp;quot;super blocks” of big buildings mimicking the organization of the island&apos;s former warehouses and storage buildings. While initial plans called for KNSM to be an exclusive neighborhood of home owners, the city mandated that a significant portion of the homes be built as rentals, to attract a more diverse population. </li></ul>BORNEO SPORENBURG AND KNSM ISLAND (AMSTERDAM EAST DOCKLANDS) . In 1996, the Dutch design firm West 8 was commissioned to transform Borneo and Sporenburg , two abandoned and massive docks on Amsterdam’s eastern waterfront, into residential neighborhoods with 2,500 housing units. The program called for suburban-style, suburban-style, low-rise housing, each with a front door opening onto the street, to be introduced into a high-density urban setting with 100 units per hectare (roughly 2.5 acres), three times the density of a typical suburban project. The Borneo Sporenburg plan divides the grid of low-rise buildings into three zones with architecturally distinctive high-rise residential buildings, or “sculptural blocks,” which create significant landmarks within the harbor landscape.
  • 42. <ul><li>Announced in March 2009, Minha Casa, Minha Vida (MCMV) is the Brazilian federal government’s largest affordable home ownership and community development initiative to date. Initially budgeted at BRL $34B , MCMV’s goal is to fund the construction of 1 million new homes by 2016 . MCMV is limited to major metropolitan areas. MCMV is administered exclusively by the Brazil’s Caixa Econmica Federal. MCMV program and loan provisions vary by income level: </li></ul><ul><li>For households with 1 to 3X the minimum wage , interest rates are near 0%; and Loan-to-value rates range from 100% down to 88%. For example, a household with an income 3X the minimum could purchase a house up to a value of BRL $52,000, (USD $32,000) with MCMV contributing BRL $46,000. The remainder (BRL $6,000) could be borrowed at higher rates from Caixa Econmica Federal. Insurance and notary costs are waived. </li></ul><ul><li>Households with incomes between 3 and 6X the minimum wage are eligible for income supplements for loans; up to 90% insurance and title/notary discounts; and access to the guaranteed&apos; fund (which will cover in the case of unemployment, death or other specified circumstances); </li></ul><ul><li>Households with incomes between 6 and 10X the minimum wage can receive lower costs of insurance, an 80% reduction of the notary registration cost and access to the guaranteed&apos; fund. </li></ul><ul><li>In June 2011, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff announced MCMV Phase II, with a goal of 2M additional units, and funded at BRL $134B. </li></ul>MINHA CASA, MINHA VIDA (BRAZIL) . MCMV homes constructed for 1 to 3X minimum wage MCMV homes constructed for 3 to 6X minimum wage MCMV homes constructed for 6 to 10X minimum wage
  • 43. Large-scale City Master Planning
  • 44. <ul><li>Singapore completed its first post-British-era Concept Plan (CP) in 1971 as a long-range vision to guide the country&apos;s physical development for the next 20 years. Unlike the existing Master Plan, which remained in effect and provided detailed zoning and density parameters, the CP focused on Singapore’s land allocation and transportation policy. The CP was not statutory (unlike the Master Plan) although most of its proposals were eventually implemented. </li></ul><ul><li>The CP envisaged the development of high- and low-density residential estates; and industrial areas and commercial centers in a ring formation around the central core. It identified land and future rights-of-way for expressways, mass transit (The MRT system), and the Changi Airport. The Pan Island Expressway (Singapore’ first) and Changi Airport Terminal 1 were completed in 1981, and the MRT system opened in 1987. </li></ul><ul><li>A revised CP was issued by the Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority in 1991. With the economy growing strongly and the majority of Singaporeans already properly housed, the revised CP’s focus shifted to improving the quality of life, and transforming Singapore into a &amp;quot;tropical city of excellence. The revised CP proposed a wider variety of housing, more leisure facilities, and much more greenery and open space. Instead of the center-oriented ring layout adopted in the 1971 plan, the 1991 CP proposed developing four regional centers (Woodlands, Tampines and Jurong East) to reduce congestion in the center. The new downtown at Marina South is also a product of the 1991 CP. A third review of the CP was completed in 2001 and its broad strategies were translated into the 2003 master plan, the first update in nearly 20 years. </li></ul>SINGAPORE . Source: Chew, National Singapore Library Board, 2009 1971 1991 Evolving Concept Plans
  • 45. <ul><li>Located 30 miles north of Hong Kong, Shenzhen was the first (of five) places in China designated as Special Economic Zones (SSEZ) in 1980, with the intention of serving as China’s manufacturing production and innovation center, and South China’s financial center. </li></ul><ul><li>Shenzhen’s population has grown from about 50,000 in 1978 to more than 9 million today (14 million in the metro area) making it China’s fastest growing large city. Shenzhen is also China’s wealthiest city, with a 2009 per capita GDP of US$ 13,600; and is home to some of China&apos;s most successful high-tech companies including BYD, Baidu, and Huawei. </li></ul><ul><li>From 1980 to 1986, Shenzhen’s development mainly took the form of centrally-designated industrial areas, with housing provided through nearby factory-provided dormitories. The Luohu district was designated as the SSEZ’s commercial center. </li></ul><ul><li>In 1986, the Shenzhen Municipal Government completed its own comprehensive plan identifying six settlement “clusters” (Shatoujiao, Luohu-Shangbu, Futian, Overseas Chinese Town, Nantou and Qianhai) along Shenzhen’s east-west transportation spine connecting the city’s ports and airport. </li></ul><ul><li>Shenzhen’s 2 nd Comprehensive Plan (1996-2010) was undertaken in three stages: (1:1996–2000) freezing agricultural land conservation and building on the compact form of clusters identified in the first plan; (2: 2001–2010), adding two more transportation spines and building compactly along them; and (3: 2011 onward) the establishment of Shenzhen as a modern international, and more market-oriented city. </li></ul>SHENZHEN . &lt; 1986 1 st Comprehensive Plan organizing diagram 1996-2011 2 nd Comprehensive Plan organizing diagram &gt; Source: Bruton, Bruton, and Li, 2005
