The State of City Planning Today and It's Relation to City Planning [Reflections]

The State of City Planning Today and Its Relation to City Planning Education Allan B. Jacobs I am mightily concerned about the state of the city planning field today, particularly in large U.S. cities, and the nature of the educational pro- grams from which city planners come. City planning, to me as a practic- ing professional and educator in the field, has always been about deter- mining what should go where, why, how to get it there, and when. Its focus is on the physical environment of places—meeting the needs and aspirations of people who live and work in a city (or metropolitan area), consistent with the sustainable needs of the natural environment. This is not to suggest that socioeconomic needs are unimportant, or that they are less important than physical ones. But socioeconomic objectives can also be addressed through social or economic planning. To be sure, the objective of city planning is to achieve a variety of physical and social objec- tives; for example, a path or a street is planned and located to help people get from place to place because there are good social and economic reasons for them to do so. However, the principal achievement of city planning should be the location and design of the path in relation to other possible paths and to the uses of land, considering a mul- titude of physical and social concerns. Perhaps the sharpest justification for my admittedly limited definition can be found in the requirements or expectations found in legislation enabling the establishment of city planning departments in U.S. cities and states, or requiring that such work be done. 1 That legislation most often deals with the what, where, why, how and when of city develop- ment. Another recent definition of what city planners are expected to do may be found in the job description for the new Chief Planner of Boston: “…to bring into focus the interrelated issues and decisions around land use, built form, the public realm, the envi- ronment, community development, infrastructure and transportation that shape Boston, and relate these issues to the larger strategic goals.” In a large city, city planning, as so defined, may be extraordinarily dif- ficult. To be effective and relevant, it must work at three physical and three time scales—and do so simultane- ously. The physical scales are the city as a whole, the neighborhood or dis- trict, and the individual project or site. The time scales are long range, which is anything longer than four years (the attention span of an elected official); short range, which is any problem or opportunity that can be solved or achieved within one year of being identified or proposed; and middle range, which involves things that can be achieved in one to four years. The San Francisco General Plan One of my most important encoun- ters with these issues (which now seems ages ago) was redoing the San Francisco General Plan when I was that city’s planning director. This was, of course, both a long-range activity and one with a citywide (and beyond) physical scale. The work took place between 1967 and 1975—slowly, piece by piece, because there weren’t funds to do it any other way. It was done by departmental staff. Most notable of the accomplishments, we thought then, were its Transportation Plan, Urban Design Plan, Recreation and Open Space Plan, and Housing Plan. The San Francisco Urban Design Plan, completed in 1971, was apparently the first of its type, and became very well known and copied. It also became the basis for citywide legislation concern- ing building height and bulk, view cor- ridors, historic preservation, shadow and light controls, and much more. When presented, it was enor- mously popular and respected. People carried it into meetings, quoting it. They challenged staff and elected officials to make its proposals real; and we did indeed try. It was extremely influential for about 25 years. The plan contained four straightforward objectives, many urban form policies appropriate for San Francisco, and many principles (truths, if you will) about how to develop appropriately in San Francisco. The plan and its principles still seem, to these eyes, appropriate, and deserve continued The San Francisco Urban Design Plan of 1972 followed each of its objectives with a series of “principles,” urban design truths for the city many of which could be and would be translated into legislation or design guidelines by the city and private developers alike. A sampling of the principles is shown here. 1. Landscaped pathways can visually and functionally link larger open spaces to neighborhoods. 2. Street rights-of-way on hills too steep for cars or not needed for traffic are useless for people if covered with concrete. They can be modified to provide useful and attractive open space. 3. Building siting and massing with respect to street pattern influence the quality of views from street space. 3a: Tall buildings on the tops of hills allow clear views down streets. 3b: Tall buildings on slopes of hills severely restrict views from above. 4. Larger taller buildings can blend pleasantly with small-scaled areas if the change in scale is not excessive and if their form or surface pattern is articulated to reflect existing scale. 5. Visually strong buildings which contrast severely with their surroundings impair the character of the area. 6. Bulky buildings that intrude upon or block important views of the Bay, Ocean or other significant citywide focal points are particularly disruptive. The drawings are by Tom Aidala. Jacobs / The State of City Planning Today