The document discusses 12 examples of successful planning initiatives in the United States since 1973. Some key factors that contributed to their success included having clear and transparent goals coupled with adaptable approaches, generating broad and quantifiable public benefits, building local capacity, and being politically savvy initiatives that earned trust. The document argues for institutionalizing lessons from successful planning by studying successes and failures in planning education and ensuring evaluations are built into all long-term interventions.

1. 12 Planning Successes John D. Landis Department of City & Regional Planning University of Pennsylvania October 20 2010 PennDesign Alums and Friends

2. Outline Why Study Success? Identifying Success 12 Planning Success Ingredients for Success Institutionalizing Success

3. Why Study Success? Planning as a discipline pays inadequate attention to evaluating its success and failures: Interventions are mostly long-term; values and tastes change; people move on in their concerns. Effort and process is more important than outcome. Lack of predictive theories and models against which to evaluate success. Lack of schooling in importance and methods of evaluation. Little $ in the budget for evaluation.

4. Why Study Success? As a result, planning “successes” often get defined by others, usually as a lack of success: Public interest and Benefit-Cost critique of the 1960s: Planning as the hand-maiden of established political and business interests. Traditional evaluations are too narrow, and fail to consider externalities, incommensurables, and distributional impacts Martin Anderson, Irving Kristol & Nathan Glazer: Government and planning characteristically over-reach and under-analyze “rational” responses. Reagan “Revolution”: Government (and by extension, and public efforts) are the problem not the solution.

5. A Rejoinder to Hall & O’Toole PETER HALL (Great Planning Disasters,1982): During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, planners worldwide suffered from: Fascination with technology Belief in mega-projects Belief that existing cities could be massively reshaped Faith in normative plans implemented through regulation Skepticism of markets, competition & and incentives. RANDAL O’TOOLE ( Best Laid Plans ): Compared to the market, planners always misallocate resources: Over-favor higher densities Over-favor public transit over cars

6. Identifying Planning Success? Plan that is implemented and doesn’t just sit on the shelf ◄ Too simplistic. Plan or program that achieves its goals and objectives ◄ What about cost? Plan, program, or project that generates quantifiable benefits in excess of costs ◄ Not everything can be fully monetized and discounted. 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.

7. Parsing Planning Success 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 . 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. Twelve Post-1973 Planning Successes California Coastal Act & Commission Chesapeake Bay Program Planning-Zoning Consistency Laws Northeast Corridor Improvement Project Portland Urban Growth Boundaries NYC Public-Private Partnerships Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program Historic Preservation Tax Credits New Urbanist Communities Downtown Ballparks Local Land Trusts Chicago’s Millennium Park … plus urban waterfronts, festival marketplaces, anti-pollution laws, HOPE VI, inclusionary zoning ordinances & thousands of local comprehensive plans

9. 1. California Coastal Act & Commission - 1972 Voter initiative in 1972 Set up California Coastal Commission Regulates development & insures access in entire coastal zone Coordinates Local Coastal Plans (LCPs) REASONS FOR SUCCESS Successful resource protection “ Good cop/Bad cop” but bad cop only occasionally Works with local government to build capacity. Consistent with California’s self-image as environmental leader.

10. 2. Chesapeake Bay Program - 1983 Interstate partnership involving three states, more than a dozen federal agencies, and many state and local institutions in a collaborative, science-based effort to improve the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem by limiting development, pollution, and runoff; and promoting restoration. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Science-based; collaborative Works through existing political system Shared gain (improved ecology) and shared pain (restricts development & farming) Tries to respect existing property rights.

11. 3. Planning-Zoning Consistency Requirements Required in about a dozen states Requires that municipal zoning ordinance be consistent with local comprehensive plan (and usually subdivision ordinances) Plan changes must accompany zoning changes REASONS FOR SUCCESS Requires individual development decisions to adhere to a larger framework. Deters ad hoc actions and developments. Links conditions of approval to broader public purpose. Promotes consistency and certainty.

12. 4. NE Corridor Improvement Project - 1976 Boston to NYC in 3 hours; NYC to Washington, DC in 2 hours/45 minutes; cutting previous travel times by 50%. 4-R Act of 1976 creating NCEIP program authorizing $2.6B of R-O-W upgrades Phase II in 1991 ($2.5B) funding further track and station upgrades and Acela Express. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Incremental, but results in real travel time and convenience improvements. An existing mode, subject to competition. Station area improvements come later, after service improvements.

