We all know that for the same home, if renters are owners, maintenance and repair costs will go down, crime rate will go down, and monthly payment will go down. Then why governments are subsidizing rental?

I'm a high school junior who runs a local advocacy group (alongside 2 adults). As it stands, we've organized a critical mass ride in town and have even successfully ran a campaign to get the county to begin developing a complete streets plan.

Besides this, what other things can we do to help promote good urbanism in our community?

It seems like most urban planners are YIMBYs. Yet the US still deals with massive urban sprawl and car-dependent cities.

OK, one is a commie neighborhood built in the 70s, the other is brand new. But both are built in a similar way - many high-rises with empty grasslands between them and rather good public transportation.

While I love visiting such neighborhoods I feel they're better for being visited for enjoying the space between flats and the playgrounds/park/garden areas, particularly if you have pets or children.

Living there, however isn't so nice as I don't like commuting. I'm the kind of person that likes walking.

I've lived in Bratislava and at first I'll visit Petrzalka and Ruzinov, another commie suburb a lot because I was living in the old town so at times I needed more greenery and wide open spaces or parks. However, I later moved to a commie flat in Ruzinov and since my job was located closer to old town I had to change 2 lines of transport. Meeting with friends became more cumbersome because we met in the old town anyway. Very few friends wanted to commute to be my guest when I moved, unless they lived nearby as well. And what about you, what do you think about this types of 'hoods?

I think the case for Petrzalka and Reininghaus is that both are commie suburb-like, but in fact parts of them are very close to the old towns. In fact, the whole of Reininghaus isn't far from the old town and hustle and bustle of central Graz. While Petrzalka can be regarded as a satellite town almost but some parts are really 1 or two stops away from the center of Bratislava.

City of Houston allows minimum lot size of 1600 sqft (25 per gross acre) or 1250 sqft under certain conditions (35 per gross acre). More smaller size homes are being build in the city. What other cities are going this way?

An example here

https://www.zillow.com/homes/504-Schweikhardt-St-.num.B-Houston,-TX-77020\_rb/339419373\_zpid/

4 story single family home, 1,736 sqft floor area on a 1,750 sqft lot

They build new cities and expand old ones in a centrally planned way all the time and yet they never try this model? How come?

Has anyone tinkered around with this idea or have examples of places that have done it? I know Massachusetts set a broad minimum density requirement for areas near mass transit, but I’m more thinking of minimum density requirements for new developments.

So, for example, a person wants to build a new commercial building in an area with minimum density requirements, they’d thus need to add that many residential units for the project to comply. This would be similar to how some places now have minimum and maximum parking requirements.

We’ve seen a few applications, which in my opinion are gross underutilizations of property, like where +/- 100 units could get built on the lot but they are building 10.

I’ve been in planning for 6 years but have got by without really needing to know anything other than Microsoft programs. What programs should I start learning or possibly get certifications in to stay relevant in the field? No answer is too obvious!

First time poster.

I live in a suburb of Cleveland across the street from a large parcel of land that was purchased pre-Covid by a developer. This Monday, there is a city Council meeting at which the issue of a variance request will be addressed. The developer is asking the city to approve the construction of eight single-family cluster homes on a street of single-family lots.

I have very little hope that this request will not be granted because I know the city would love tax dollars and I am generally cynical about the local government. However, several years ago they did reject my former neighbors request to construct a shed on his property that would have required several additional variances based on its size and location. I realize that's apples and oranges but who knows?

These are my concerns initially...

1. How will the creek underground be ensured to make the culvert strong enough to support building and vehicles, and ensure flow does not back up into neighboring properties?

2. How will development ensure proper testing and abatement, if needed, of any contaminated soil that may co rain lead or pesticides from when the land was used as a greenhouse?

3. Will setbacks of buildings on the property conform to the same requirements as the rest of the homes on Porter?

4. There is no precedent for a single-entrance/exit development on a two lane residential street near this location. How will safety be addressed for emergency vehicles to get in and out of the cluster homes?

5. Are each of the cluster homes single family residences?

6. How will the drain line be secured and maintained that is running underground across our yards to the creek for drainage of our rear yards and sump pump line drainage. Several of us have sump pump lines that connect underground to a line that connects to the creek underground across that property.

