Making place or planning chaos [broadband recommended]

ablarc

     
Messages
713
Likes
0
Points
0
#41
NHPlanner said:
I don't know what planners you're talking about.....since from my experience planners and engineers conflict on far more issues than any design professions.
What he means is planners share with engineers:

1. Faith in numbers.

2. Belief there's one best solution for each condition. Even if that's true, it non-negotiably optimizes the parts at the expense of the whole.
 

NHPlanner

Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,956
Likes
0
Points
23
#42
ablarc said:
What he means is planners share with engineers:

1. Faith in numbers.

2. Belief there's one best solution for each condition. Even if that's true, it non-negotiably optimizes the parts at the expense of the whole.
FWIW I don't put blind faith in numbers, nor do I believe in one solution for each condition. My experience is that planners provide alternatives to the decision makers, not "solutions." I would not be doing my job as a planner if I tried to advocate a one size fits all approach. And most planners I know are the same way.

OK....off my soapbox and out of this discussion....which I hadn't intended to get involved in anyway....I'm not interested in trying to fit any profession into narrow descriptions.
 

steel

Cyburbian
Messages
454
Likes
0
Points
0
#43
NHPlanner said:
FWIW I don't put blind faith in numbers, nor do I believe in one solution for each condition. My experience is that planners provide alternatives to the decision makers, not "solutions." I would not be doing my job as a planner if I tried to advocate a one size fits all approach. And most planners I know are the same way.

OK....off my soapbox and out of this discussion....which I hadn't intended to get involved in anyway....I'm not interested in trying to fit any profession into narrow descriptions.

Of course my observation were meant in a general way but from my experience with zoning and planning as an archietct designing projects there is very little if any oportunity to interact with the process on a building by building use by use basis. If the numbers dictate x parking spaces and x set back and x materials then that is what it has to be because it was already determined.
 

ablarc

     
Messages
713
Likes
0
Points
0
#44
steel said:
Of course my observation were meant in a general way but from my experience with zoning and planning as an archietct designing projects there is very little if any oportunity to interact with the process on a building by building use by use basis. If the numbers dictate x parking spaces and x set back and x materials then that is what it has to be because it was already determined.
That's it in a nutshell, and I call that faith in numbers.

It also de-optimizes the whole. Every single time.
 
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#45
I'd like to give this thread an anniversary bump to clarify a point of discussion that I think is critically important to understanding the dynamics of urbanism. Since I've had a year to think about it (and have written a lot on the subject) I think I can conclusively and definitely answer the following question:

Is zoning created by the market?

No. A market exchange takes place when two private property owners contract with each other on even terms. Both participants must be satisfied with the deal and find it beneficial. That some developers or citizens demand zoning from the elected politicians is not in any way related to a market. It is politics, nothing else. One group of people trying to get an advantage at the expense of everyone else. It is politics that drives the accumulation of regulations and zoning codes without direction.

Could there be market zoning? Certainly, as long as it was done on private property. People zone their house into a bedroom, a kitchen, a living room. It is perfectly beneficial. They do it on their own private property. They toss out zones that make no sense and make new ones when the needs arise. The reason zoning works here and not for the city is because the private property owner knows what he is trying to achieve, has ultimate authority to impose regulations and will bear all the consequences of that decision. A free market city. because it is privately owned, tells developers what the zoning is. It does not request it from them. It knows what it wants to do, how it wants it to be done and what the consequences of this decision are going to be.

The only way to get rid of destructive, meaningless zoning is to get politics out of urbanism.
 
Messages
18,885
Likes
4
Points
34
#46
I think that this is a truly fascinating dialog with some points that I agree with and others that I don’t.

From what I have noticed, zoning is often a perceived response to existing and potential future trends in an effort to guide development. But is it what the general public wants?

Newer communities and development continue to be successful even though they are suburban sprawl in nature, while many of the older denser cities that were built out before zoning loose population. The majority of the American Public wants to live in newer spaces with open space and low density, but with the conveniences of urban places.

I think that with the increase of Form-based Codes being used instead of or in combination with zoning has allowed municipalities to reverse this trend, but there is still a long way to go.

There is also an increasing number of Young Professionals and empty nesters who are moving back into vibrant interactive neighborhoods within dense older cities. This reverse migration has caused an increase of low income families to move into the first tier suburbs.

It is all about perception of what the public wants and what is best for them.
 

Gedunker

Mod
Moderator
Messages
10,327
Likes
2
Points
26
#48
Off-topic:
Come back, ablarc. All is forgiven. ;-)


Maybe we do it differently here because we are a city with 150 years of development history that predates zoning. We see it as a matter of "one-size does not fit all", so show us how your approach is better for the site and the vicinity and we'll go to bat for it if it truly is better. That's why my board frequently has in excess of 100 cases annually -- because there are both practical difficulties and hardships that can be (and should be) legally justified.

This morning I got an email from a planning listserv that had someone state that their board hears 14 cases. Annually. To me that = engineering.
 

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,072
Likes
1
Points
19
#50
jaws said:
All but two, the supplyer and the demander.
Except when the demander demands property owned by someone else in a desirable location (for example, someone who isn't in the mood to be a supplier because he likes his waterfront home) and decides to supply the property unto himself through coercive and violent means.
 
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#51
Wanigas? said:
Except when the demander demands property owned by someone else in a desirable location (for example, someone who isn't in the mood to be a supplier because he likes his waterfront home) and decides to supply the property unto himself through coercive and violent means.
How is this relevant?
 

btrage

Cyburbian
Messages
6,428
Likes
0
Points
22
#52
As many of the threads that jaws comments in often turn into debates over the role that government should play in planning, I really wish that someone would start an all encompassing thread devoted to the topic. It really is getting a little old hearing the same arguments in multiple threads. I'm not saying the viewpoint is necessarily wrong, but the debate should not spill over into every single thread that discusses Design, Regulations, Zoning, Architecture, Government, etc.

I'm not even sure what the thread should be called. Perhaps "Libertarian Ideas Related to Urban Planning"???????
 
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#54
btrage said:
As many of the threads that jaws comments in often turn into debates over the role that government should play in planning, I really wish that someone would start an all encompassing thread devoted to the topic. It really is getting a little old hearing the same arguments in multiple threads. I'm not saying the viewpoint is necessarily wrong, but the debate should not spill over into every single thread that discusses Design, Regulations, Zoning, Architecture, Government, etc.

I'm not even sure what the thread should be called. Perhaps "Libertarian Ideas Related to Urban Planning"???????
That's not fair. This thread was about zoning and government before I even got here.

Wanigas? said:
Ever hear of cheaters?
How is this relevant to urbanism?
 

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,072
Likes
1
Points
19
#55
jaws said:
How is this relevant to urbanism?
How can you propose an urbanism without politics - one with suppliers and demanders - and not address the effect cheaters will have on such a system?
 
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#56
Wanigas? said:
How can you propose an urbanism without politics - one with suppliers and demanders - and not address the effect cheaters will have on such a system?
That's a problem of law and order, not urbanism.
 

Wannaplan?

Galactic Superstar
Messages
3,072
Likes
1
Points
19
#57
jaws said:
That's a problem of law and order, not urbanism.
And yet it takes people to make a place urban; inevitably individuals will fail to be responsible participants, easily disrupting the urban order.
 
Messages
1,507
Likes
0
Points
0
#58
Wanigas? said:
And yet it takes people to make a place urban; inevitably individuals will fail to be responsible participants, easily disrupting the urban order.
Lots of things could disrupt the urban order. Lightning could strike. For the third and final time, how is this relevant?
 
Top