Duany shows his true colors?

[JimPlans]

And those colors are Robert Moses with a swirl of Ayn Rand?

Control the Masses

So, according to Duany, planners used to be "demigods" who improved the world with every action. Then urban renewal came, and we were knocked off our pedestal and began rooting in the muck with ordinary plebeans (i.e. the citizenry) by performing public participation "orgys." Now we can't get anything done in the USA anymore (and by "anything" I assume he means the implementation of his own concepts).

To solve this problem, Duany has "invented" subsidiarity, a word I assume he will be requiring all us planners to use it in a sentence along with "transect." Essentially, subsidiarity means that the opinions of neighbors will be treated in the same way as the opinions of developers: as interested parties who cannot make a fair decision on the merits of a project. Instead, a jury of "disinterested" citizens will be convened to decide whether or not a project should occur. Somehow, convening a jury of random disinterested citizens, presenting both sides of an argument on whether or not to build a project to them, and having them rule in a binding way will save time and money in the planning process.

Umm, yeah, sure Andres.

Plus, the only true method for collecting public input is through the charrette process (of course). Not just any charrette process, but only charrettes run in exactly the way that Duany thinks they should be run using a specified formula. If you can't run the charrette yourself in exactly the right way, I'm sure that Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company could be brought in to do it for you (for a small six-digit fee, of course).

Why is it that every time I read or hear Duany, I feel Atlas Shrugging?

[luckless pedestrian]

though I agree that Andres thinks a little too highly of himself - he is saying what many of us are feeling

many of us trench planners who have visioned, charrette'd, workshopped, resource grouped ourselves into mind boggling oblivion have seen the downside of "public involvement"

anything by committee can become a disjointed mess that only marginally addresses the original question and can really muck things up and make it worse than it was before.

I am attempting actually, due to this article and for other messes I am in at work, to institute a policy with the chief elected officials to go back to the Planning Director doing the planning and then boards, committees and commissions and the general public reacting to a staff draft and WE hold the workshop to get public input before we even start - and it isn't necessarily markers and a high cost charrette, but a low-tech approach of asking people "what do you want" from your neighborhood, for the other side of town, your downtown, your village, whatever it is and then we as staff produce what we think is sound planning practice

so if you wade through his arrogance, you do find some real truths that planners need to be leaders, that yes, in the end the people decide, but what they are deciding upon is what we planners feel is good planning

[TexanOkie]

And those colors are Robert Moses with a swirl of Ayn Rand?

Control the Masses

So, according to Duany, planners used to be "demigods" who improved the world with every action. Then urban renewal came, and we were knocked off our pedestal and began rooting in the muck with ordinary plebeans (i.e. the citizenry) by performing public participation "orgys." Now we can't get anything done in the USA anymore (and by "anything" I assume he means the implementation of his own concepts).

To solve this problem, Duany has "invented" subsidiarity, a work I assume he will be requiring all us planners to use it in a sentence along with "transect." Essentially, subsidiarity means that the opinions of neighbors will be treated in the same way as the opinions of developers: as interested parties who cannot make a fair decision on the merits of a project. Instead, a jury of "disinterested" citizens will be convened to decide whether or not a project should occur. Somehow, convening a jury of random disinterested citizens, presenting both sides of an argument on whether or not to build a project to them, and having them rule in a binding way will save time and money in the planning process.

Umm, yeah, sure Andres.

Plus, the only true method for collecting public input is through the charrette process (of course). Not just any charrette process, but only charrettes run in exactly the way that Duany thinks they should be run using a specified formula. If you can't run the charrette yourself in exactly the right way, I'm sure that Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company could be brought in to do it for you (for a small six-digit fee, of course).

Why is it that every time I read or hear Duany, I feel Atlas Shrugging?

Well, this might come across as a complete apologetic of Duany, but here goes.

His use of the terms "demigod" and "orgy" seem like appropriate metaphors for the public good combined with private property rights, given his contentions about the illegitimate obstructionism most NIMBYism takes these days. Having a balance in public input seems to me to be a good thing, ensuring personal prejudices and narrow self-interest of such NIMBYs are weighed against positive YIMBYs to maintain comprehensive-outlook, net-neutral decision making on a projects merits. And while many places have this sort of in place through supposedly non-biased boards and commissions, I can see how this could be an issue in many places, especially in smaller or more politically charged environments and in places with strong public development veto authority.