Unfortunately, this sub won't let me post a link to a picture, but I will try to add one somehow.

As I said, I'm convinced that greed will likely win in this situation, but it won't be without a fight.

I would love any suggestions, questions or other thoughts that could benefit us, the residents, in this endeavor.

Thank you.

Hey all, I'm a game designer who's doing research for a game about the Dutch Mobility Protests of the 1970's, the ones that pushed (and arguably succeeded) for the restriction of auto infrastructure and the expansion of bicycle infrastructure. I've been finding a lot of sources about the tactics and movements on the pro-bicycle side, but I haven't been able to find any papers or documentation on who/what they were working against.

What I'm trying to understand is whether the rapid expansion of car and road infrastructure in the 1950's in Europe (and the Netherlands specifically) was caused by just market forces, or whether there was a concerted effort by any companies or groups to sway public officials and consumers to buy cars. And if there was a top-down effort to install cars as a dominant force, what sort of tactics they used.

It's probably that I don't know the right keywords to search for. If you happen to know any books or papers, please point me in that direction.

Thanks all

Im doing a research project, most likely slides with the topic being "Comparing different urban planning strategies in cities".
My 3 learning goals are

1st: how different street layouts impact traffic, transportation and development
2nd: the environmental and social impact of different urban design
3rd: how have historical, geographical and cultural factors influenced a city's design

My question is, what cities should I do? I want to talk about 3, not in extensive detail but a good amount. What are 3 cities that I should do? I was thinking about Barcelona, Tokyo, and another city, which I'm not sure which one. Maybe I should pick a badly designed city, but which one? Any recommendations?

The following passage is ironic given the current mental state of James Kunstler (and his rabid support of Donald Trump), but it takes nothing away from the prescience of the passage. When people lament that the decline in American community is due to social media and media in general, they are missing the much more insididous effects of how we've constructed "communities" since WWII. Replace redistribution of property with mass deportation, and edit the point about oil to include "drill baby drill" on our own soil, and the passage is exactly descriptive of our current situation. Thoughts?

" I am concerned because I don't think we will be able to have much of a civilization in the future unless we build proper places in which to dwell. And it seems unlikely that we will move to do this anytime soon in a conscious and systematic way. Sooner or later, absolute necessity will compel us to give up our present habits, but by then the cost of rebuilding may be more than we can bear. In the meantime, the standard of living in the United States is apt to decline sharply, and as it does the probability of political trouble will rise. It may become too expensive for ever-broader classes of People to own and operate cars. Decent housing is already beyond the reach of many "average' families and individuals, and unless we change the rules of building, the situation will get worse.

Imagine the resentment this will breed. Some talented mob-master may arise among us, promising the American people that he can bring back the good old days--if only we have the guts to invade some region with deep oil reserves. Or maybe he will promise to confiscate the property of the dwindling "haves' for the benefit of the increasing "have-nots". "

I’m sure the answers will vary based on MPO, municipal, etc, but as a practicing planner who anticipates a significant negative impact on all of the above I’m hoping this can be a therapeutic thread.

Apologies if this against the rules.

I wanna hear people’s opinions on something I spend way too much time obsessing over: How do you think the LA metro expansions, in particular the D line, is going to change development the city? Is it gonna turn it into a mini New York or Chicago?

I love living in LA but I hate having to drive everywhere, friends living so far apart, and overall dealing with crazy drivers. Do we think the expansion is gonna have a domino effect that is gonna make the city more livable overall?

Here's my biggest one:

I love my urban planning career, but the greatest irony is that I love cities and city life (hence the profession) but I wish I knew how difficult it would be to get planning jobs in larger cities. I was originally a GIS analyst and worked at a couple engineering companies in larger cities before shifting to urban planning Since switching to urban planning all of the job offers I have ever received have been in suburbs or rural areas. Don't get me wrong, these jobs are great for experience and the local politics are always amusing. However my personal preference is to live in a large city again but it's been several years of applying and there's zero movement.

I wouldn't be as fulfilled as a GIS analyst but I'd certainly be making more money and also living in my preferred environment.

What about other practicing planners, anything you all wish you knew before jumping in?

