|
EDWARD J. KAISER AND DAVID IL GODSMALK
<br />Plan (1938), spelled out the plan's subject matter and
<br />format- supplementing the 1928 Act, and consistent
<br />with it. fie argued that the plan should have seven ele-
<br />ments, all relating to land areas (not buildings) and
<br />capable of being shown on a map: streets, parks, sites
<br />for public buildings, public reservations, routes for
<br />public utilities, pier -head and bulkhead lines (all pub-
<br />lic facilities), and zoning districts for private lands.
<br />Bassett's views were incorporated in many state en-
<br />abling laws (Haas 1955).
<br />The physical plans of the first half of the century
<br />were drawn by and for independent commissions, re-
<br />flecting the profession's roots in the Progressive Re-
<br />form movement, with its distrust of politics. The 1928
<br />Act reinforced that perspective by making the plan
<br />ring commission, not the legislative body,,the princi-
<br />pal client of the plan, and purposely isolating the
<br />commission from politics (Black '1968, 355). Bassett's' `
<br />book reinforced the reliance on An independent com-
<br />mission. He conceived of the plan as a "plastic" map,
<br />kept within the purview of the planning commission,
<br />capable of quick and easy change. The commission,
<br />not the plan, was. intended to be the adviser to the
<br />local legislative body and to city departments (Bas - .
<br />sett 1938).
<br />By the 1940s, both the separation of the planning
<br />function from city government and the plan's focus
<br />on physical development were being challenged. Rob -
<br />ert Walker, in The Planning Function in Local Government,
<br />argued that the "scope of city planning is properly as
<br />broad as the scope of city government" (Walker 1941,
<br />110). The central planning agency might not necessar-
<br />ily do all the planning, but it would coordinate depart-
<br />mental planning in the light of general policy
<br />considerations— creating a comprehensive plan but
<br />one without a physical focus. That idea was not widely
<br />accepted. Walker also argued that the independent
<br />planning commission should be replaced by a depart-
<br />ment or bureau attached to the office of mayor or city
<br />manager (Walker 1941, 177), That argument did take
<br />hold, and by the 1960s planning in most communities
<br />was the responsibility of an agency within local gov-
<br />ernment, though planning boards still advised elected
<br />officials on planning matters!
<br />This evolution of ideas over SO years resulted at
<br />midcentury in a consensus concept of a plan as ' fo-
<br />cused on long -term physical development; this focus
<br />was a legacy of the physical design professions. Plan-
<br />ning staff worked both for the local government exec-
<br />utive officer and with an appointed citizen planning
<br />board, an arrangement that was a legacy of the Pro-
<br />gressive insistence on the public interest as an anti-
<br />dote to governmental corruption. The plan addressed-
<br />368 APA JOURNAL • SUMMER 1995
<br />.�O
<br />both public and private uses of the land, but did not
<br />deal in derail with implementation.
<br />The Plan after Midcentury: New
<br />Growth Influences
<br />Local development planning grew rapidly in the
<br />1950s, for several reasons. First, governments had to
<br />contend with the postwar surge of population and ur-
<br />ban growth, as well as a need for the capital invest-
<br />ment in infrastructure and community facilities that
<br />had been postponed during the depression and war
<br />years. Second, municipal legislators and managers be-
<br />came more interested in planning as it shifted from
<br />being the responsibility of an independent commis -
<br />sion to being a function within local government.
<br />Third, and very important, Section 701 of the Housing
<br />Act of. 1954 required local governments to adopt a
<br />long -range general plan in order to qualify for federal
<br />grants for urban renewal, housing, and other pro-
<br />grams, and it also made • money available for such
<br />comprehensive planning.s The 701 program's double-
<br />barrelled combination of requirements and financial
<br />support led to more urban planning in the United
<br />States in the latter half of the 1950's than at any previ-
<br />ous time in history (cited from Scott 1969, in Beal and
<br />Hollander 1979, 159).
<br />At the same time, the plan concept was pruned
<br />and shaped by two planning educators. T. J. Kent, Jr.
<br />was a professor at the University of California at
<br />Berkeley, a planning commissioner, and a city council-
<br />man -in the 1950s.. His book, The Urban General Plan
<br />(1964), clarified the policy role of the plan.6 F. Stuart
<br />Chapin, Jr. was a TVA planner and planning director
<br />in Greensboro, NC in the 1940s, before joining the
<br />planning faculty at the University of North Carolina
<br />at Chapel Hill in 1949. His contribution was to codify
<br />the methodology of land use planning in the various
<br />editions of his book, Urban Land Use Planning (1957,
<br />1965).'
<br />What should the plan look like? What should it be
<br />about? What is its purpose (besides the cynical pur-
<br />pose of qualifying for federal grants)? The 701 pro-
<br />gram, Kent, and Chapin all offered answers.
<br />The -701" Program Comprehensive Plan
<br />Guidelines
<br />In order to qualify for federal urban renewal aid —
<br />and, later, for other grants -a local government had
<br />to -prepare a general plan that consisted of plans for
<br />physical development, programs for redevelopment,
<br />and administrative and regulatory measures for con-
<br />trolling ' and guiding development. The 701 program
<br />
|