Altshuler, “Goals of Comprehensive Planning”

Part II: Comprehensive Planning, Land Use, and Growth Management

The Goals of Comprehensive Planning

• Author: Alan Altschuler, addressing political and administrative issues in city planning.

• Focus: Examines how planners define public interest and engage in community goal formulation.

• Thesis: For effective planning, it is essential to express community goals that are politically compelling and reflective of the public interest.

The Ideal of Comprehensive Planning

• Core Functions of Comprehensive Planners:

  • Create a Master Plan: Guides specialist planners' deliberations.

  • Evaluate Proposals: Assess specialist proposals relative to the master plan.

  • Coordinate Agencies: Ensure specialist proposals complement each other to serve the public interest.

• Requirements of Ideal Performance:

  • Understand the overall public interest relevant to planning topics.

  • Possess causal knowledge for assessing the net effect of proposed actions.

Community Goals

• Nature of Goals: Considered temporary, evolving, and criteria-based rather than concrete destinations.

• Democratic Approval: Goals must be endorsed through democratic processes, not imposed by planners alone.

• Planners' Challenge: Struggling to establish democratic processes in setting community goals.

Implications of the Ideal

• Hierarchy of Community Objectives: Planners must hierarchically arrange community goals by importance and propose actions to achieve them without major negative side effects.

• Feasibility of Comprehensive Planning: Supported by the assumption that common interests outweigh conflicts in society.

Continuum of Comprehensive Planning

• Varied Beliefs: Ranging from detailed planning of all social patterns to general outlining of specific variables.

• Common Interests: Must be the primary focus of societal interests; minor conflicts should be manageable and resolvable by planners.

Planners vs. Politicians

• Discourse on Public Interest: Planners and politicians each claim to judge the public interest from different bases: professional expertise for planners and popular election for politicians.

• Relationship: Planners and politicians' capacities may complement each other, not necessarily at odds in all situations.

Case Study Illustrations

• St. Paul Land Use Plan Introduction:

  • Herbert Weiland emphasizes comprehensive planning for city development and the balance between community interest and individual rights.

• Critique of Former City Planning Practices:

  • The need for comprehensive planning may have been overlooked in favor of ad hoc advisory roles, illustrating missed opportunities for integrated city growth.

Challenges of Planning without Power

• Decision-making Fragmentation: Planners rarely control planning decisions or capital budgeting processes, due to political reliance on engineers or ad-hoc committees.

• Need for Comprehensive Power: This is essential for successful integrated planning.

Systematic Critiques of Planning

• Major Attacks: Christopher Meyer critiques centralization of decision-making in planning, positing stifles individual choices.

• Knowledge Requirements: Planners need extensive knowledge of various factors, often unattainable by small groups.

• Public Response: Acknowledgment that public opinion must be educated on the value of comprehensive planning.

Zoning and Its Implications

• Call for Reevaluation: Concerns about zoning as ineffective amidst urban growth, arguing for redevelopment as a more effective planning approach.

• Critique of Zoning Philosophy: Zoning has become routine rather than a tool for fostering positive development.

• Question of Effectiveness: Consideration of whether zoning has indeed contributed positively to urban development since its inception.

Conclusion: Reevaluating Zoning

• Philosophical Shift: Planning must adapt beyond negative regulatory measures to positively shape development.

• Final Questions:

  • Has zoning genuinely improved urban environments?

  • Are planners prepared to face current and future urban challenges?

Part II: Comprehensive Planning, Land Use, and Growth Management

The Goals of Comprehensive Planning

Author: Alan Altschuler, a prominent voice in urban planning, addressing complex political and administrative issues in city planning contexts.

Focus: This section delves deep into how planners identify and define the public interest while engaging various stakeholders in the formulation of community goals. A thorough analysis of community needs is essential for planners.

Thesis: Effective planning hinges on an adept expression of community goals that are not only politically compelling but also genuinely reflective of the public interest, ensuring a broad base of support from the community.

The Ideal of Comprehensive Planning

Core Functions of Comprehensive Planners:

1. Create a Master Plan: A vital blueprint that guides specialist planners’ deliberations, ensuring cohesion in the planning process across different aspects of city development.

