Tag Archives: urban planning

compendium of inspiring planning practices

Move over Agenda 21, we have a new contender for the world’s most boring urban planning related conspiracy theory, Resolution 24/3! Seriously, don’t read it. It’s boring. However as a supporting study, the UN has put together a book of case studies on planning best practices in cities around the world, which is actually interesting. I found the Melbourne case study particularly interesting, and would like to dig into it more:

Melbourne developed a new approach to urban planning, through an ecosystem-based climate adaptation programme, embracing what the City refers to as ‘nature sensitive’ urban design and planning. This approach emphasises the services that nature provides to the city and focuses on how it can be protected, restored, created, enhanced and maintained within the urban setting. The urgency posed by the current impacts of climate changes resulted in the City creating a multi-million dollar integrated ecosystem-based climate change adaptation program in 2010 – the ‘Urban Landscapes Adaptation Program’.

The primary goal of this programme was to reduce drought vulnerability and to cool the city by 4°C in an effort to safeguard its citizens and the ecosystem services of its environmental assets from the impacts of climate change. The programme is underpinned by two strategies: the Open Space Strategy, which aims to increase green space by 7.6% and the Urban Forest Strategy, which is projected to double the City’s tree canopy to 40%.

meta-analysis on designing active cities

This is a great example of meta-analysis in Active Living Research. There are a few things I like about it. First, it combines academic literature, other literature, and expert opinion in a very transparent and defensible way, by giving each a score. It takes a very wide array of urban design and planning choices and relates them to a number of outcomes (physical health, mental health, environmental sustainability, health and safety, and economic growth), and draws quantitative conclusions about the importance of each. Some outcomes challenge my pre-conceived notions, for example that street connectivity is bad for safety, but the methodology is very transparent, so I can dig in if I want and try to figure out whether I disagree with a particular rating, or whether I really should rethink my preconceived notion. Those of us dealing with complex planning and engineering programs (and many other complex systems) can’t realistically expect to optimize a handful of objectives any more. Instead, we can play the odds by making sure all our small, daily decisions have a better than even chance of nudging the system in a desired direction, based on the complete body of evidence out there, even with all its contradictions and confusions.

Pennsylvania is #1…

…in government fragmentation, according to this 2003 paper by David Rusk at the Brookings Institution.

  • The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has created the nation’s most fragmented system of local government within its metropolitan areas.
  • State policies have contributed to uncontrolled urban sprawl by making its “little boxes” governments so highly dependent on local property taxes, promoting a constant ratables chase. Over the last fifty years Pennsylvania ranks second only to West Virginia in consuming the most land for the least population growth.
  • The combination – constant outward development overlaying a pattern of immutable local government boundaries – has condemned Pennsylvania’s “inelastic” central cities, most boroughs, and many “built-out” townships to population, economic, and fiscal decline.
  • The many governmental “little boxes” actively contribute to the high degree of racial and economic segregation that characterizes Pennsylvania’s metropolitan areas.
  • Whether through costly inefficiencies, high social and economic disparities, or cutthroat inter-municipal competition, Pennsylvania’s governmental system of “little boxes” also retards its economic growth.
  • Sprawl and steady abandonment of “inelastic” central cities, most boroughs, and many “built-out” townships also implicitly means abandonment (or certainly underutilization) of existing physical infrastructure (houses, stores, factories, water and sewer lines, etc.) that cost prior generations a fortune to create originally and is even more expensive to duplicate anew. Discarding this investment is decidedly fiscally wasteful.

The obvious answer would be to reorganize around metropolitan areas. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Council is one model of a regional government with real teeth. I am not an expert on state constitutional law, but it may be that Pennsylvania’s “home rule” state constitution makes it difficult to do something similar. Or it may be that the system of representative government gives outsize power to representatives from relatively less populous places, so the state legislature is unlikely to overhaul things even if the constitution would allow it. Even if these problems could be solved at the state level, the Philadelphia metro area would still cover parts of New Jersey and Delaware. So the remaining option is massive changes to the United States Constitution abolishing states entirely in favor of metropolitan areas. I haven’t noticed that in any campaign platforms lately.