The Guardian released a preliminary report prepared by Britain’s Royal Town Planning Institute on the state of planning in Britain, and the need for planners. Sure, this sounds like one of those studies, of course a planning institute will say that planners are needed. But here’s the thing-The Guardian’s Rowan Moore says a better Britain could be built if planners were given a chance.
“At one time or another, most people will have reason to be grateful to their profession – for mitigating the expansion of a neighbour’s house, for example, or stopping an open-all-hours club opening in their street. We take it for granted that noxious industries can’t pop up in residential areas and that historic buildings and green spaces have some protection. This is due to planning, an area of government that is nonetheless showered with exceptional levels of derision.”
Moore notes that the way planning systems are instituted in municipalities and regions is constantly changing to be speedier, deliver more service, and also to save money. Planning departments are being cut back in budgets, and developers and other governments want less red tape.
As reported by Moore “So it’s not surprising that the overwhelming majority of planners, according to a report to be published this week, believe that they cannot provide the benefits of planning due to the constraints and changes in their jobs. The report argues that reforms of the planning system often don’t work. It challenges the fantasy that, if only the bolts on the planning machine could be loosened enough, private enterprise would achieve the abundant flow of new housing that the country desires. It argues that there are economic costs to inadequate planning, such as uncertainty and the cost of poor decisions.”
Planning at a municipal and regional level can confirm livability and accessibility through planning that private developers cannot. The article cites Brindleyplace in Birmingham, where 12,000 jobs are now based, and Cranbrook in Devon, which may provide 7,500 homes.
“When building a kitchen, you don’t just plonk down a stove, sink and fridge and hope that they will end up in the right relationship to each other. You plan them. This gets more true as projects get larger and as space for building gets more scarce and precious, as is happening in Britain now.”
Both Britain and British Columbia are looking at how to provide affordable housing, create jobs, provide good accessibility and public transit, and create lively, sustainable communities. In British Columbia, there is pressure to cut red tape at municipalities so that buildings can be produced quicker, faster and cheaper. But is creating more buildings the answer to creating cohesive, connected communities? Can we really construct our way to housing affordability, enhanced public transportation, and better places to live without a consolidated comprehensive overview? Is it too late?
Well, as a regular private citizen, I can say that my perception of the planning dept is that it exists to get in the way of ordinary people building/renovating/changing anything, and, conversely, to smooth the path of big developers who want to make a lot of money.
Perhaps a simple, first step is to make it possible for ordinary people to legally make small changes to their housing without incurring massive costs and time hassles. And remove some of the restrictions on SFH zoning so that people can expand, modify to suit their family needs…
If what bar foo says is a widely held opinion, Mr. Gil Kelley certainly has his work cut out for him. I agree with his/her premise that a lot of shall things should be made less onerous and costly, while some bigger things like, say, the redevelopment of the parking lot at the CP Station and maybe the loss of the rotunda at 701 W. Georgia) could stand a lot more public engagement and scrutiny.
Good morning Sandy, I can understand your frustration expressed in your question, “But is creating more buildings the answer to creating cohesive, connected communities?” I would guess the answer goes much, much deeper than more of the same and I’m sure you agree!
I left the UK in 1951 just as the new town enthusiasm was gearing up: Crawley was the first although it looked pretty much like typical UK sprawl, circa 1996.
On my infrequent returns home I try to check out the latest: new town Runcorn, with its famous circular windows, was demolished decade ago!
BTW all these new towns were supposed to be the answer to your question!
Cumbernault was designated a new town in 1955 although the village had existed since Roman times (not unusual in the UK). It was the recipient of the Carbuncle Award of 2001 and that may give you some idea of its success among the locals: indeed planning aside what other measure is there?
My professional experience in Vancouver dates from 1957 and I have to say despite the on/off advent of star planners, star architects and star Mayors and Councilors Vancouver is a disaster.
Given what is at stake such necessary talk fall on deaf ears!
But I say this with the best of intentions to urge the conversation beyond self-congratulation, beyond misplaced professional bias and self-interest.
I have seen planners come and go. I have even had my computer hacked which is a pretty dismal response to comments of such universal gravity! Unworthy of an institution with such pretentions.
I have seen mayors and councils come and go, I have seen chief planners come and go, but the rumble rolls on! We have learntt nothing and we have forgotten nothing!”
Vancouver is only a blip in the uniform cosmos of world planning.
It started with Paris: La Defense, that brutal collection of unrelated towers, arches and what nots on the north West edge of the city. The sooner it is shoveled into the massive graveyard to which it is appended the better.
Planning by bad planning, urban design by bad urban design, architecture by bad architecture is universal: Don Mills, Toronto, Richmond, Burnaby Vancouver, Santa Fe and Satellite Mexico City, Puerto Madero (partially saved by retention of masonry dockside warehouses) Buenos Aires.
You, Sandy, are obviously and enthusiastic planners who doesn’t want to hear this kind of stuff and, with sixty-seven professional years I could go on.
PriceTags, obsessing over bikes and biking is on the right track but it is no way enough!
Ultimately the planning conversation must face reality. Until it does we will be celebrating one new chief planner after another with little to shaw for all our enthusiasm and wonder what on earth went wrong!
Kitchen planning is not a model for town planning. The reason why town planning often fails is that planners are not designers, they are not inventors, or original thinkers and that is why there is no comprehensive case for town planners.