Yes, Duany invented the word "transect" in its use in expressing urban design/development, and he may well do the same thing with "subsidiarity". However, neither one would have/will take off without having some merit behind the ideas behind them. So regardless of who "invents" the word use, let good ideas propagate and bad ideas not. I'm sure many good ideas and inventions have, historically, originated through persons or organizations some find distasteful.

Duany also did not mention charrettes as the "only true method for collecting public input", nor did he advertise his firm's services. He only used the Miami charrette as an example of his main contention.

I'd wager that you feel Atlas shrugging every time you read or hear Duany because the man himself--whether by his own accord or through the actions and attitude of students of the movement he founded--or the ideas about development he espouses rub you the wrong way. Also, most likely in this instance, you are probably a fan of the democratic public planning process and its interpretation of and influence on social justice or development regulation, while simultaneously have some reservations about increased private property rights, especially if the exercise of such rights might negatively impact or disrupt what you view as democratic development decisions or more conventional/acceptable development patterns.

Duany is much more... there is no right word here - non-planner (at least as the profession is currently performed)? ... than most people either expect or suspect.

[ursus]

though I agree that Andres thinks a little too highly of himself - he is saying what many of us are feeling

many of us trench planners who have visioned, charrette'd, workshopped, resource grouped ourselves into mind boggling oblivion have seen the downside of "public involvement"

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Duany spoke recently in Salt Lake and talked about this idea of subsidiarity and I agree that while he often goes too far, he makes some valid points. Plus I like thinking of myself as the heir of "demi-gods".

[jswanek]

...I like thinking of myself as the heir of "demi-gods".

.

You mean like Caligula?

.

[JimPlans]

I agree that we are being public-participated to death. I also agree that public hearings on development projects can be as much fun as a visit to the Marathon Man's dentist and as useful as a fish's bicycle.

But, Duany's solution wouldn't be a solution at all. It would create a huge bureaucratic and legalistic system for reviewing projects that would be multiple orders of magnitude worse than what we have now. Have you ever been called to serve on a jury? Sat through a jury trial? That's what he is proposing for all project reviews.

And who would pay for this system? Developers would have their side, so who would take the other side? Who would represent the neighbors? Would we have to have a "public planners" office modeled on public defenders who would represent indigent landowners in this planning court? And what about all the lawsuits when one side doesn't get what it wants? Will there be an appeals court? An how will this planner's court transcend all of the property rights law that affect current planning approval processes? Will property rights simply disappear?

If anyone else proposed this idea, it would be dismissed out-of-hand. But because Duany proposed it and gave it a name, I fear that people will actually try to implement it somewhere. And when it fails, it will be planners that get a black eye.

luckless pedestrian said it best: Planners have to be leaders. we have to stand up, educate, and convince. This proposal doesn't make planners leaders, it turns them into lawyers. And the world already has enough lawyers.

As for my comments on Duany and charrettes, well, there was some snark there. You try not being snarky after 8 hours of MS-Access queries.

[ursus]

.

You mean like Caligula?

.

Yes, exactly. Thank You...

[Skywalker]

This post was too rude to leave up. I'll make a more civil disassembly of the OP later.

I'm glad to at least see that not everyone on this forum is.... like the OP is

Why is it that every time I read or hear Duany, I feel Atlas Shrugging?

For the same reasons that they WRITE articles about him and you READ them.

Duany is much more... there is no right word here - non-planner (at least as the profession is currently performed)? ... than most people either expect or suspect.

Correct. He has not been intellectually castrated by the modern state of codes and laws that were written by politicians who are bought-and-paid-for by business interests.

Don't take this as an insult, because it's not meant to imply that all planners ARE what he is not.

[kalimotxo]

This post was too rude to leave up. I'll make a more civil disassembly of the OP later...

...He has not been intellectually castrated by the modern state of codes and laws that were written by politicians who are bought-and-paid-for by business interests.

