What the APA needs to do to get professional planners held in higher regards

[plankton]

Hey zMan, go (rubber) stamp somethin', would ya. Maybe a pelican petting zoo, or... Seriously, I appreciate your comments on development reviews and take my responsibility as a development review planner very seriously, too.

I say --> Ask not what the APA can do for us but what can we do for ourselves.

For me it boils down to ethics. Professional planners must be ethical. No ifs ands or buts about it. If you experience unethical behavior by a certified planner, call him/her on it. Really, as an AICP'er, it's not an option, it's a responsibility. It's awkward, yes, but, in my mind it's one true way of earning respect (over time) in other professional circles. More than one close engineering friend of mine has expressed its (hushed/hidden) pleasure with planners that reign in their bottom-line client-driven shave & pave / fill 'n build engineered plans.

Planners have (some) respect (in certain cirecles) but always have the opportunity to gain more; it's an ethical thang, don't ya know. I could franlkly care less about the 4th largest pyramid in the world (I didn't see any questions like that in my exam, btw) but cite the AICP code of ethics in my work nearly every day. There's no doubt in my mind that I became a 100% better planner the day I began studying for the exam and started to question how my day-to-day work was fulfilling my responsilbity to improve the long-range prosperity of my city.

I have a degree in civil engineering and have decided to become a professional planner for the diversity of work and ability to connect with people on a daily basis. I get great pleasure in speaking for folks that cannot speak for themselves and in working for the common good. I have thought about jumping back into civil engineering work, gaining my EIT and PE, but find the planning professional is growing in importance everyday and I think I'm in this one for the long haul.

Onward and upward...great thread snyder and other 'burbians. thanks

[Mil_Plnr]

One of the key elements that separate architects, engineers and landscape architects from planners is design. Similarly, design and its impact on public health, safety and welfare is what drives us to license these three professions. Architects, engineers, and landscape architects do not need a license to provide planning guidance, serve as a project manager, or supervise and office. However, they do need a license to design bridges, buildings, roads, etc.

If planners want to develop a viable argument for licensure, I recommend we look at the efforts of the landscape architects. There are currently 48 states that require landscape architects be licensed. Eight states have Title Acts, which require someone be licensed to call themselves a landscape architect. However, anyone can still perform the work of a landscape architect. The other 40 states have Practice Acts, which require someone be licensed to call themselves a landscape architect and work in the profession.

To argue for planning licensure, one must be able to identify the scope of planning practice that requires specific licensed professionals. What aspects of the planning profession have a direct impact on public health, safety and welfare?

Doctors are licensed to prescribe medication and perform invasive medical procedures. Landscape architects are licensed to develop and approve site, grading, stormwater, and erosion control plans. Architects are licensed to develop and approve architectural plans. Engineers are licensed to develop and approve engineering plans and calculations. What (if anything) do planners need to be licensed to develop and approve? What does licensure in New Jersey mean for the planning profession in that state?

I sense a large part of this licensure discussion revolves around professional respect. Another element of professional recognition may be the title we give ourselves. As Eugenie Birch argued in her article in the Aug/Sep 2006 issue of "Planning," the term planner is extremely generic and does not adequately describe what we do. City planner and urban planner are more accurate and more clearly articulate what we do. Some will argue that city planner and urban planner do not reflect what they do either. I suggest these terms more clearly show our roles with regard to the build environment rather than parties, finances, or the myriad other things people plan.

[DrumLineKid]

The engineer or architect have fairly specific requirements for whatever they do based on proven/studied limits (span charts/distance to an exit/cracks) to create an acceptable product. The Planner has alternative directions from which to approach an issue and potentially different outcomes. The point of all this is that a Planner is a Jack of all Trades. In my experience (municipal planning and program planning) he/she is often asked to take on the project that the Manager can't give anyone else, because they enjoy limited scopes of responsibilities defined by their profession/license.

While a Planner is the Jack(Jill?), they are also expected to be a Master of most. I have not found another profession that requires even front line staff to have a working knowledge of so much (have I led a sheltered life?). How can we be tested on such a wide breadth of subject area, individualized/independent rules and regs, and almost arbitrary functions?

The Planning Office is the catch-all! That is why I like what I do.

Jack (DLK)

[ssnyderjr]

The engineer or architect have fairly specific requirements for whatever they do based on proven/studied limits (span charts/distance to an exit/cracks) to create an acceptable product. The Planner has alternative directions from which to approach an issue and potentially different outcomes. The point of all this is that a Planner is a Jack of all Trades. How can we be tested on such a wide breadth of subject area, individualized/independent rules and regs, and almost arbitrary functions?

I pretty much agree with what you have posted, however...
To answer your question, the same way a civil engineer is expected to know the breadth and depth of many engineering areas (i.e. fluid mechanics, soils, environmental engineering, road design, hydraulics, hydrology, thermodynamics, heat transfer, steel and concrete materials) in the F.E. exam.
There has to be some rationalle and science behind planning that every planner follows, like parking generation, trip generation, parking demands, site plan reading, housing density (and building regs) and issues that go with it given a set of regs to follow. Including these topics (for example) to give a more detailed and comprehensive test for planners. In the engineering tests, variables are given and answers are derived using what is given (i.e. regs in the planning realm). I think the reasons you gave are a scapegoat for not having a more results-based (and more respected) planning exam. I am suggesting that for these studies/reports/recommendations to be approved (via a stamp, maybe) would draw more importance and respect from other professions and individuals outside of planning and make planners more responsible for their work. Engineers in my state are expected to stamp studies, estimates and other works (drawings) to solidify the fact that they were done/approved by a professional and meet some kind of standard.

[jaws]

There has to be some rationalle and science behind planning that every planner follows, like parking generation, trip generation, parking demands, site plan reading, housing density (and building regs) and issues that go with it given a set of regs to follow.

City planning is an art, not a science. Knowing how much traffic might be generated (people don't move with the predictability of fluids) does not in any way make you competent to know whether or not this traffic is good for the city.