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

[Christophera]

Accordingly, planning must also take into consideration the sociological conditions that exist. It must take into consideration what really will work in the longest possible term. Such consideration is not dependent on whether or not the planning is implemented, it is simply logical that it be done on a regular basis so that people are aware that problems need not be accommodated by infrastructure just because the solution to the problems, or their basic nature are not discussed.

At what point should planning stop addressing physical needs and relationships after it has acknowledged a problem exists because of behaviors?

Planning at least addresses safety and long term health issues. What if that potential is preempted by other behavioral issues?

Planners at best foresee needs, and plan for them with infrastructure. Is there a point, logically, where their ability to foresee needs, or behaviors that defeat meeting needs, compels them to step out of the typical planner role and into one that works to compel the proper academic discipline, in tis case psychology and law, just to have a stable society for which to plan for?

Or, are planners just a tool for development to make societies expansion of the many problems appear comprehensively allowable?

[mike gurnee]

There are and have been planners in the social and behavioral fields for decades. They work for state and federal government, think tanks, and foundations. However, most on this board are physical planners. While we should take a holistic approach in our works, I would not be comfortable in a public meeting to determine appropriate behaviors.

[Christophera]

Thank you for the feedback Mike,

I do see how a planning meeting would be out of place for discussion of behaviors.

What I'm suggesting is that because planners do have an interface with local government, and occasionally have to work for compliance with local regulation by government agencies that have decided to overstep bounds, there is a capacity for seeking accountability of government.

If planners desire to work in the planning of communities, there needs to be a coherent community with an economy to put them to work. It turns out that psychologists and others that have the job of understanding behaviors NEVER work to make local government accountable to following laws and regulations or if they do it is meekly through channels and unless they join together they rarely have success.

The same would be true for planners lending their weight to the pressure, but they are used to challenging government on a myriad of issues and have all of the strategies to compel compliance lined up for ready use. The only other professionals that have that are attorneys. Attorneys rarely see the purpose of social issues and figure it is not their job aside from working towards a certain decision of a court. Courts seem further and further from acting in the public interest as time goes on.

Certainly what I propose does not fall within a land planners usual scope of activity, but, if no other professional has the basic skills of reading ordinance and regulation then evaluating government performance relating to the populations capacity to control their own behaviors by using properly instituted government programs according to law, it appears that we will be faced with a failing society. Less and less planners will be working.

It is only because planners have the basic skills and do work to challenge local government when they are not following laws then instead demand the public work around the problems which develop, and compensate (they are failing), that I suggest this.

No other profession has those basic skills and experience.

[Richmond Jake]

..... Less and less planners will be working.....

The proper terminology is "fewer and fewer."

Now, climb out of your ivory tower and work in the trenches, OK? It's a completely different perspective from there. I'm tired of this freaking mumbo-jumbo theory because I'm too old for this shit. And your posts are too long to consume.

[mike gurnee]

Thank you for the feedback Mike,

I do see how a planning meeting would be out of place for discussion of behaviors.

What I'm suggesting is that because planners do have an interface with local government, and occasionally have to work for compliance with local regulation by government agencies that have decided to overstep bounds, there is a capacity for seeking accountability of government.

Local government is not the place to regulate behavior, except in the context of criminal law.

[Zoning Goddess]

Dan did you check the internet address here, because I'm seeing Indian/Pakistani. No urban planner in the U.S. uses terms like "meekly". This sounds like the guy who sells me cigarettes on the weekends. I'm just seeing a trollish thingy going on.

[nrschmid]

I couldn't make out any of the OP. Then again, I have spent most of the weekend digging into EAs and EISs for a work project.

[Dan]

Dan did you check the internet address here, because I'm seeing Indian/Pakistani. No urban planner in the U.S. uses terms like "meekly". This sounds like the guy who sells me cigarettes on the weekends. I'm just seeing a trollish thingy going on.

Checked the IP, and it's in the US. The OP isn't a sock, according to my research. Can't say too much more, because of our privacy policy.

[beach_bum]

Planners only have the power given to them by the government/political environment. I'll ask the OP what I ask anyone that calls me at work with a very general question or broad topic request, can you give a specific real world example of what kind of behavior?

[ColoGI]

Now, climb out of your ivory tower and work in the trenches, OK? It's a completely different perspective from there. I'm tired of this freaking mumbo-jumbo theory because I'm too old for this shit. And your posts are too long to consume.

I agree with the prolixity point, and we should be fostering a positive environment for young students to think thru ideas. Far better for them to do it at a party, surely. But let us not close the door in their face(s).

[Hink]

Accordingly, planning must also take into consideration the sociological conditions that exist.

Although considered, societal issues as a whole (like homelessness, etc.) are not addressed as a main priority, because there are too many other factors that are at play. Unless the final word (trustees, council, etc.) have a specific dream to see some societal issue solved, there is very little political capital that will be spent trying to create a solution.

