1: Urban Planning Theories / Movements Flashcards
New Urbanism
- Higher density and mix of uses
- Variety of housing choices & grid street patterns
- Ped scale and multi-modal transportation systems
- Garages in the BACK.
Precedent = Mariemont, OH (1923) - John Nolen designed it, Mary Emery was founder
Movement gained traction in the 1980s
Incremental Theory
1959 Charles Lidblom: “The Science of Muddling Through”
Reaction to rational planning.
- Argued that people make their plans and decisions in an incremental manner, accomplishing goals through a series of successive, limited comparisons.
- Way of getting additional information about a proposed project
- An alternative to synoptic rationality
Example = zoning ordinances.
CRITICISM:
- some situations need a major change rather than incremental.
- doesn’t specify whose values should be used.
Urban Development Theories
- Concentric Circle Theory
- Central Place Theory
- Multiple Nuclei Theory
- Sector Theory
Mixed Scanning compromises these two theories
Incremental and Rational.
Provides decisions at 2 levels - big picture & smaller incremental decisions.
Antonio Etzioni
CRITICISM: assumes there is a centralized decision making process
Does not identify who involved with process or whose values are used
Sector Theory
- Hoyt
- Land uses vary based on transportation routes
- DISAGREED with concentric circles theory
- City is a series of sectors radiating out from the center of the city.
Central Place Theory
- Walter Christaller
- 1933
- Explains size & spacing of cities
- Min market threshold to bring a firm to a city & there is a max range of people who are willing to travel to receive goods and services.
Concentric Circle Theory (urban growth theory)
Ernest Burgess
Cities grow in a series of outward rings
Land use based on distance from downtown
1925
Bid Rent Curve
Theory explaining land use patterns based on how much people are willing to pay for land
“Invasion - Succession”
Tied to the concentric circles theory
Multiple Nuclei Theory (urban growth theory)
1945
Hams & Wilkman
Cities develop series of specific land use nuclei
Nucleas formed due to: accessibility of resources, clustering similar uses, landprices, repelling power of land uses.
Rank these movements chronologically:
- Laissez Faire
- Agrarian
- Public Health
- City Beautiful
- City Efficient
- City Humane
- City Functional
- Laissez Faire
- Agrarian
- Public Health
- City Beautiful
- City Efficient
- City Humane
- City Functional
City Efficient was a reaction against which movement
City beautiful - which focused on beauty and not matters of function and efficiency.
City efficient more focused on function & efficiency
- remedying congestion, focused on commerce
Came out of the 1909 conference on city planning
Garden Cities
Response to: Overcrowding
Key Features: Self-contained, 32,000 ppl w/ 6,000 acres - 30,000 ppl housed on 1000 acres, rest of farming. Aim to bring social reform.
Examples: Letchworth (first in England, 1903), Sunnyside Gardens Queens NY (1st in USA), Radburn, NJ
Key Figures: Ebeneezer Howard, Lewis Mumford
Greenbelt Cities:
Response to: Great Depression
Resettlement Admin 1935
Rexford Tugwell
3 major greenbelt cities:
Greenbelt, Maryland, out-side Washington, D.C.;
Greenhills, Ohio, north of Cincinnati; and
Greendale, Wisconsin, near Milwaukee.
The City Humane
Reaction to the great depression (1930s-40s)
Featured: Jobs & housing
Polycentric concept
Metropolitan regions developed into a series of centers
Communicative Theory
CURRENT theory of choice.
Emphasizes that the planner NEGOTIATE and BUILD CONSENSUS. More intensive citizen participation process.
Planning operates within realm of politics & variety of stakeholder interests.
ROOTS = American pragmatism, European critical theory, Advocacy & transactive planning
SHIFT. From planning for different groups -> planner is facilitator among stakeholders.
PRIMARY FUNCTION:
- Listen to people’s views & assist in forging consensus among dif viewpoints.
- Mediate with discussion.
- Structured to foster group understanding.
Advocacy Planning
Paul Davidoff
Developed in 1960s
MIX OF rational + incremental planning.
- Way to represent interests in the community.
- Planners should represent special interest groups rather than the entire community.
- SHIFT who the planner plans for -> methods stay the same.
CRITICISM: can result in conflict among interest groups
Equity Planning
Norman Krumholz
- Cleveland - 1970s
- Specifically disadvantaged communities should be prioritized
- Redistribute power, resources, participation from elite to poor & working class
CRITICISM: If local leaders not aligned with progressive action - can be problematic.
Transactive Planning
1973 - John Friedmann.
Book = Retracking America - A Theory of Transactive Planning.
Shift away from advocacy planning (planner no longer the technical expert).
This planning - gets public more involved in planning process.
Mutual learning: planning shares technical knowledge, citizens provide community knowledge.
CRITICISMS:
- Time consuming
- How to evaluate each persons community knowledge
- Doesn’t work with large differences in opinion and/or too many stakeholders
Radical Planning
1987 - John Friedmann.
Book = Planning in the Public Domain.
Power from government -> to the people.
Citizens get together & develop their own plans.
IT’S MORE PROACTIVE than advocacy or transactive
CRITICISMS:
- US Governments don’t allow individuals to plan
- There ARE examples of partial uses: public housing authorities turned decisions over to tenants.
Rational Planning
Pure rationality - assumes planners know all the information in a given situation. This is IMPOSSIBLE - instead, we just “satisfice” (Herbert Simon). Accepts the human mind is limited in its ability to solve problems - instead choose alternatives that are good enough.
ALSO CALLED SYNOPTIC
STEPS: set goals, determine alternatives, evaluate alternatives, choose an alternative, implement an alternative, evaluate.
Criticisms:
- Can’t be used for “wicked problems”
- Doesn’t specify who sets goals.
- Value-free - goals based
New urbanism commercial qualities
Mixed uses, curbside parking, projecting business signage
NOT big box
New urbanism DOES NOT support:
Parking lots, cul-de-sacs, strict segregation of uses.
They DO support grid street patterns.
First New Urbanism town
Seaside, FL