  • 46. HSINCHU SCIENCE PARK <ul><li>Established by the Taiwan National Science Council in 1980, Hsinchu Science Park (HSP) was the first master-planned Science/R&amp;D industrial park outside the U.S. Modeled after Silicon Valley, HSP sought to attract new technologies and talent from abroad, leapfrogging Taiwan’s economy from its low value-added manufacturing base, to a high-tech future. </li></ul><ul><li>Located 40 km southwest of Taipei, and straddling the city and county of Hsinchu, the 6.5-square kilometer HSP is now home to more than 400 Taiwanese high-tech companies, including the world&apos;s top two semiconductor foundries, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC). HSP-headquartered companies employ roughly 140,000 people, and account for 10% of Taiwanese GDP. </li></ul><ul><li>HSP’s success is NOT due to superior land, site or community planning but to various subsidies and its location vis a vis complementary economic activities. These include: (i) generous tax incentives, low-cost land, and the availability of low-cost government and private loans;(ii) technology incubation and manpower supplied from the near-by universities and cross-fertilization among the Park tenants; and (iii) the active involvement of overseas Chinese entrepreneurs through the transnational Science Park Administration-SPA (Ho 1992). </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul>.
  • 47. THE NEW URBANIST COMMUNITIES <ul><li>Principles : P romote walkability and reduce car use through a tight grid-like street pattern and mix of housing and land use types; use design themes to define walkable neighborhoods; create a recognizable community center for commerce and social interaction; limit sprawl at the community’s edge. </li></ul><ul><li>More than 100 new urbanist communities built around the world, mostly in the US and Australia. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lead the market, don’t follow. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good street and site plans that work. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Graceful density. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design that adds value. </li></ul></ul>Kentlands, MD Celebration, FL Greenbank, AU
  • 48. Large-scale City Master Planning – Success Takeaways Planning-Initiated? Top-down or Participatory Planning Process? Success Takeaway Singapore Mostly Mostly top-down The British-Asian model of large-scale vision/structure/infrastructure investment plans linked to regulatory master/ implementation plans is still a good one Shenzhen Partially Top-down Ditto. But in high-growth situations, both the structure and master plans should be revisited frequently. Hsinchu Science Park (Taiwan) Partially Top-down Cheap land, highway access, agglomeration economies, and government sponsorship, not planning are the keys to developing a world-class science/R&amp;D park. The New Urbanism Yes Top-down Functional and community amenity-driven designs and site plans that lead the market (but not too much). Designs emphasize real choices and graceful density.
  • 49. Ones to Watch
  • 50. ONES TO WATCH . ◄ New York City’s PlaNYC Murray-Darling River Basin Plan ► ◄ Masdar Sustainable City (Abu Dhabi) Song Do International Business District (S. Korea)►
  • 51. Takeaways
  • 52. Cross-cutting Takeaways <ul><li>Don’t be parochial: Take good ideas wherever you find them. </li></ul><ul><li>Avoid initial over-reaching. </li></ul><ul><li>Pay attention to positive framing ► Identify measurable results and image-able outcomes. </li></ul><ul><li>Aim for a “one-two punch”: Couple discrete early successes with longer-term transformative efforts. </li></ul><ul><li>Be clear and consistent but also flexible: Couple clear &amp; transparent goals with adaptable implementation strategies. </li></ul><ul><li>Think long-term: Use individual project experience to build longer-term institutional capacity. </li></ul><ul><li>Find and cultivate trustworthy political champions. </li></ul><ul><li>Process-based planning initiatives rarely generate substantial innovations or changes from the status quo, but they can help build essential constituencies for change, and help participants and stakeholders learn and evolve. </li></ul><ul><li>Adapting Isiah Berlin: Patient hedgehogs beat clever foxes. </li></ul>
  • 53. What to Avoid
  • 54. What to Avoid (US Version) <ul><li>New light rail systems in low-density corridors or shrinking cities or high auto ownership cities or low congestion cities. </li></ul><ul><li>Tax increment financing (TIF) in cities with few barriers to development (or worse, shrinking cities). </li></ul><ul><li>Economic development initiatives predicated on building buildings or street and public realm improvements. </li></ul><ul><li>Updating your comprehensive plan primarily to “make it current.” Update your plan to anticipate or respond to change. </li></ul><ul><li>New affordable housing projects with more than 50 units. </li></ul><ul><li>ANY development project which is more than 50% speculative. </li></ul><ul><li>Climate Action Plans that don’t address adaptation issues. </li></ul><ul><li>Competing for the Olympics/World Cup as a vehicle for city upgrading. </li></ul><ul><li>Un-earmarked development impact fees. </li></ul><ul><li>New programs or regulations that haven’t been tested in a demonstration. </li></ul><ul><li>Mixed-use development in low pedestrian traffic areas. </li></ul><ul><li>Metropolitan planning/governance agencies without major revenue-raising powers. </li></ul><ul><li>Pro forma-driven density. </li></ul>

×