Agenda - 10-12-1999 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

�3 TWENTIETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNING THE URBAN GENERAL PLAN INTRODUCTION: Reasons for G.P.; roles of council, CPC, citizens; historical background and context of G.P. {s, SUMMARY OF G.P.: Unified statement including (a) basic policies, (b) major proposals, and (c) one schematic drawing of the physical design. BASIC POLICIES I. CONTEXT OF THE G.P.: Historical background; facts geographical and physical trends factors; social and economic assumptions factors; major issues, forecasts . prgblems, and opportunities. 2. SOCIAL OBJECTIVES AND URBAN PHYSICAL- STRUCTURE CONCEPTS: Value judgments concerning social objectives; professional judgments concerning major physical- structure concepts adopted as basis for G.P. . 3. BASIC POLICIES OF THE G.P.: Discussion of the basic policies that the general physical design is intended to implement. contents of the GENERAL PHYSICAL DESIGN Description of plan proposals in relation to large -scale G.P. drawing and citywide drawings of: 1. Working - and - living - These drawings areas section. must remain general. 2. Community- facilities They are needed section. because single G.P. 3. Civic - design section. drawing is .too 4.. Circulation section. complex to enable 5. Utilities section. each element to be clearly seen. (Plus regional, functional, and district drawings that are needed to explain G.P.) . and publication as a FIGURE 3. Components of the 19SOs -1960s General Plan Source: Kent 1964, 93 The Typical General Plan of the 1950s and 1960s Influenced by the 701 program, Kent's policy vi- sion, and Chapin's methods, the plans of the 1950s and 1960s were based on a clear and straightforward concept: The plan's purposes were to determine, com- municate, and effectuate comprehensive policy for the private and public physical development and redevel- opment of the city. The subject matter was long -range physical development, including private uses of the land, circulation, and community facilities. The stan- dard format included a summary . of existing and emerging conditions and needs; general goals; and a long -range urban form in map format, accompanied by consistent development policies. The coverage was comprehensive, in the sense of addressing both public and private development and covering the entire plan- ning jurisdiction, but quite general The tone was typi- cally neither as "inspirational" as the Burnham plan for Chicago, nor as action- oriented as today's plans. Such was the well- defined trunk of the family tree in the 19SOs and 1960s, in which today's contemporary plans have much of their origin. Contemporary Plans: Incorporating New Branches Planning concepts and practice have continued to evolve since midcentury, maturing in the process. By the 1970s, a number of new ideas had taken root a Re- ferring back to the family tree in figure 1, we can see a trunk and several .distinct branches: ' • The land use design, a detailed mapping of future land use arrangements, is the most direct descendant of the 19SOs plan. It still constitutes the trunk of the tree. However, today's version is more likely to be accompanied by action strategies, also mapped, and to include extensive policies. • The land classification plan, a more general map of growth policy areas rather than a detailed land use pattern, is now also common, particularly for count - ies, metropolitan areas, and regions that want to en- courage urban growth in designated development areas and to discourage it in conservation or rural areas. The roots of the land classification plan in- clude McHarg's Design With Nature (1969), the 1976 APA JOURNAL -stns 1995 1371