13. 5. Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary - 1979 Established in 1979, covers 350 sqM in 24 municipalities in 3 counties, including city of Portland. Administered by Portland Metro. Principle purpose is to rationalize conversion of farmland to subdivisions. Must be reviewed every 5 years and enlarged as needed. Enlarged by 10% since 1998. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Easy to understand. Clear link between purpose and means. Metro administration firm and flexible Coupled with infill and redevelopment incentives Otherwise, little social engineering

14. 6. Public-Private Partnerships: Times Square (1977+) and Battery Park City (1980+) TIMES SQUARE: Re-invented in early 1990s as family entertainment destination zone coupling theatres, movies, retailing, food & neon. Now #1 attraction in NYC. BATTERY PARK CITY: Largest, densest, and most urban new community anywhere in US. Couples offices, residential, and neighborhood commercial and public uses. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Both developed thru sophisticated public-private partnerships coupling private equity and public debt. Multiple false starts. Require public development programs and real estate/financial markets to be in synch. Built on programmatic flexibility and public-private professionalism.

15. 7. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (1986) 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. More than 2M affordable units built since 1986. Annual allocation limited to $1.75 per capita, awarded by state housing finance agencies. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Works thru tax code. Nicer than your house: Competition rewards high-quality development. Transparent but not easy. Leverages other funds.

16. 8. Historic Preservation Tax Credit Developers who rehabilitate an historic property (listed on the National Register) may claim a 20% tax credit against their rehabilitation costs. Developers who rehabilitate any non-residential structure built prior to 1936 may claim a 10% tax credit against their rehabilitation costs. Used to rehabilitate more than 35,000 properties since 1976, generating $45M of new investment. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Works thru tax code to create real value. Easy to apply to qualified properties. Administered through appropriate state agencies. Amsterdam Theatre, NYC

17. 9. The New Urbanist Communities 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. More than 100 new urbanist communities built around the world, mostly in the US and Australia. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Lead the market, don’t follow. Good street and site plans that work. Graceful density. Design that adds value. Kentlands, MD Celebration, FL Greenbank, AU

18. 10. Downtown Ballparks (1992) “ New/old” and “retro parks” designed exclusively for baseball; less seating, smaller footprint, and less parking add to the experience and make downtown or near-downtown location possible. Same factors allow parks to be integrated into neighborhoods. 16 finished so far, 2 in 2009. Much more expensive to build than multi-use stadiums; most require considerable public financing. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Not necessarily a good financial or economic development investment. But, can and do catalyze neighborhood residential and commercial development: Examples : Coors Field in Denver, AT&T Park in SF, Petco Field in San Diego. PNC Park Cleveland

19. 11. Local Land Trusts Private protection of undeveloped land through conservation easements, pro-active conveyance to government entity, and fee-simple ownership. As of 2005, more than 1,650 local land trusts protecting 12M acres. Predominantly used to protect “working” landscapes: wetlands, river corridors, watersheds, farm and ranch lands. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Works by providing “bottom-up” common benefit. More durable than alternatives, especially zoning. Funds can be set aside for management. Yolo County, CA

20. 12. Millennium Park (2005) Just 24.5 acres in size, built on top of 19 th C railyard. Programmed for maximum urban/green experience. Iconic features and structures. Historical location on Michigan Avenue. Substantial private funding & sponsorship. REASONS FOR SUCCESS Single client: Mayor Daley Brilliant space programming OMG novelty factor Intended as amenity for nearby residential towers, as well as for tourists & downtown workers.

21. Ingredients for Success Avoid Over-reaching Frame Favorable Images Couple Early Success with Long View Benefits Clear & Transparent Goals coupled with Adaptable Approaches and Strategies Broad and Measurable Public Benefits Beyond Local Projects: Building Local Capacity to Keep Going Politically Savvy Planners who have Earned the Trust of Local Leaders.

22. Institutionalizing Success Study planning successes and failures in planning school. Goals must be matched by objectives and hard success criteria. All planning interventions should include and fund evaluations as SOP. All long-term planning interventions should include formal milepost assessments. More controversially: Large-scale interventions subject to some form of ex ante evaluation or benefit-cost Analysis Separate local advance planning functions from permitting and relocate them to local city/county executive function.