What should be taught in planning schools?

[kw5280]

Just finished reading an article by John Friedmann written in 1994, I believe, titled Planning Education for the Late Twentieth Century: An Initial Inquiry. His intent is to find what subjects and planning theories are the most desirable now and into the near future. The problem I have is he sent a survey out to university professors instead of professionals working in the industry day-to-day.

So I want to ask the community here: What subjects, skills, theories, etc. do you think will best serve today's planning students? Is there anything you wish you had more of an education for instead of OJT? Should schools offer specialization for particular disciplines or is planning generalization better?

[stroskey]

There needs to be a greater focus on current planning, permit review, ordinance updates, etc rather than just theory. At Iowa State we did ONE project involving a Special Use Permit (in 5 years). Knowing the history of planning is required, but let's stop preparing students to go out and change the world right away and start preparing them for Council meetings, public criticism, permit reviews, and the reasons for it all, etc.

[danthonyjr]

There needs to be a greater focus on current planning, permit review, ordinance updates, etc rather than just theory. At Iowa State we did ONE project involving a Special Use Permit (in 5 years). Knowing the history of planning is required, but let's stop preparing students to go out and change the world right away and start preparing them for Council meetings, public criticism, permit reviews, and the reasons for it all, etc.

So I'll probably draw some heat for this, but here it is anyway:

Current planning (like the activities you mentioned) is not planning at all. It's administration. Planning schools don't teach administration, and they shouldn't teach administration. You learn administration on the job. Planning schools should teach lofty ideals and should teach students to think in terms of the 'big picture'. Students don't go to grad school to learn administration. If we really need admin courses, they can be taught at a local community college or vo-tech; it doesn't take Ph.D. level faculty to teach a person how to go over a checklist or write an ordinance.

That's just my take. I think the planning schools are doing exactly what they're supposed to do -- and most of them do a good job at that.

[The One]

I agree for the most part about administrative duties....I got sucked into these duties a few months into my career and have never fully been able to get back to "planning." At this point I'm thinking it's too late for me Luke.....er....sorry, slipped into my sci-fi phase there for a minute.....

The one thing I can tell you without a doubt, the most important thing I learned in Planning School was the ability to employ an appropriately Comprehensive Viewpoint or to step back and take in the big picture before making a decision. This includes every available aspect of researching something prior to making as nearly a fully informed decision as possible. I have found this to RARELY be the case in reality, resulting in ill conceived decisions and poor direction. Beware people that drill down to the minute to avoid discussions about whether it should even be considered in the first place

Ok, I think I've provided a couple of great quotes above, just be sure to credit THE ONE

[nrschmid]

I strongly disagree that current planning is just administration. As a consultant, I did plan review for 13 different communities simultaneously. Each community has their own set of planning documents (zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, annexation agreements, PUD agreements, intergovernmental agreements, comprehensive plans, design guidelines, etc.) as well as their own interpretation of those documents.

Current planning is also about leverage and pushing the envelope: if a community does not have a strict interpretation of the ordinances, there is room for negotiation. I reviewed work for several developers and built strong ties with them: if I cut them a little slack in review work for one community, I used that as leverage when they fought me tooth and nail on plans for another community. Current planning, when used systematically, IS focusing on the big picture. Plan review is a part of the implementation component of long-range planning.

If some consider current planning as administration, which can be taught in a vocational schools, then that reinforces my belief that an MUP is NOT needed to rubberstamp plans. Back in March 2003, I had a very heated debate in an economic development class about pushing for more vocational schools instead of graduate or doctoral programs for everyday jobs. The class was about 95% graduate students and they were very upset with my argument. Fortunately, the instructor was an adjunct professor who was also the Economic Development Director of the college town and he supported my ideas 200%.

Going back to the original post, I think all planning schools, regardless of their specialization, should include the following:

1. Writing skills: less emphasis on term papers and more emphasis on documents created on the job. These could vary depending on the curriculum. An environmental planning program could focus on creating EISs, a land use planning course could focus on comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, etc.
2. Public speaking
3. Negotiating
4. Law: 1-2 semesters on landmark law and an additional required semester of statutes.
5. Public relations
6. Career preparation: 1-2 semesters devoted to resume, cover letter, portfolio work, interviewing, networking, marketing, etc.

Personally, I think colleges and vocational schools should be a one-stop shop for preparing the path for a successful planner. Planning is NOT rocket science. Yes, graduate schools do provide a more specialized path. However, it is not the ONLY path to a specialization. A combination of a BUP, internships, full time experience, AICP and some other specialized certificates could lead to advanced work in planning.

[The One]

The public meetings, speaking skills and ability to write outstanding staff reports are all very important to the process. I certainly don't want to knock processing, it is the bread and butter for most planners. It really boils down to design vs. implementation. If the design (aka planning) is lacking, the implementation (aka current planning and by extension actual development) will be too. So, are Planning schools teaching too much planning (aka design)?

[hilldweller]

I agree with what nrschmid said with respect to current planning being not just administration and a lot more nuanced than just interpreting rules, particularly with respect to the role that negotiation (and politics- I'd add) play in determining outcomes.

[Plan-it]

I agree with the some of what has been discussed here, but I think it is missing the point on the direction of the profession. All of the money in planning (public and private) is in transportation, urban design, and environmental areas because that is where the federal government, state governments, and private sector spend their resources. Planning schools should be preparing people to be able to jump into these arenas, instead of giving this up to the engineers, architects, and landscape architects, which is currently what is happening.

Land use is but a small component of this profession, but receives a majority of the focus because it is the regulatory arm of many of these other functions. Current planning is administrative while future planning is lofty, squishy goal setting. This is not a bad thing, but there is a lack of political will and professional knowledge about how we make the two parts of the puzzle come together. There is a disjunction between these two sides and it is not helpful. The regulations (current planning) and the policies (comprehensive planning) should be in-line with one another and the planning schools are failing in this regard as well.