It must take into consideration what really will work in the longest possible term. Such consideration is not dependent on whether or not the planning is implemented, it is simply logical that it be done on a regular basis so that people are aware that problems need not be accommodated by infrastructure just because the solution to the problems, or their basic nature are not discussed.

So you think I have time to just come up with some issues that we have in my community and continually update people on their progress? Why is this is a planners job? Shouldn't a neighborhood activist or community organizer being doing this. Again, it should be considered in all planning processes and in the implementation of plans, but political types enact your vision. As for your semi incoherent rambling about infrastructure I'm not sure where you are going here. Problems are accommodated by infrastructure?

At what point should planning stop addressing physical needs and relationships after it has acknowledged a problem exists because of behaviors?

So we shouldn't plan sidewalks because people are fat? Is that where you are going? Or we shouldn't plan streets, because cars are bad? We should only plan trains because they are better? Or we should only plan for white, middle class neighborhoods because they don't have "them"? How does acknowledging a problem existing require me to stop physically planning for needs and relationships? Who is justifying these "problems"?

Planning at least addresses safety and long term health issues. What if that potential is preempted by other behavioral issues?

Like?

Planners at best foresee needs, and plan for them with infrastructure. Is there a point, logically, where their ability to foresee needs, or behaviors that defeat meeting needs, compels them to step out of the typical planner role and into one that works to compel the proper academic discipline, in tis case psychology and law, just to have a stable society for which to plan for?

Or, are planners just a tool for development to make societies expansion of the many problems appear comprehensively allowable?

And at worst, planners create satan worlds, with cars, and density, and death! This paragraph at best is dramatic. Honestly, I don't understand your fear of infrastructure. What exactly is bad about it?

Also, please enlighten me as to how you would solve all these crises with non-physical things... like maybe create a peace police, or have people just get together and agree on some compromises. Extremely vague, and even more unrealistic. Also, we are all tools. Some more than others

[MacheteJames]

The proper terminology is "fewer and fewer."

Now, climb out of your ivory tower and work in the trenches, OK? It's a completely different perspective from there. I'm tired of this freaking mumbo-jumbo theory because I'm too old for this shit. And your posts are too long to consume.

Never forget that so-called mumbo-jumbo theory is what keeps us from becoming trained permit monkeys. Without an intellectual framework to make all of this mean something, it's all just paper-pushing and crushing bureaucracy. I, for one, enjoy a good discussion about planning theory and how it relates to the day to day work we do in the local planning trenches.

To the OP, some real world examples of the behaviors you're referring to would be helpful in addressing your questions.

[smccutchan1]

It seems like every time some in a public meeting stands up and says that this development is going to lower my property values or cause more crime in my neighborhood, that we are dealing with the effects of social behavior. The two -- the physical and the social reaction --, are inextricably tied together and we've known that for years. Every development decision made is going to have a social impact. Sometimes it's small enough that no one really cares. Other times its big and creates all kinds of ripple effects through the social environment.

I believe that the original premise of the post -- "At what point should planning stop addressing physical needs and relationships after it has acknowledged a problem exists because of behaviors?" --, happens day in and day out. It has just become so common place for most of us that we don't really recognize it as something that is independent of what we are doing.

[B'lieve]

Welcome Christophera

What I'm suggesting is that because planners do have an interface with local government, and occasionally have to work for compliance with local regulation by government agencies that have decided to overstep bounds, there is a capacity for seeking accountability of government.
.

Ahhh, under the calm, academic "mumbo-jumbo" there's something specific that you're buggin' about. Can you tell us what it is? If it's personal/sensitive, you can fudge identifying details, but if you give us a little more specifics maybe we can give you more helpful info or advice.

[redhead2010]

Planning can assist with behavioral changes, and provide the opportunity for them.

[RPfresh]

It'd be nice to respond to this but I can't make out a point. Sounds like something I'd be interested in, though, so clarification would be welcome.

[fringe]

"...Or, are planners just a tool for development to make societies expansion of the many problems appear comprehensively allowable?..."

Intriguing, but inscrutable.

I feel like a fish in a pond into which some crumbs of some unknown bait have been tossed. I sense, I rise, but hold short of striking.

[stroskey]

This is one of the topics for my master's thesis. Planning can not just be physical planning. It is (and I'm being serious here) is emotional and influences us more than we'll ever know. Planning and the built environment is something everyone has an opinion on. Whether it be the streets are too congested, buildings are ugly, there's no parking at my favorite store, why no sidewalks in my neighborhood, etc., every person has an opinion even if they don't know they do.

Here is the Midwest, how a community is structured and built can influence the life outcomes for youth of various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The built environment has more ramifications that just what kind of housing one lives in. Removing economic status, needing a car to go to the store or a friends' house influences the expectations of youth. Walking to destinations and feeling safe while doing so shape a person differently that if that same person lived on a farm and had to drive 15 minutes to go to Walmart.

