Behaviors create problems. can they logically be ignored in planning?

[urban2rural]

Granted that there are some suburbs that are homogenous that physical planning doesn't make much difference, but in a real live small city or large city, our physical planning changes behavior. Why else do we fight sprawl, or require open space, or insist that lot lines be drawn on paper, or consider how inconvenient traffic might become?

The OP question might be whether planning should try to impact what is considered anti-social behavior or social problems. Examples might be homelessness, illegal drug sales, or more subtle stuff such as childhood obesity. A little bit of me is libertarian and says let people behave the way they want, but in the real world, building a sense of community requires certain positive civic behaviors. I think it's part of the job of the general planner to set up the pre-conditions for people to behave well, to interact with one another, or using the current jargon, to build social capital.

Some people might be physical planners or infrastructure planners by job title, and that's fine, but those of us who are more general practitioners have to be prepared to think about perceived social consequences and evidence-supported probabilities if we allow building in certain configurations.

The public doesn't hesitate to think in these terms; why should we? I still remember a public hearing comment on my first job : "You know what kind of people live in apartments."

[cng]

As a planner for a local jurisdiction, my job is to implement the goals of the city's General Plan, reflecting the desires of the residents of the community. If they want a well-connected city with sustainable neighborhoods, public transit, and trails--great. I'm all for helping the residents achieve those objectives. However, if the residents want to use their car on a daily basis and have a desire for large homes, who am I to tell them they are wrong to have those intentions? At best, planners can be educators, but I would hesitate calling myself someone who controls or influences social behaviors.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

We have clear examples of developments that, though their urban form, created social disasters. So, the planner is not only complicit in allowing these things to occur. He or she also has a responsibility in creating places that work for people.

I think approaching the built and natural environments in a detached way and in a manner that recognizes human beings as being a species on this planet that requires a habitat, which contributes to the well-being of each member of each population, is entirely the right course to take.

[stroskey]

We have clear examples of developments that, though their urban form, created social disasters.

For an example see Euclidean Zoning, circa 1945 to present.

[wahday]

We have clear examples of developments that, though their urban form, created social disasters. So, the planner is not only complicit in allowing these things to occur. He or she also has a responsibility in creating places that work for people.

I think approaching the built and natural environments in a detached way and in a manner that recognizes human beings as being a species on this planet that requires a habitat, which contributes to the well-being of each member of each population, is entirely the right course to take.

I generally agree with you on this.

Still, I think a significant challenge to this whole discussion is that planners are just one of many interest groups that shape the built environment. Take zoning. Yes, its problematic and maybe we need a new approach, but regardless, any attempt to create parameters within which new developments will result in the desired built forms and subsequent behaviors is bound to miss something. A developer, for example, may operate within all the restrictions for allowable building and STILL create a crappy setting or unintended consequence.

And, some social ills and endemic challenges operate independent of the built environment and require additional tools to deal with beyond "good design." This is a gripe I have with some authors (particularly architects-turned-planners because of their built-form emphasis) that seem to suggest that everything can be solved with good design. Poverty, violence, disenfranchisement, drug problems, and other social ills will not be solved by well functioning spaces alone.

I think also the work of planning focuses on more than the built environment (and remember that planners don't build or even design much of anything - we just create the brackets within which building can occur). Public process, for example, is about more than asking residents how a particular place should look or function (though that is the stated objective). Its also about engaging residents in a civic process, building social capital, moving people toward a more complete understanding of place, how it gets built and how it functions. Within all of this, there is ample room for mistakes, false starts, bad decisions and unintended consequences.

As planners, we also need to accept some truth to the adage "the best laid plans..." We have obligations, yes, but we are also not all powerful and, frankly, ours is a messy and inexact enterprise. And our objective - good places - are constantly moving targets with changing circumstances and social realities. Today's middle class, well loved neighborhood could be tomorrow's slum just as today's slum may be tomorrow's gentrified, walkable "go to" community.

[mike gurnee]

I generally agree with you on this.

Still, I think a significant challenge to this whole discussion is that planners are just one of many interest groups that shape the built environment. Take zoning. Yes, its problematic and maybe we need a new approach, but regardless, any attempt to create parameters within which new developments will result in the desired built forms and subsequent behaviors is bound to miss something. A developer, for example, may operate within all the restrictions for allowable building and STILL create a crappy setting or unintended consequence.

And, some social ills and endemic challenges operate independent of the built environment and require additional tools to deal with beyond "good design." This is a gripe I have with some authors (particularly architects-turned-planners because of their built-form emphasis) that seem to suggest that everything can be solved with good design. Poverty, violence, disenfranchisement, drug problems, and other social ills will not be solved by well functioning spaces alone.

I think also the work of planning focuses on more than the built environment (and remember that planners don't build or even design much of anything - we just create the brackets within which building can occur). Public process, for example, is about more than asking residents how a particular place should look or function (though that is the stated objective). Its also about engaging residents in a civic process, building social capital, moving people toward a more complete understanding of place, how it gets built and how it functions. Within all of this, there is ample room for mistakes, false starts, bad decisions and unintended consequences.

As planners, we also need to accept some truth to the adage "the best laid plans..." We have obligations, yes, but we are also not all powerful and, frankly, ours is a messy and inexact enterprise. And our objective - good places - are constantly moving targets with changing circumstances and social realities. Today's middle class, well loved neighborhood could be tomorrow's slum just as today's slum may be tomorrow's gentrified, walkable "go to" community.

Profound. Thank you.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

For most problematic places, the issues generally relate to a monoculture of low incomes and the correlation of that factor with high crime rates. So, careful gentrification that results in a mix of incomes really is the answer.

Changing the built form is certainly an important way to do this careful gentrification.

Socioeconomic mobility, and establishing norms common across socioeconomic classes, requires preventing ghettos and enclaves from developing. Trains and high-quality transit are absolutely essential to achieving this goal.

Reducing deindividuation is the other necessary component. Cities have to be divided into self-contained urban villages of roughly 35,000 residents, and more opportunities for interaction are necessary in order to help build the community that will keep people from feeling and appearing anonymous.

Now, whether or not the United States has an expanding or contracting middle class is something for which the policy-makers need to account.