OK, time to get this blogging thing off and running again!
Going to start with a short article from Streetsblog.org about how in New York City, with all its emphasis on transit orientation and walking and livability and so on, that even there they have a hard time getting their zoning to actually reflect what their plans are trying to accomplish.
You can read the article here!
A couple of highlights from the story - Indeed, under one representative five-year period of Bloomberg and Burden’s city planning, three-quarters of the lots rezoned for greater density were located within a half-mile of rail transit, but so were two-thirds of the lots where development was further restricted
Why would this happen? Well, here's part of the explanation - Explaining the need for the new restrictions, the department writes on its website that “the residential neighborhoods in the rezoning area have been experiencing development pressure” and that the new rules are needed to “preserve the scale and context of these areas.”
But isn't that the point? When we want an area to change its character, wouldn't that happen most quickly when it is "experiencing development pressure?" Then we can get the new development to be what we want it to be according to the new plan?
I think we have a lot of this very thing going on right here in River City. Everybody talks a big game about how we want new patterns of development, often transit-oriented development. To get that to happen, we need the existing development pattern to change. But - those who live there don't want it to change, and we stay generally with what we've got.
Change is never easy...
Post your comments, let's get some discussion going!
Thanks for the new blog! Although I have somewhat strayed from my urbanist roots, it is still where my passions are, and I always welcome new bloggers to the planning blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you write about the old NIMBY problem. Plans are made, hopefully with public support, but then when it comes to the rubber meeting the road, the public wants something else. Is it simply a problem of the development pressures meeting a public that looks completely different from the public that supported the zoning plan? It's entirely possible; happens all the time, and is a function of poor participation practices. It could also be a function of classic economical cognitive dissonance: "TOD is great, but not if it's in my neighborhood!"
So, what is a planning department to do? Not listen to the neighborhood's wishes? It's a tough issue to resolve, but here's my question: What's the point of having a plan if it is not enforced? It seems like a waste of time and money.
I hope you stick around this time and can get more comments and discussion going.
I think these zoning decisions in New York have arisen out of fear. It sounds like the residents had a large hand in guiding the Planning Department's recent decisions, maybe not the master plans though. Public participation is great. As planners, we need to facilitate and encourage community involvement. We need that public input and buy-in to proceed with any plan. However, we also have a responsibility to educate the public as well. The general public is usually afraid of change. As planners, we have tools to help direct and effect change in our communities for the greater good and prosperity of the city. In this case it appears the residents fears of what up-zoning might bring have caused the city to back peddle from a master plan. Politics come into play and out goes the plan. Fear of change is a legitimate feeling to have for residents. Fear of looming and dense buildings. Fear of something different. Fear of "those" people. Fear of property value decline. These are all legitimate fears. I believe these fears can be alleviated through two things, design and education.
ReplyDeleteAs planners, we know that density can be designed so that it doesn't feel overbearing or out of place. It's difficult to properly regulate design through traditional Euclidean Zoning practices. You never quite know what you're going to get and how exactly it will look. We have guidelines and rules, but what a developer proposes and what we end up with can create unintended consequences. There are still lots of variables that create some legitimate fear from the neighbors and for the city. Just giving a property a Mixed-Use Zone can generate a mixed bag of results. I think we can see some of these examples right here in Utah! You almost have to get lucky with a developer that knows exactly what their doing through years of experience with Mixed-Use in other markets in order to have a successful development.
I think contextually based Form-Based Codes can provide the solution. If implemented properly through community education and participation through design charrettes with the residents and development community, you can create a scenario that gives both the developer and the community a more predictable and transparent outcome. The developer knows exactly what the city wants and expects, thus making their entitlements simple and fast. The community has created a contextual design that they can live with that allows a more dense development pattern. I think it can truly be a "win win" solution to this very complex problem.
No one likes to see change into the unknown. If you can direct change into a prescribed and transparent design solution, then there isn't much left to fear.
Do we really need more public participation? Or is it an issue of how we do things? Frankly, planners for the most part could use a few classes in communications or public relations, which is never in the curriculum. How do you feel about this thought by Andres Duany:
ReplyDeleteThe central problem, according to Andres Duany, is that the immediate neighbors to a proposed development are brought in to speak on behalf of the whole community. These neighbors obviously have a vested interest in what happens in their backyard, and an emotional connection to their space. They also often have a financial stake in what happens, with their life’s savings tied up in their home. "We've tainted the process by not understanding that the neighbors are a special interest," says Duany. "They are not the community." http://www.planetizen.com/node/43935