|
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID R. GODSCHALK
<br />TABLE 1. Local comprehensive plans in growth - managing states and coastal areas as of 1994
<br />Number of Comprehensive Plans
<br />Compiled from telephone survey of state sourcm
<br />the- century roots, culminated in a midcentury con-
<br />sensus on a general concept —the traditional land use
<br />design plan. That consensus was stretched as planning
<br />branched out to deal with public participation, envi-
<br />ronmental protection, growth management, fiscal re-
<br />sponsibility, and effective implementation under
<br />turbulent conditions. To meet these new challenges,
<br />new types of plans arose: verbal policy plans, land clas-
<br />sification plans, and growth management plans. These
<br />in turn became integrated into today's hySdd compre-
<br />hensive plans, broadening and strengthening the tra-
<br />ditional approach. ,
<br />Future Land use planning will continue to evolve
<br />in certain foreseeable directions, as well as in ways un-
<br />foreseen. Among the foreseeable developments are
<br />even more active participation by interest groups, call-
<br />ing for planners' skills at consensus building and man=
<br />aging conflict; increased use of computers and
<br />electronic media, calling for planners' skills in infor-
<br />mation management and communication; and contin-
<br />uing -concerns over issues -of diversity, sustainability,
<br />and quality of life, calling for planners' ability to ana-
<br />lyze and seek creative solutions to complex and inter-
<br />dependent problems.
<br />The Land Use Planning Family Tree
<br />We liken the evolution of the physical develop-
<br />ment plan to a family tree. The early genealogy is rep-
<br />1 J APA JOURNAL • SUM MM 1995
<br />resented as the roots of the tree (figure 1). The general
<br />plan, constituting consensus practice at midcentury, is
<br />represented by the main trunk. Since the 1970s this
<br />traditional "land use design plan" has been joined by
<br />several branches —the verbal policy plan, the land clas-
<br />sification plan, and the development management
<br />plan. These branches connect to the trunk although
<br />springing from different planning disciplines, in a way
<br />reminiscent of the complex structure of a Ficus tree.
<br />The branches cott)Lbine into the contemporary, hybrid
<br />comprehensive plan integrating design, policy, classi-
<br />fication, and management, represented by the foliage
<br />at the top of the tree.
<br />As We discuss each of these parts of the family tree,
<br />we show how plans respond both to social climate
<br />Changes and to "idea genes" from the literature. We
<br />also draw conclusions about the survival of the tree
<br />and the prospects for new branches in the future.
<br />The focus of the article is the plan prepared by a
<br />local government -a county,. municipality, or urban
<br />region —for the long -term development and use of
<br />the land.9
<br />Roots of the Family Tree: The First
<br />SO Years
<br />New World city plans certainly existed before this
<br />century. They included UEnfant's plan for Washing-
<br />ton, William Penn's plan for Philadelphia, and Gen-
<br />Cities/
<br />State
<br />Towns
<br />Counties
<br />Regions'
<br />Total
<br />Source
<br />California (coastal)
<br />97
<br />7
<br />0
<br />104
<br />Coastal Commission
<br />Florida
<br />377
<br />49
<br />0
<br />426
<br />Department of Community Affairs
<br />Georgia
<br />298
<br />94
<br />0
<br />.392
<br />Department of Community Affairs '
<br />Maine
<br />270
<br />0
<br />0
<br />270
<br />Dept. of Economic and
<br />Community Development
<br />Maryland
<br />1
<br />1
<br />0
<br />2
<br />Planning Office
<br />New Jersey
<br />567
<br />0
<br />0
<br />567
<br />Community Affairs Department
<br />North Carolina (coastal)
<br />70
<br />20
<br />0
<br />90
<br />Division of Coastal Management
<br />Oregon
<br />241
<br />36
<br />1
<br />278
<br />Department of Local Community
<br />Development
<br />_
<br />Rhode Island
<br />39
<br />0
<br />1
<br />40
<br />Department of Planning and
<br />Development
<br />Vermont
<br />235
<br />0
<br />10
<br />245
<br />Department of Housing and
<br />Community Afrairs
<br />Virginia
<br />211
<br />94
<br />0
<br />305
<br />Department of Housing and
<br />Community Development
<br />Washington
<br />23
<br />0
<br />0
<br />23
<br />Office of Growth Management
<br />TOTAL
<br />2429
<br />301.
<br />12
<br />2742
<br />Compiled from telephone survey of state sourcm
<br />the- century roots, culminated in a midcentury con-
<br />sensus on a general concept —the traditional land use
<br />design plan. That consensus was stretched as planning
<br />branched out to deal with public participation, envi-
<br />ronmental protection, growth management, fiscal re-
<br />sponsibility, and effective implementation under
<br />turbulent conditions. To meet these new challenges,
<br />new types of plans arose: verbal policy plans, land clas-
<br />sification plans, and growth management plans. These
<br />in turn became integrated into today's hySdd compre-
<br />hensive plans, broadening and strengthening the tra-
<br />ditional approach. ,
<br />Future Land use planning will continue to evolve
<br />in certain foreseeable directions, as well as in ways un-
<br />foreseen. Among the foreseeable developments are
<br />even more active participation by interest groups, call-
<br />ing for planners' skills at consensus building and man=
<br />aging conflict; increased use of computers and
<br />electronic media, calling for planners' skills in infor-
<br />mation management and communication; and contin-
<br />uing -concerns over issues -of diversity, sustainability,
<br />and quality of life, calling for planners' ability to ana-
<br />lyze and seek creative solutions to complex and inter-
<br />dependent problems.
<br />The Land Use Planning Family Tree
<br />We liken the evolution of the physical develop-
<br />ment plan to a family tree. The early genealogy is rep-
<br />1 J APA JOURNAL • SUM MM 1995
<br />resented as the roots of the tree (figure 1). The general
<br />plan, constituting consensus practice at midcentury, is
<br />represented by the main trunk. Since the 1970s this
<br />traditional "land use design plan" has been joined by
<br />several branches —the verbal policy plan, the land clas-
<br />sification plan, and the development management
<br />plan. These branches connect to the trunk although
<br />springing from different planning disciplines, in a way
<br />reminiscent of the complex structure of a Ficus tree.
<br />The branches cott)Lbine into the contemporary, hybrid
<br />comprehensive plan integrating design, policy, classi-
<br />fication, and management, represented by the foliage
<br />at the top of the tree.
<br />As We discuss each of these parts of the family tree,
<br />we show how plans respond both to social climate
<br />Changes and to "idea genes" from the literature. We
<br />also draw conclusions about the survival of the tree
<br />and the prospects for new branches in the future.
<br />The focus of the article is the plan prepared by a
<br />local government -a county,. municipality, or urban
<br />region —for the long -term development and use of
<br />the land.9
<br />Roots of the Family Tree: The First
<br />SO Years
<br />New World city plans certainly existed before this
<br />century. They included UEnfant's plan for Washing-
<br />ton, William Penn's plan for Philadelphia, and Gen-
<br />
|