12 Planning Successes John D. Landis Department of City & Regional Planning University of Pennsylvania October 20 2010 Pen...
Outline <ul><li>Why Study Success? </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying  Success </li></ul><ul><li>12 Planning Success </li></ul>...
Why Study Success? <ul><li>Planning as a discipline pays inadequate attention to evaluating its success and failures: </li...
Why Study Success? <ul><li>As a result, planning “successes” often get defined by others, usually as a lack of success:  <...
A Rejoinder to Hall & O’Toole <ul><li>PETER HALL (Great Planning Disasters,1982):   During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, pl...
Identifying  Planning Success? <ul><li>Plan that is implemented and doesn’t just sit on the  shelf  ◄  Too simplistic. </l...
Parsing Planning Success <ul><li>Local  and  public   initiative focusing on the  built or natural environment  which resu...
Twelve  Post-1973  Planning Successes   <ul><li>California Coastal Act & Commission </li></ul><ul><li>Chesapeake Bay Progr...
1. California Coastal Act  & Commission - 1972 <ul><li>Voter initiative in 1972 </li></ul><ul><li>Set up California Coasta...
2. Chesapeake Bay Program - 1983 <ul><li>Interstate partnership involving three states, more than a dozen federal agencies...
3. Planning-Zoning Consistency Requirements <ul><li>Required in about a dozen states </li></ul><ul><li>Requires that munic...
4. NE Corridor Improvement Project - 1976 <ul><li>Boston to NYC in 3 hours; NYC to Washington, DC in 2 hours/45 minutes; c...
5. Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary - 1979 <ul><li>Established in 1979, covers 350 sqM in 24 municipalities in 3 counties,...
6. Public-Private Partnerships:  Times Square (1977+) and Battery Park City (1980+) <ul><li>TIMES SQUARE:  Re-invented in ...
7. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (1986) <ul><li>Allows affordable housing developers (chiefly non-profits) to sell tax cre...
8. Historic Preservation Tax Credit   <ul><li>Developers who rehabilitate an historic property (listed on the National Reg...
9. The New Urbanist Communities <ul><li>Principles : P romote walkability and reduce car use through a tight grid-like str...
10. Downtown Ballparks (1992) <ul><li>“ New/old” and “retro parks” designed exclusively for baseball; less seating, smalle...
11. Local Land Trusts <ul><li>Private protection of undeveloped land through conservation easements, pro-active conveyance...
12. Millennium Park (2005) <ul><li>Just 24.5 acres in size, built on top of 19 th  C railyard. </li></ul><ul><li>Programme...
Ingredients for Success <ul><li>Avoid Over-reaching </li></ul><ul><li>Frame Favorable Images </li></ul><ul><li>Couple Earl...
Institutionalizing Success <ul><ul><li>Study planning successes  and failures  in planning school. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul>...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

12 Planning Successes V2

763 views

Published on

John Landis presentation

Published in: Design, Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
763
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