Don't take this as an insult, because it's not meant to imply that all planners ARE what he is not.

Disagreement with other Cyburbians does not justify disassembling them. Do so if you must... but there are many of us who appreciate Jim's input and would be willing to help put him back together again.

Seriously though, you seem to be taking this personally, which is unfortunate because I think Jim's post leads to some pretty interesting questions. I have often thought myself that some of Duany's complaints about the planning process make him seem like a proponent of neo-urban-renewal or something of the sort. This begs the question, though: who should be fast-tracked to make major development/redevelopment decisions? For every ostensible genius like Duany out there, there are hundreds of greedy idiots that would love to play SimCity with desperate municipalities. Or, as Jim suggests, do the DPZ folks think they should play by a different set of rules than everyone else?

Maybe you can shed some light, Skywalker from Miami?

[Skywalker]

Disagreement with other Cyburbians does not justify disassembling them. Do so if you must... but there are many of us who appreciate Jim's input and would be willing to help put him back together again.

I mis-spoke. I won't disassemble him, but rather, his post. If you have a counter-argument to what I'm planning to say, I'll be MORE than happy to hear it. I came here seeking constructive arguments. Spirited arguments. Not polite disagreements where we hide our true opinions behind civility. I want your fire. If you truly believe what you say, you should feel the drive to say it strongly.

For every ostensible genius like Duany out there, there are hundreds of greedy idiots that would love to play SimCity with desperate municipalities. Or, as Jim suggests, do the DPZ folks think they should play by a different set of rules than everyone else?

Look at the miserable cities and suburbs we live in. Let the idiots play, they already have done all the damage they can. When they fail miserably and are exposed as corrupt or incompetent, banish them from the industry... Thats the new part.

And no they don't think that they ALONE should play by different rules. But I believe that those who have proven in real world situations, bound by red tape and regulations, to have the best interests of community in mind, should. Those who have proven themselves be a cut above the rest should be allowed the privilege of cutting through that red tape and bullshit. Please tell me why not?

[TerraSapient]

Look at the miserable cities and suburbs we live in. Let the idiots play, they already have done all the damage they can. When they fail miserably and are exposed as corrupt or incompetent, banish them from the industry... Thats the new part.

Banish them from the industry? And who will put our neighborhoods and cities back together again once they have been torn apart by carelessness?

[ColoGI]

Why is it that every time I read or hear Duany, I feel Atlas Shrugging?

Agimitating Rand-toters notwithstanding, thanks for a good stirring up.

Nonetheless, if you are concerned about deleterious effects, I believe Ursula K. LeGuin said it best: "To oppose something is to maintain it.".

That is: "A Pattern Language" is a decent framework. Is it slavishly adhered to across the spectra, idolized and made to be an obsequious totem? Of course not. Its on the shelf, looked at on a slow day, some things remembered, other things chuckled at, a decent idea as a reinforcement and the project made a little better. Then, reshelve and hopefully not too much dust or mold gathers until next time.

The same will happen with Duany as soon as planners figure out something else to talk about besides the same 5 topics.

[Skywalker]

And who is going to put our neighborhoods and cities back together again right now?

Fixed it for you.

I think it's supposed to be us.

Agimitating Rand-toters notwithstanding, thanks for a good stirring up.

Nonetheless, if you are concerned about deleterious effects, I believe Ursula K. LeGuin said it best: "To oppose something is to maintain it.".

That is: "A Pattern Language" is a decent framework. Is it slavishly adhered to across the spectra, idolized and made to be an obsequious totem? Of course not. Its on the shelf, looked at on a slow day, some things remembered, other things chuckled at, a decent idea as a reinforcement and the project made a little better. Then, reshelve and hopefully not too much dust or mold gathers until next time.

The same will happen with Duany as soon as planners figure out something else to talk about besides the same 5 topics.

Woah. Tomorrow, I am going to take the time necessary to actually understand that.

[bsteckler]

Like everything else, public input is a tool that we need to learn to use correctly. Too much and you have NIMBYists and BANANAists crop up, too little and you can let one person's unchallenged thought process do very bad things. In my opinion, a lot of projects designed by Robert Moses and the like would have been better had slightly more public input been utilized.

