12 planning successes v2

22
12 Planning 12 Planning Successes Successes John D. Landis John D. Landis Department of City & Regional Planning Department of City & Regional Planning University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania October 20 2010 October 20 2010 PennDesign Alums and Friends PennDesign Alums and Friends

Upload: willjermuk

Post on 22-Jan-2015

618 views

Category:

Design


1 download

DESCRIPTION

John Landis presentation

TRANSCRIPT

  • 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?
  • IdentifyingSuccess
  • 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 the1960s:
      • 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 & OToole

  • 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 OTOOLE ( Best Laid Plans ):Compared to the market, planners always misallocate resources:
  • Over-favor higher densities
  • Over-favor public transit over cars

6. IdentifyingPlanning Success?

  • Plan that is implemented and doesnt just sit on theshelfToo 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

  • Localandpublic initiative focusing on thebuilt or natural environmentwhich results in a net private and social benefit, and which can serve asmodel 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 regulationsMust be spatially-based.Does NOT include national policy initiatives or programs.Should work as projected and be replicable in comparable circumstances. 8. TwelvePost-1973Planning 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
  • Chicagos Millennium Park

plusurban 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 Californias 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. Portlands 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, thats $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: Competitionrewards 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 mayclaim 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 communitys edge.
  • More than 100 new urbanist communities built around the world, mostly in the US and Australia.
  • REASONS FOR SUCCESS
    • Lead the market, dont 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 thC 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 ofLocal Leaders.

22. Institutionalizing Success

    • Study planning successesand failuresin 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 ofex anteevaluation or benefit-cost Analysis
      • Separate local advance planning functions from permitting and relocate them to local city/county executive function.