12 Planning Successes V2

  1. 1. 12 Planning Successes John D. Landis Department of City & Regional Planning University of Pennsylvania October 20 2010 PennDesign Alums and Friends
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Why Study Success? </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying Success </li></ul><ul><li>12 Planning Success </li></ul><ul><li>Ingredients for Success </li></ul><ul><li>Institutionalizing Success </li></ul>
  3. 3. Why Study Success? <ul><li>Planning as a discipline pays inadequate attention to evaluating its success and failures: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interventions are mostly long-term; values and tastes change; people move on in their concerns. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Effort and process is more important than outcome. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of predictive theories and models against which to evaluate success. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of schooling in importance and methods of evaluation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Little $ in the budget for evaluation. </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Why Study Success? <ul><li>As a result, planning “successes” often get defined by others, usually as a lack of success: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Public interest and Benefit-Cost critique of the 1960s: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Planning as the hand-maiden of established political and business interests. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Traditional evaluations are too narrow, and fail to consider externalities, incommensurables, and distributional impacts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Martin Anderson, Irving Kristol & Nathan Glazer: Government and planning characteristically over-reach and under-analyze “rational” responses. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reagan “Revolution”: Government (and by extension, and public efforts) are the problem not the solution. </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. A Rejoinder to Hall & O’Toole <ul><li>PETER HALL (Great Planning Disasters,1982): During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, planners worldwide suffered from: </li></ul><ul><li>Fascination with technology </li></ul><ul><li>Belief in mega-projects </li></ul><ul><li>Belief that existing cities could be massively reshaped </li></ul><ul><li>Faith in normative plans implemented through regulation </li></ul><ul><li>Skepticism of markets, competition & and incentives. </li></ul><ul><li>RANDAL O’TOOLE ( Best Laid Plans ): Compared to the market, planners always misallocate resources: </li></ul><ul><li>Over-favor higher densities </li></ul><ul><li>Over-favor public transit over cars </li></ul>
  6. 6. Identifying Planning Success? <ul><li>Plan that is implemented and doesn’t just sit on the shelf ◄ Too simplistic. </li></ul><ul><li>Plan or program that achieves its goals and objectives ◄ What about cost? </li></ul><ul><li>Plan, program, or project that generates 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. 7. Parsing Planning Success <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. 8. Twelve Post-1973 Planning Successes <ul><li>California Coastal Act & 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 & thousands of local comprehensive plans
  9. 9. 1. California Coastal Act & Commission - 1972 <ul><li>Voter initiative in 1972 </li></ul><ul><li>Set up California Coastal Commission </li></ul><ul><li>Regulates development & insures access in entire coastal zone </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinates Local Coastal Plans (LCPs) </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Successful resource protection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Good cop/Bad cop” but bad cop only occasionally </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Works with local government to build capacity. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistent with California’s self-image as environmental leader. </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. 2. Chesapeake Bay Program - 1983 <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Science-based; collaborative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Works through existing political system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shared gain (improved ecology) and shared pain (restricts development & farming) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tries to respect existing property rights. </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. 3. Planning-Zoning Consistency Requirements <ul><li>Required in about a dozen states </li></ul><ul><li>Requires that municipal zoning ordinance be consistent with local comprehensive plan (and usually subdivision ordinances) </li></ul><ul><li>Plan changes must accompany zoning changes </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires individual development decisions to adhere to a larger framework. Deters ad hoc actions and developments. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Links conditions of approval to broader public purpose. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Promotes consistency and certainty. </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. 4. NE Corridor Improvement Project - 1976 <ul><li>Boston to NYC in 3 hours; NYC to Washington, DC in 2 hours/45 minutes; cutting previous travel times by 50%. </li></ul><ul><li>4-R Act of 1976 creating NCEIP program authorizing $2.6B of R-O-W upgrades </li></ul><ul><li>Phase II in 1991 ($2.5B) funding further track and station upgrades and Acela Express. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incremental, but results in real travel time and convenience improvements. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An existing mode, subject to competition. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Station area improvements come later, after service improvements. </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. 5. Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary - 1979 <ul><li>Established in 1979, covers 350 sqM in 24 municipalities in 3 counties, including city of Portland. Administered by Portland Metro. </li></ul><ul><li>Principle purpose is to rationalize conversion of farmland to subdivisions. </li></ul><ul><li>Must be reviewed every 5 years and enlarged as needed. Enlarged by 10% since 1998. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy to understand. Clear link between purpose and means. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metro administration firm and flexible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coupled with infill and redevelopment incentives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Otherwise, little social engineering </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. 6. Public-Private Partnerships: Times Square (1977+) and Battery Park City (1980+) <ul><li>TIMES SQUARE: Re-invented in early 1990s as family entertainment destination zone coupling theatres, movies, retailing, food & 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>
  15. 15. 7. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (1986) <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>
  16. 16. 8. Historic Preservation Tax Credit <ul><li>Developers who rehabilitate an historic property (listed on the National Register) may claim a 20% tax credit against their rehabilitation costs. </li></ul><ul><li>Developers who rehabilitate any non-residential structure built prior to 1936 may claim a 10% tax credit against their rehabilitation costs. </li></ul><ul><li>Used to rehabilitate more than 35,000 properties since 1976, generating $45M of new investment. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Works thru tax code to create real value. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy to apply to qualified properties. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Administered through appropriate state agencies. </li></ul></ul>Amsterdam Theatre, NYC
  17. 17. 9. 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
  18. 18. 10. Downtown Ballparks (1992) <ul><li>“ 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. </li></ul><ul><li>16 finished so far, 2 in 2009. </li></ul><ul><li>Much more expensive to build than multi-use stadiums; most require considerable public financing. </li></ul><ul><li>REASONS FOR SUCCESS </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not necessarily a good financial or economic development investment. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul>PNC Park Cleveland
  19. 19. 11. Local Land Trusts <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
  20. 20. 12. Millennium Park (2005) <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>Historical location on Michigan Avenue. </li></ul><ul><li>Substantial private funding & 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 & downtown workers. </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Ingredients for Success <ul><li>Avoid Over-reaching </li></ul><ul><li>Frame Favorable Images </li></ul><ul><li>Couple Early Success with Long View Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Clear & Transparent Goals coupled with Adaptable Approaches and Strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Broad and Measurable Public Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Beyond Local Projects: Building Local Capacity to Keep Going </li></ul><ul><li>Politically Savvy Planners who have Earned the Trust of Local Leaders. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Institutionalizing Success <ul><ul><li>Study planning successes and failures in planning school. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Goals must be matched by objectives and hard success criteria. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All planning interventions should include and fund evaluations as SOP. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All long-term planning interventions should include formal milepost assessments. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More controversially: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Large-scale interventions subject to some form of ex ante evaluation or benefit-cost Analysis </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Separate local advance planning functions from permitting and relocate them to local city/county executive function. </li></ul></ul></ul>

×