Urban Planing Term Paper
abdlla16
week7_wed_2015.pptxCritiques of Communicative Planning
URBS 300
Wednesday, March 5, 2015
James Ring Scholarships
$1,000; 2 awarded
Requirements
URBS Major
60 units completed by end of spring semester
Not a graduating senior
Essay of 500 words on how scholarship will help for career objectives
Attend ceremony
Strong candidates
Cumulative GPA >3.2
URBS Major GPA >3.5
Service activity in campus or community organizations
Due March 13, 2015 to Prof. Henrik Minassians
http:// www.csun.edu/social-behavioral-sciences/urban-studies-planning/james-ring-scholarship-awards
California Planning Foundation Scholarship
$1,000
Excellent academic record
Senior in 2015-16 academic year
500 word essay why planning is important to you, how scholarship will help, short- and long-term career goals
2 letters of recommendation
Demonstration of financial need
Due March31, 2015
http ://www.csun.edu/social-behavioral-sciences/urban-studies-planning/california-planning-foundation-scholarships
Railway Association of Southern California Scholarship
2 undergraduate scholarships or $3,000
Enrolled in Fall 2015 in degree program related to rail transportation industry
Minimum GPA of 3.0
Interest in profession in rail transportation industry
Need a letter of recommendation and personal statement
Due March 30, 2015
http:// www.railwayassociation.org/scholarship.html
WTS: Ava Doner Memorial Undergraduate Scholarship
2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only
Due in October, awarded in November
http://www.wtsinternational.org/losangeles//scholarships /
Association for Women in Architecture Foundation
$1,000
California resident or accredited California school
Probably due April 15 (this year’s is not out yet)
Application form, transcript, 2 sealed recommendations, personal statement, portfolio
Can be senior year
http://awaplusd.org/scholarships /
Pacific Water Quality Association
“Major of Study Related to Potable Water Quality Scholarship”
$1,000
Proof of enrollment
Essay on usefulness of education and how money will help
Transcripts
Application
Letter of recommendation
http:// www.pwqa.org/images/shared/scholarship_application.pdf
Mail-in, must be received by April 1, 2015
Typology of Planning Theories
| Locus of Planning | |||
| Centralized | Decentralized | ||
| Mode of Planning | Rational | Applied Scientist: Rational Planning | Political Activist: Advocacy Planning |
| Non-rational | Confront Politics: Incrementalism | Communicator: Communicative Planning |
Mixed Scanning
Equity
Planning
Rational Planning Steps
| Steps | Rational Planning | Incremental Planning | Mixed Scanning | Advocacy Planning | Equity Planning | Communicative Planning |
| Data Collection | ||||||
| Data Analysis | ||||||
| Forecasting | ||||||
| Establish Goals | ||||||
| Design Alternatives | ||||||
| Test Alternatives | ||||||
| Evaluate Alternatives | ||||||
| Select Alternatives | ||||||
| Implementation | ||||||
| Monitor/Evaluate |
| Steps | Rational Planning | Incremental Planning | Mixed Scanning | Advocacy Planning | Equity Planning | Communicative Planning |
| Data Collection | X | Fund. | X | X | X | |
| Data Analysis | X | Fund. | X | X | ? | |
| Forecasting | X | Fund. | X | X | ||
| Establish Goals | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Design Alternatives | X | Fund. | X | ? | ||
| Test Alternatives | X | Fund. | X | |||
| Evaluate Alternatives | X | Fund. | X | |||
| Select Alternatives | X | X | X | X | X | ? |
| Implementation | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Monitor/Evaluate | X | X (can always undo) | X | X | X | ? |
Communicate Theory Finale
Planners Communicative Responsibilities
Prevent and correct false promises
Correct misleading expectations
Eliminate unnecessary dependency
Create and nurture hope
Spread policy and design questions to those affected
Nurture dialogue
Communicate genuine social and political possibilities
Planners roles
Initiators
Start a consensus-building process
Finders and presenters of information
2-way communication requires revisions
Find experts of alternative viewpoints
Written documentation
Minutes, issue reports
First drafts of negotiating documents
Mediators and facilitators
Shuttle diplomacy
Represent stakeholders
Advocacy vs Communicative Planning
Mediated negotiation
Should use to address power imbalances
Useful when
Involves many issues
Trading to find mutual gain
Diverse interests rather than fundamental rights are at stake
Consensus Building
All stakeholders present
Common information for all
Interests of each stakeholder identified
Agree on facts, create options, develop criteria to chose, make decision if agree