In short, what we do as planners affects more than just what we see, it shapes who we are. Far too often we ignore those outcomes for the purposes of increased property taxes or because "that's the way it's always been done."

[fringe]

This is one of the topics for my master's thesis. Planning can not just be physical planning. It is (and I'm being serious here) is emotional and influences us more than we'll ever know. Planning and the built environment is something everyone has an opinion on. Whether it be the streets are too congested, buildings are ugly, there's no parking at my favorite store, why no sidewalks in my neighborhood, etc., every person has an opinion even if they don't know they do.

Here is the Midwest, how a community is structured and built can influence the life outcomes for youth of various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The built environment has more ramifications that just what kind of housing one lives in. Removing economic status, needing a car to go to the store or a friends' house influences the expectations of youth. Walking to destinations and feeling safe while doing so shape a person differently that if that same person lived on a farm and had to drive 15 minutes to go to Walmart.

In short, what we do as planners affects more than just what we see, it shapes who we are. Far too often we ignore those outcomes for the purposes of increased property taxes or because "that's the way it's always been done."

Amen, brutha.

[SW MI Planner]

This is one of the topics for my master's thesis. Planning can not just be physical planning. It is (and I'm being serious here) is emotional and influences us more than we'll ever know. Planning and the built environment is something everyone has an opinion on. Whether it be the streets are too congested, buildings are ugly, there's no parking at my favorite store, why no sidewalks in my neighborhood, etc., every person has an opinion even if they don't know they do.

Here is the Midwest, how a community is structured and built can influence the life outcomes for youth of various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The built environment has more ramifications that just what kind of housing one lives in. Removing economic status, needing a car to go to the store or a friends' house influences the expectations of youth. Walking to destinations and feeling safe while doing so shape a person differently that if that same person lived on a farm and had to drive 15 minutes to go to Walmart.

In short, what we do as planners affects more than just what we see, it shapes who we are. Far too often we ignore those outcomes for the purposes of increased property taxes or because "that's the way it's always been done."

Completely agree stroskey, and agree with the OP too. I think the sociological aspect of a community need to be taken into consideration - maybe not in the day to day work of reviewing an accessory building permit but definately in long range planning for a community. We can plan the physical environment all we want, but if social conditions prevent it from being successful than what good is it?

[RPfresh]

I agree with stroskey's thought, but as far as the question posed I would say that we need to keep trying to influence behavior rather than let bad behavior run rampant, no matter how little it seems to matter to those affected (or how futile it may seem). I hope to become a sort of 'doctor' for bad areas, and as such I think it is important that as much as can possibly be done with an urban planner's brush is done. That said there needs to be serious consideration of what bad behavior is and how it can effectively be fought without ripping apart communities.

[Cismontane]

isn't all city planning about the management of human behavior? .. whether the behavior of citizens, consumers/users of space, builders/developers, stakeholder groups, government, etc, etc.

[wahday]

I agree with stroskey's thought, but as far as the question posed I would say that we need to keep trying to influence behavior rather than let bad behavior run rampant, no matter how little it seems to matter to those affected (or how futile it may seem). I hope to become a sort of 'doctor' for bad areas, and as such I think it is important that as much as can possibly be done with an urban planner's brush is done. That said there needs to be serious consideration of what bad behavior is and how it can effectively be fought without ripping apart communities.

I agree with Cismontane about all planning being some sort of behavioral management. I would say in response to RPfresh that we need to be careful as planers not to see ourselves as being in an adversarial position with respect to the public (correcting their bad behaviors, or fighting against "incorrect" viewpoints). In terms of long range and community planning, our role is to work in partnership with communities to both draw out desired results and develop pathways to achieving them.

As Stroskey said, everyone has an opinion, but many have not thought about it in enough detail to articulate it or see all of its ramifications. Engaging in successful public processes is a way to help a community come to some sort of consensus and clarity on a way forward. In this sense, our role is so often overlooked or undervalued because, when done well, the public is not very aware of the heavy hand of government. We guide, nudge, facilitate and encapsulate varied opinions into some sort of agreed upon strategy and often that means not being recognized for the subtle skills this requires. Yes, sometimes we need to step in and speak up for voices not represented or provide another viewpoint not brought up by community members. but by and large, our role is to work in partnership with local people to improve the nature of the built (and to some degree the social) environment and how it functions.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

I urge everyone to read The Lucifer Effect, by Philip Zimbardo, the researcher most known for the Stanford Prison Experiment in the 1970's. The book reveals just how powerful situational forces can be in determining behavior.

http://www.LuciferEffect.com

[fringe]

"...I agree with Cismontane about all planning being some sort of behavioral management...."

I agree too. In fact society, or civilization itself, is a system of behavioral management.

Without it I suppose we would be individual hunter-gatherers, like snakes or lizards.