|
� l, THE ALLIANCE REVIEW
<br /> approaches the future at such a generalized and lofty level, to specific areas on the ground. Such planning also makes it
<br /> this approach defers or avoids nasty fights about which street possible to relate growth and change in land uses throughout
<br /> to widen or whose neighborhood- gets the next halfway the area to infrastructure needs that are to be financed long-
<br /> : house . It relies heavily on the use of big words and global term and provided by government: roads and transportation,
<br /> objectives rather than graphics . If graphic materials — plans , schools , utilities , and public facilities of one kind or another
<br /> sections , elevations , perspectives , etc . — are incorporated, — to insure that public investment is not wasted by excessive
<br /> they tend to be illustrative or exemplary rather- than deal with over- or under-building, but kept in line with the actual needs
<br /> specific situations or areas . It may be good policy planning to of growth,
<br /> adopt a policy statement like "Development programs shall ,
<br /> when possible, prefcr existing buildings and areas over new Unfortunately, most states still consider planning and plans
<br /> construction . " However, the application of such abroad prim- just that: well-intentioned statements of policy that are
<br /> ciple to a specific situation at a later date is usually another always subject to change at the whim of a later elected coun.
<br /> matter, and the outcome on the ground is more likely to be cil that had no hand in preparing and adopting it. And there is
<br /> determined by political or financial considerations than by a huge disconnect in most states between the objectives laid
<br /> thinking about the best future environments . Sustainability is out in the official land-use plan and the ability to implement
<br /> a fine example of policy planning at its best, but the reality is them with the zoning ordinance. The widespread use of con-
<br /> that almost all development proposals and many preservation ditional and special use permits and . districts , a legal adapta-
<br /> projects have both sustainable and unsustainable elements . tion of otherwise illegal spot or contract zoning, only aggra-
<br /> Which ethic lands on top in a specific situation is more a mat- vates implementation of comprehensive plans ,
<br /> j ter of whose ox is being gored, rather than adherence to noble
<br /> principle. Nonetheless , long-term, comprehensive lan&use planning is
<br /> slowly coming back into its own. Historic preservation can
<br /> A fifth approach to planning , now coming back into favor, is and should be an important aspect of lan&use planning , and
<br /> comprehensive planning . This approach relies on the use of every comprehensive plan should contain a preservation ele-
<br /> maps , or combinations of maps and words , to spell out in ment.
<br /> advance — usually according to five- , 10- and 15 -year time
<br /> frames — which areas should be developed, for what purpos- Look for Part 2 of "On Preservation Plans and Planninga'
<br /> es , where and how ; and which areas should not be developed. in the March/April issue of The Alliance Review .
<br /> They are based on population and economic base projections ,
<br /> land capability analyses , and so on . Lan&use plan elements © RES 2000 Robert E. Stipe is Emeritus Professor of Design,
<br /> are accompanied by other comprehensive plan elements College of Architecture and Design, North Carolina State
<br /> showing how new development will be serviced with public University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
<br /> utilities and facilities and how capital budgeting programs
<br /> will pay for them. The comprehensive plan approach is close-
<br /> ly related to the old, so-called master plan .
<br /> Typically, a comprehensive plan includes a variety of ele-
<br /> ments such as land use, transportation , public utilities and
<br /> facilities , parks , open space, . housing, preservation, urban
<br /> design, and the like. This sort of planning was popular in the
<br /> 1950s because federal money under section 701 of the 1949
<br /> Housing Act paid for it . But it was displaced in the 1960s and
<br /> thereafter by the drift of planners and planning schools away
<br /> from dealing with hard growth and design issues to soft soci �
<br /> ological and economic approaches focusing on people ,
<br /> poverty, and policy rather than on the physical environment.
<br /> There is value , of course, in projecting (in the land-use plan
<br /> component of the comprehensive plan) , where and what kind
<br /> of growth should or should not take place . This makes it pos -
<br /> sible to begin to deal with the marginal frictions that take
<br /> place at the borders of neighborhoods or the places where one
<br /> land use meets another that may be incompatible with it. It
<br /> tends to bring planning down from the clouds and to relate it
<br /> 4
<br />
|