I thought I understood little about urban planning. It seem I know nothing now.

[nec209]

I don't seem to know any thing about urban planning has , I have been member from Apr 2007 to now and do not really feel I know much more than when I join .

I seem to be deeply confused of of 1900 to 1960 built environment and urban built environment to suburb built environment and well typically the stores.

I made many post here but seem to be no better at understanding 1900 to 1960 built environment.I seem to be baffled at Los Angeles that looks and feel like a streetcar suburb built on urban feel than suburb feel .

Well what does not help here I do not live in the US , I live in Canada !! So the city planning schools may be different than the US and that may be why the cities look different here and I'm getting confused why they built like that and not like cities in the US.


The 1 story buildings and flat spread out look is what I'm so deeply confused about and the taxpayer strip Dan talks about .I thought I know little bit about urban planning after looking at Dallas here http://www.bing.com/maps/explore/def...z7n7r85twhkkd7 and here http://www.bing.com/maps/explore/def...gm196stnbnjrnc ( I feel I know nothing now on city planning after looking at it ) Is that the taxpayer strip Dan talks about

Also looking at parts of Las Vegas ,Los Angeles,Dallas and parts of Albuquerque I really feel I know nothing about urban planning at all , because Calgary and Toronto is not like that at all.

Some one who understand urban planning would understand the different built environment and more less when they built like that and why .Also understand the 1900 to 1960 built environment and urban built environment to suburb built environment.

I don't understand this and why Calgary and Toronto is not like that .Are the urban planning schools very different here than the US?


All I know is before 1945 this http://www.tenpastmidnight.com/photo..._buildings.jpg and this http://www.cyburbia.org/gallery/data...uffalo_045.jpg and well after the 1945 this http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/...287_z.jpg?zz=1 and http://www.flickr.com/photos/3817596...n/photostream/


The 90's to now box stores and power centers.

There too much gap between 1900 to 1960 I'm not understanding. Also the 1 story building flat and spread out look and taxpayer strip Dan talks about I do not understand.

[Hink]

Understanding how things came to be is one thing... understanding why we developed how we did is another altogether.

Open your mind - it will set you free...

[cng]

Planning is a multi-disciplinary field, so sometimes the feeling of complete understanding is elusive. But that is okay. We have planners at my work place that are very good at what they do, even without a thorough understanding (or education) of planning theory or history. They are, however, good project managers, and even good administrators. I guess what I am saying is... it's just fine to feel inadequate about not knowing everything about planning. It's also a field where no one may have all the right answers. If anything, a good planner simply asks good questions about people and places. As long as you have that curiosity about what makes a good community, and is willing to learn and appreciate differences in values, you'll be fine. Like hinkplanner said, being open-minded is vital.

[Howl]

The primary detriment of built-form and community design is economics, not planning. Developers build what makes them the most money, within the rules the planners impose.

[wahday]

Some one who understand urban planning would understand the different built environment and more less when they built like that and why .Also understand the 1900 to 1960 built environment and urban built environment to suburb built environment.

I don't understand this and why Calgary and Toronto is not like that .Are the urban planning schools very different here than the US?

I think Howl's comment gives you the answer you need. Development does not necessarily occur on a linear path. Many of the forms you see in Albuquerque in the post WWII years emerged elsewhere and then came here as large housing developers entered this market. Even before that, we are often behind the curve (railroad era development, for example, occurred here mostly around the turn of the century whereas in much of the US, the 1880s was the real boom time).

Imagine that every developer has at its disposal all the physical forms that have occurred before in terms what he/she can build. When they enter a market (and a developer may be active in many markets all over the country either at the same time or one after the other), they look at a variety of factors to decide what to build: what is there already, what does the zoning code allow for, what will be most economically viable given the trends they can observe in the market (ie. New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the country, so housing and retail spaces have tended toward smaller and more affordable). So, the developer now delves into its kit of potential building forms and finds whatever style is most appropriate to the situation (those factors I just mentioned) and builds it. It just might be that a 1960's ranch style subdivision is what is thought to have the best chance of success in some outlying area of Phoenix even though the style is an older one. It may be that extending a preexisting strip mall pattern originally begun in the 1950's makes the most sense in that empty stretch of road even though the style may seem outdated in other contexts.

I would not be too hung up on pigeon-holing specific styles to specific places and eras. Any style can be built in any location in any era so long as it fits within the zoning restrictions. Its much easier to say "the buildings in this place and time exhibit an XXX style" than to say "this must have been built at this time because that's when this kind of building form was prominent."

Planning in this sense is a lot like other disciplines with rough edges. Ask a group of anthropologists what the definition of "culture" is and watch them tear each other apart. They can't agree as its an ever shifting and dynamic concept. And yet, not being able to define it doesn't make it any less worthy of study and investigation or any less real in the minds of people.