Like someone else on here said, urban planning is not about managing growth, it's about managing change. Public input is only useful if you have a properly educated public to work with, one that understands the limitations and goals of the planning process. If we're having this issue of public input impeding the planning process, then it's because the public doesn't know enough about it.

[Cismontane]

Why is it that every time I read or hear Duany, I feel Atlas Shrugging?

Having attended a couple DPZ charrettes, it's probably better to refer to them as a process of "guided discovery" where the participants get to wherever the maestro want them to go.. based on a completely known outcome. Democracy in action.. Authoritarian Chinese style.

One can't simultaneously be a cult leader and a planner in an increasingly open source democracy. If he can't get done what he wants then maybe he needs to give more consideration to what he's proposing: cookie cutter aesthetics, virtually unbuildable transect zones, inappropriate formal solutions, context-inappropriate site planning, ignorance of issues of equity, disrespect for the environment, failure to optimize for resource sustainability, and a view of density completely separated from any real technical understanding of it.

[ColoGI]

One can't simultaneously be a cult leader and a planner in an increasingly open source democracy. If he can't get done what he wants then maybe he needs to give more consideration to what he's proposing: cookie cutter aesthetics, virtually unbuildable transect zones, inappropriate formal solutions, context-inappropriate site planning, ignorance of issues of equity, disrespect for the environment, failure to optimize for resource sustainability, and a view of density completely separated from any real technical understanding of it.

That's pretty much how I feel about it too.

"Ideals are like the stars. We never reach them, but like the mariners at sea, we set our course by them." Some folks forget this old saying.

[cli]

I liked reading that article by Duany and do agree with him about how residents living in the local neighbourhood often times get special status when compared to everyone else. That's just how city councillors often react, for some reason. But planning has always been, or started out from, being an exercise for the public good, which does not distinguish by proximity.

[TexanOkie]

cookie cutter aesthetics, virtually unbuildable transect zones, inappropriate formal solutions, context-inappropriate site planning, ignorance of issues of equity, disrespect for the environment, failure to optimize for resource sustainability, and a view of density completely separated from any real technical understanding of it.

In the New Urbanist/SmartCode-opted developments in my fair city, I have not found any of these to be true in all contexts. New Urban projects may not be the end-all, be-all fix it that many proponents try to characterize it as, but it can work. In fact, it works exceptionally in infill projects in localized area plans.

[luckless pedestrian]

I liked reading that article by Duany and do agree with him about how residents living in the local neighbourhood often times get special status when compared to everyone else. That's just how city councillors often react, for some reason. But planning has always been, or started out from, being an exercise for the public good, which does not distinguish by proximity.

exactly - well said!

[ColoGI]

I New Urban projects may not be the end-all, be-all fix it that many proponents try to characterize it as, but it can work. In fact, it works exceptionally in infill projects in localized area plans.

I agree. And likely they were built and work well because there was no slavish devotion to an ideology.

[TexanOkie]

I agree. And likely they were built and work well because there was no slavish devotion to an ideology.

That's the thing, though: New Urbanism, as the Charter for the New Urbanism declares and how Duany himself presents it, is a design aesthetic, not an ideology. It is a design aesthetic in the mold of old-school urban planning, from the era when urban planning was nearly synonymous with urban design and when most planners were educated as architects or engineers. Think less Jane Jacobs, more Edmund N. Bacon. Now, the movement has since acquired or conscripted other causes/followers to help implement it, and it is these things that have seemingly turned it into an ideology. However, it is still, in its original and fundamental form, a design aesthetic pushing for a more urban built environment.

