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

Browse Search

TABLE 2. Comparison of plan types 1950s General Features of Plans Plan Land Use Maps Nature of Recommendations Time Horizon Link to Implementation Public Participation Capital Improvements Land Use /Tr4nsportation Linkage Environmental Protection Social Policy Linkage X13 TWENTIETH CENTURY LAND USE PLANNING Contemporary Prototype Plans 1990s Hybrid Land Development Design - Policy. Land Use Classification Verbal Management Management Design. Plan Policy Plan Plan Plan Detailed Detailed General . No By growth areas General and area specific General Land use Growth Variety of Specific Policy and community policies & locations & community management actions goals objectives incentives policies actions Long range Long range Long range Intermediate Short range Short and long range range Very weak. Weak to Moderate Moderate Strong Moderate to moderate Strong Pro-forma Active Moderate Moderate Active Active Advisory Recommended Recommended Recommended Required Recommended to required Moderate Strong Weak Varies Strong Strong Weak Moderate Strong Varies Varies Strong Weak Weak Weak Moderate to Weak Moderate strong The development management plan represents the greatest shift from the traditional land use plan. It embodies a short -to- intermediate -range program of governmental actions for ongoing growth manage- ment rather than for long -range comprehensive Planning In pracace, these four types of plans are not mutu- ally exclusive. Communities often combine aspects of them into a hybrid general plan that has policy sec - dons covering environmental /social /economic/hous- mg/infrastructure concerns, land classification maps defining spatial.growth policy, land use design maps specifying locations of particular land uses, and devel- opment management programs laying out standards and procedures for guiding and paying for growth. Re- gardless of the type of plan used, the most progressive planning programs today regard the plan as but one part of a coordinated growth management program, rather than, as in the 19SOs, the main planning prod- uct. Such :a program incorporates a capital improve- ment program, land use controls, small area plans, functional plans, and other devices, as well as a gen- eral plan -17 The Enduring Land Use Family Tree and Its Future Branches . For the first SO years of this century, planning re- sponded to concerns about progressive governmental reform, the City Beautiful, and the "City Efficient" Plans were advisory, specifying a future urban form, and were developed by and for an independent com- mission. By midcentury this type of plan, growing out of the design tradition, had become widespread in lo- cal practice. During the 19SOs and 1960s the 701 pro- gram, T.J. Kent, and F. Stuart Chapin, Jr. further articulated the plan's content and methodology. Over the last 30 years,.environmental and infrastructure is- sues have pushed planning toward growth manage- ment. As citizen activists and interest groups have taken more of a role, land use politics have become more heated. Planning theorists, too, have questioned the midcentury approach to planning, and have pro- posed changes in focus, process, subject matter, and format, sometimes challenging even the core idea of rational planning. As a result, practice has changed, though not to a. monolithic extent and without en- drely abandoning the traditional concept of a plan. In- stead, at least four distinct types of plans have evolved, all descending more or less from the mid- century model, but advocating very different concepts of what a plan should be. With a kind of self - correcting com- mon sense, the plans of the 1990s have subsequently incorporated the useful parts of each of these proto- types to create today's hybrid design/policy/manage- ment plans. To return to our analogy of the plan's family tree: Roots for the physical development plan became well APA JOURNAL- SUMMER 1995 L1.11