Consensus Building: San Francisco Estuary Project
5-year project
50 stakeholders (developers, agriculture, water agencies, environmentalists)
Salinity level was indicator of choice
Communicative Checklist
All stakeholders present
Equally informed
Empowered to discuss
All claims and assumptions must be able to be questioned
Sincerity and honesty
Credentials and experience
Comprehensibility
Factually accurate
Group must seek consensus
Contributions of Communicative Action
Focus on communicative aspects of planning
Planners effect the future
Planners can help rebalance power and end inequities
New methods for developing plans
Mediated negotiation
Consensus building
Dispute-resolution
Group decision-making techniques
New research opportunities
Communicative Theory Critiques
Potential drawbacks of Communicative action
Few daily activities are communicative
Preparing and organizing issues
Determining alternative approaches
Budgets and timetables
Legal and political aspects
Managing and being managed
Potential drawbacks of Communicative action
Citizens are not altruistic
Too many perspectives
Citizens are narrow-minded, self-serving, and prejudiced
May represent themselves and not a group
May not be accepted if just representing themselves
Small-town planning may prevent overarching benefits (Abram, 2000)
Political process may prevent consensus
Winners & losers
Losers will fight, must go to court
Depends on planning system and requirements
Potential drawbacks of Communicative action
Consensus may not be reachable
Power distribution may not change with communicative action
Creates distrust
Decisions may not be made until later
Focus on process rather than content
Avoids showing what is good
Loss of image, maps, and plans
BART process
Traditional transportation plans
Focus on technical studies
Public-participation requirement increasing
Goals assumed
1996 Strategic Plan: A New Era of Partnership
Major issue: Free & Inadequate Parking
90% full by 9am
(Willson, Payne, and Smith, 2003)
The Sides
(Willson, Payne, and Smith, 2003)
22
First Workshop
Education of issues
Prevent early negotiation
“Suffering” stories indicate bargaining
Identify goals
Started as a parking process, ended as an access problem
Find points of agreement
Created ground rules
(Willson, Payne, and Smith, 2003)
Second Workshop
Draft framework
Goals
Policies
Neutral meeting facilitator
Don’t focus on differences
Focus on implications of framework
No system-wide changes on controversial issues
Agreed on incremental parking charges
Positive outcomes
Set station modal access targets
Adopted new parking time regulations
Charges for use of reserved parking
Parking charges for joint development of new stations
First manager of parking programs
Station access plans for 12 stations
No litigation
Did Communicative Planning Work?
Citizens are not altruistic, nor is the board
Adopted incremental policies
May not get quick changes
Added ½ year to the process
(Willson, Payne, and Smith, 2003)
Atlanta Vision 2020
Atlanta Regional Council (ARC)
Desired future state for region
Funding by local foundations and corporations
Break from decision-making by small elite
Collaborative effort took about a year, set-up 2-1/2 years
Phase I
| Date | Item |
| July 1991 | ARC staff completes VISION 2020 prospectus |
| Oct 1991 | Selection of Steering Committee begins |
| Consultants selected to prepare material and strategies | |
| Dec 1991 | Press conference announces VISION 2020 |
| May 1992 | Outlook Conference presents results of Delphi survey |
| Sept 1992 | Joint retreat of ARC Board and Steering Committee refines future statement containing alternative scenarios for the region |
| Oct 1992 | Consultant selected to conduct public outreach |
| Future statement presented to RLI members | |
| Consultant facilitates VISION 2020 Congress | |
| Dec 1992 | Joint retreat reviews future statement |
| Jan 1993 | Outreach begins: Community Forums, Junior Achievement, Speakers’ Bureau |
| Mar 1993 | TV town hall meeting airs |
| Citizen survey and newspaper supplement appear in four newspapers | |
| May 1993 | Outlook Conference present report, “A Shared Vision for the Atlanta Region” |
| June 1993 | National Civic League provides three 2-day session of community collaboration training |
| Jan 1994 | Chris Gates, of Nation Civic League, trains collaborative Initiating Committees, addresses Steering Committee |
(Helling, 1998)
Phase II
| Date | Item |
| May 1994 | Leadership Strategies Inc hired to facilitate, manage collaborative process, and train ARC staff |
| Outlook Conference releases baseline population and employment forecasts, initiates collaboratives | |