[ColoGI]

... New Urbanism, ... is a design aesthetic, not an ideology. It is a design aesthetic in the mold of old-school urban planning,

I have a standard slide for my presentations that explains this idea: two streets, same perspective, same design, neighborhoods built ~100 years apart, and I explain we forgot how to design after WWII, NU/SG is a return to built environment patters prior to ~WWII. I get it. I'm saying there are adherents that make an ideology (Duanology?) about it. If we are doing our jobs, we don't parrot v 5.1 and plop some transect down somewhere and call it good. We built perfectly good places without slavish devotion to a Congress that charges too much for its narrow-view conferences.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

That's the thing, though: New Urbanism, as the Charter for the New Urbanism declares and how Duany himself presents it, is a design aesthetic, not an ideology. It is a design aesthetic in the mold of old-school urban planning, from the era when urban planning was nearly synonymous with urban design and when most planners were educated as architects or engineers. Think less Jane Jacobs, more Edmund N. Bacon. Now, the movement has since acquired or conscripted other causes/followers to help implement it, and it is these things that have seemingly turned it into an ideology. However, it is still, in its original and fundamental form, a design aesthetic pushing for a more urban built environment.

... as well as a more rural and natural environment within walking distance of the urban and sub-urban areas.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

I frankly don't understand the antipathy Duany elicits among certain people. I've never met the guy. I don't belong to the C.N.U. I haven't even read his books. However, since he has been among those most strongly advocating public involvement in planning, I think it's only natural for him to refine his thinking in order to promote democratizing the process even further by preventing special interests from undermining the advancement of those belonging to the general citizenry, which still seems to not have a seat at the proverbial table.

One wonders, if any other person was proposing this technique, would there be such a backlash?

[JimPlans]

First, a disclaimer: Like most planners, I believe in smart growth / dense infill / people-friendly urban design / walkable neighborhoods / highly-available public transit / public participation. And truly, I believe that Andres Duany does as well. But, I also believe that Mr. Duany believes that he has discovered the only formula for success in creating livable places. I also believe, whether intentionally or not, Mr. Duany and/or his followers are trying to create an environment where you either agree with their concepts or you are wrong.

But, I already felt that, and even accepted that sometimes getting things done in a complex world means adopting a single-minded attitude. Certainly, the places I have visited that Duany was involved in creating were pleasant environments (Kentlands, Seaside, Naples). The design aspects of DPZ and CNU, while narrowly conceived, can create good places.

What set me off was the bald statement that public participation processes should treat neighbors like developers, or worse, like ignoramuses who don't have a right to express their opinions on actions that will directly affect their lives. Yes, there are plenty of ignoramuses who pop up in every public participation process, but that is just the nature of the beast. Mr. Duany seems to feel that the best way to manage problematic people is to remove them from the process altogether, lest they stand in the way of the brilliant plans that he or other brilliant designers wish to put into action to mold the world into their preferred image.

People who agree with this method of "participation" should revisit the urban renewal schemes of the 1950's and 1960's. I'm sure that the BRA planners in Boston in the 1950's thought that leveling the West End and replacing it with superblocks was the Way That The World Should Be, and the fact that the residents of the area opposed it was incidental to their plans. If a similar scenario were to play out today, it seems that Duany would approve of the BRA's actions as long as the resulting development met with his seal of approval.

We live in a democracy. True democracy is slow, loud, and messy. We also live in a world that has been designed to be the way it is, by people who have been following the same basic design concepts since they were first proposed in the 1920's and before. If the average person doesn't get New Urbanism or Smart Growth concepts, it's only because our profession (and others) have been telling them the opposite for 80+ years. It takes a while to change perceptions, and Mr. Duany and his followers should be accepting that they are in this for the long haul, not looking for ways to short-circuit democracy and impose their concepts on an unwilling populace.

As for other comments in this thread that planning was created to advance the public good, I would answer that planning is rooted in public safety and public health and in the desire to create systems that limit nuisance lawsuits. Once we move out of the nuisance/safety arena, our sole source of authority is the public's wills and desires. In other words, our purpose is to educate people as to the effects of certain actions or policies, ask them to decide what future they want, and create a system for achieving the future that they desire. Not what we desire. If we fail in convincing the general population to follow the latest planning concepts, it could be that we did a poor job of explaining them. It could even mean that what we were proposing for a certain community was flat-out wrong.

In short, Mr. Duany is an architect, not a planner. His job is to visualize a specific project and to agitate for it to be built, even if his vision conflicts with the stated vision of the community. I very much appreciate that he looks beyond his individual projects to the larger world and attempts to see the world holistically, as not all architects do. I do not appreciate when he utters statements that make it seem that he feels his worldview is the only one that matters.