2. Evaluate Proposals: Analyzing how specialist proposals align with the overarching master plan serves to maintain consistency and integrity in community development.

3. Coordinate Agencies: Vital for ensuring that various agency proposals complement each other, thereby enhancing service delivery to the public and optimizing the use of resources.

Requirements of Ideal Performance:

• Understanding Public Interest: Planners must have a comprehensive grasp of the overall public interest, particularly as it pertains to diverse planning topics.

• Causal Knowledge: Possessing robust causal knowledge is clave; it equips planners to assess the net effects of proposed actions accurately.

Community Goals

Nature of Goals:

• Community goals are inherently temporary, evolving over time, and should be considered criteria-based rather than fixed destinations, allowing for flexibility as community needs change.

Democratic Approval:

• It is imperative that community goals garner endorsement through democratic processes. These goals must not be top-down impositions from planners, but rather emergent from broad community consensus.

Planners' Challenge:

• A significant challenge for planners lies in establishing democratic processes for setting community goals, ensuring all voices, especially marginalized ones, are heard.

Implications of the Ideal

Hierarchy of Community Objectives:

• Planners are tasked with systematically arranging community goals by significance. This arrangement aids in effective prioritization and ensures proposed actions minimize negative impacts.

Feasibility of Comprehensive Planning:

• This concept rests on the belief that shared community interests and common goals can often outweigh inherent conflicts present in society.

Continuum of Comprehensive Planning

Varied Beliefs:

• A spectrum exists in beliefs regarding planning, from detailed, prescriptive planning of all social patterns to broader outlines focusing on specific variables that can be adjusted as necessary.

Common Interests:

• The primary emphasis of comprehensive planning must be on common societal interests, recognizing that minor conflicts among interests can be effectively managed and resolved through collaborative planning processes.

Planners vs. Politicians

Discourse on Public Interest:

• Both planners and politicians claim authority in determining public interest, yet do so from differing perspectives: planners leverage their professional expertise while politicians are accountable to the electorate's desires.

Relationship:

• The interplay between planners and politicians can sometimes foster collaboration, enabling planners to rely on political support while politicians gain from planners' expertise. They need not be in opposition at all times.

Case Study Illustrations

St. Paul Land Use Plan Introduction:

• Herbert Weiland highlights the importance of comprehensive planning in the context of city development, stressing the critical balance between addressing community interest and preserving individual rights.

Critique of Former City Planning Practices:

• Historical analysis reveals that the need for comprehensive planning was frequently overlooked, leading to reliance on ad hoc advisory roles that resulted in lost opportunities for more integrated and sustainable city growth.

Challenges of Planning without Power

Decision-making Fragmentation:

• Planners often find themselves in positions where they lack control over key planning decisions or capital budgeting processes, largely due to political reliance on engineers or ad-hoc committees.

Need for Comprehensive Power:

• For successful integrated planning to take place, planners must possess more substantial authority and resources to enforce their strategies.

Systematic Critiques of Planning

Major Attacks:

• Christopher Meyer raises significant criticisms surrounding the centralization of decision-making processes in planning, arguing that this stifles individual choices and undermines accountability.

Knowledge Requirements:

• The demand for extensive knowledge across various disciplines is paramount for planners, a task often too great for small groups to fulfill adequately.

Public Response:

• There is a recognized necessity for educating the public on the importance and benefits of comprehensive planning to gain widespread support.

Zoning and Its Implications

Call for Reevaluation:

• Urgent calls for reevaluation suggest that traditional zoning practices may be ineffectual in the face of urban growth, advocating instead for redevelopment as a potentially more fruitful approach to planning.

Critique of Zoning Philosophy:

• There is a growing sentiment that zoning has become a routine exercise in regulation instead of a dynamic tool meant to foster positive urban development.

Question of Effectiveness:

• A critical examination considers whether zoning has genuinely contributed to positive outcomes in urban development since its establishment, prompting a need for revisiting these frameworks.

Conclusion: Reevaluating Zoning

Philosophical Shift:

• The perspective on planning must transition from focusing merely on negative regulatory measures to actively shaping urban development positively.

Final Questions:

1. Has zoning genuinely improved urban environments, or has it merely maintained the status quo?

2. Are planners adequately prepared to confront both current and future urban challenges--given the rapid pace