| June 1994 | First meeting of Governance, Health, Transportation, Human Services, Diversity and Housing collaboratives |
| July 1994 | First meeting of Economic Development collaborative |
| Sept 1994 | First meetings of Environmental and Public Safety collaboratives |
| Oct 1994 | First meeting of Education collaborative |
| Feb 1995 | VISION 2020 Regional Congress |
| Mar 1995 | Second TV town hall meeting airs |
| May 1995 | Leaders of all 10 collaboratives meet to address cross-cutting issues and define major initiatives |
| June 1995 | Newspaper supplement, “The Regional Dialogue”, appears, including second public opinion survey |
| Celebration breakfast presents the collaboratives’ initiatives, launches Action Planning Teams | |
| July 1995 | Implementation Committee formed |
| Sept 1995 | Outlook Conference present printed report, “A Community’s Vision Takes Flight” |
(Helling, 1998)
Collaborative Outcomes
| Description of Collaborative Outcomes | Valid Responses | Mean Score |
| Met people I did not know who were concerned about this topic | 199 | 2.7 |
| Learned what other people think about this topic | 194 | 2.6 |
| Group brought together people who previously had not talked | 197 | 2.5 |
| Group made progress toward consensus on what is important | 195 | 2.3 |
| Educated others about my point of view | 192 | 2.2 |
| Group raised new issues that weren’t on the table before | 192 | 2.1 |
| Learned about the politics surrounding the topic | 192 | 2.1 |
| Learned a lot about the topic generally | 191 | 2.1 |
| Learned of issues of which I was not previously aware | 194 | 2.0 |
| Made contacts that may be useful in my job | 191 | 2.0 |
| Educated others about facts previously unknown to them | 191 | 2.0 |
| Convinced others that my issues are important | 190 | 2.0 |
(Helling, 1998)
Atlanta Vision2020 Results
Promoted interpersonal interaction
Only 11 of 41 action initiatives implemented
Develop cynicism
Interviewees felt much more work to be done
Plans not adequate to take vision to reality
Politicians maintained distance
Cost $4.4 million
Lino Lakes, MN I-35E Corridor
Development pressures
Minneapolis suburb
Mixed-use project proposed
AUAR – Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Large areas
Not based on specific proposal
(Shively, 2007)
Lino Lakes – Advisory Board
39 member
Appointed by City Council
City environmental board, landowners, developers, public
30 regularly participated
8 development meetings
1 draft review
1 process issue review
Consultants facilitated
Results of Change in Perceptions
Data from pre- and post- process surveys
Positives
Members agreed more that membership was representative
Increased confidence that agencies and developers would comply with outcome
Post-survey had smaller standard deviations in responses indicating more similar perceptions
Those who attended most did not have perception changed; they were most concerned and most fixed in their positions
Conclusions
Few daily activities are communicative
Citizens are not altruistic
Political process may prevent consensus
Consensus may not be reachable
Power distribution may not change with communicative action
Focus on process rather than content
Typology of Planning Theories
| Locus of Planning | |||
| Centralized | Decentralized | ||
| Mode of Planning | Rational | Applied Scientist: Rational Planning | Political Activist: Advocacy Planning |
| Non-rational | Confront Politics: Incrementalism | Communicator: Communicative Planning |
Mixed Scanning
Equity
Planning
Rational Planning Steps
| Steps | Rational Planning | Incremental Planning | Mixed Scanning | Advocacy Planning | Equity Planning | Communicative Planning |
| Data Collection | ||||||
| Data Analysis | ||||||
| Forecasting | ||||||
| Establish Goals | ||||||
| Design Alternatives | ||||||
| Test Alternatives | ||||||
| Evaluate Alternatives | ||||||
| Select Alternatives | ||||||
| Implementation | ||||||
| Monitor/Evaluate |
| Steps | Rational Planning | Incremental Planning | Mixed Scanning | Advocacy Planning | Equity Planning | Communicative Planning |
| Data Collection | X | Fund. | X | X | X | |
| Data Analysis | X | Fund. | X | X | ? | |
| Forecasting | X | Fund. | X | X | ||
| Establish Goals | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Design Alternatives | X | Fund. | X | ? | ||
| Test Alternatives | X | Fund. | X | |||
| Evaluate Alternatives | X | Fund. | X | |||
| Select Alternatives | X | X | X | X | X | ? |
| Implementation | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Monitor/Evaluate | X | X (can always undo) | X | X | X | ? |