Looking for housing, land use, land development, development, real estate related courses or certification programs.

Is this a source of pride for the planners and leaders of metro areas?

I just became Congress for the New Urbanism Accredited (CNU-A) despite all the neutral to negative feedback I’ve seen on here about it, and thought I’d share some thoughts on it for those who may be looking into it.

I want to immediately note that I realized from the start that CNU-A is often considered kind of a pointless accreditation outside a handful of strongly new urbanist firms. It does not have the level of legitimacy of AICP or even LEED and a majority of people do not know it exists. However, after earning my master’s in urban planning, I only worked as a planner for about a year before landing a job as a historian (my background and passion is primarily historic preservation), and so I don’t often deal with planning principles in my work now. I feel very secure and happy in my job, but historian positions of any kind are both rare and competitive, so if I ever lost or had to leave my current job I would likely consider going back to planning. Therefore, I saw this almost exclusively as a decent opportunity to freshen up on some planning concepts (albeit with a very narrow focus) with the bonus of getting something out of it that I can put on my resume.

To that end, I think it was a successful and worthwhile endeavor. Before the exam I took the University of Miami’s course on new urbanism, did all the readings, and spent maybe 10-15 hours a week studying planning through the lens of new urbanism for a couple months - a lot more time dedicated to studying any aspect of the profession than I would have otherwise and the most I had done since getting my master’s. However, I do have some major qualms with both the course, exam, and accreditation process.

For one, the optional course (titled The Principles and Practice of New Urbanism) is not much of a “course.” It’s really more of a study guide with some interactive features and a deadline to complete everything if you want the course certificate and to feel like you got your money’s worth. I don’t regret taking it because it kept me on track with actually reading and studying, but it’s truly unnecessary if you have the personality and drive to study independently without something to push you along. I work best with hard deadlines or I end up procrastinating and don’t do the work, so it was worth it to me, but you really could just buy a couple books and study on your own instead.

I won’t get too much into content, but I did find most of it interesting. It’s fairly surface-level urbanism themes much of the time with hyper-specific community examples used a lot, and to some extent you do need to “buy into” traditional neighborhood development/new urbanist/generally YIMBY ideas, but even if you disagree with certain aspects I still found the actual content engaging. I did not agree with everything taught but it was still interesting to read about, research further, and come to my own conclusions.

However, the course itself does have issues. Some of the content is outdated, and the course needs to be cleaned up. It links to YouTube videos that are like 17 years old, has spelling and grammar mistakes sprinkled throughout, and other than a single discussion post and quizzes at the end of each unit, absolutely nothing interactive. There are no assignments beyond the quizzes and you do each unit at your own pace. Therefore, it doesn’t feel like you’re taking a class, but rather having your hand held so you study the right things for the exam. For $300-335 (depending on if you’re a CNU member already or not), it needs some major attention and I wouldn’t recommend it. It feels like it was put together a decade ago and hasn’t been touched since beyond some indirect references to the pandemic.

As for the exam, I had issues there too. I was expecting the cost - $225 in 2024 - and the fact that you must be a CNU member, so you end up paying over $400 to become accredited and then nearly $200 annually going forward, plus continuing education, to maintain it. This is less than many accreditations, but a lot for something that few may recognize as worth much, if anything. If your employer is paying for it I’d say why not, but if you’re paying out of pocket like me, I would think hard about whether it’s much of a benefit to you.

Additionally, information surrounding the exam was ambiguous at best and downright nonexistent at worst. The CNU website is, in my opinion, often difficult to navigate and find information on, with information kind of scattershot between CNU and U of Miami with sometimes nothing linking the two. And when you do find the information, it often does not reflect reality. I saw in one place that the exam was 100 questions, you could change your answers as you went, submit it all at once, and that you’d only get one shot. Instead, when I opened it, it was 70 questions, your answers were locked in once you pressed next, and it gives you three attempts. This was not relayed to me anywhere that I can find or remember, and although it’s okay that the format has changed with time, the instructions leading up to it were clear as mud. I like that you can take it from home at any time with a few week window and that it’s not proctored, but otherwise, it’s kind of janky.

The exam itself is relatively easy, though I don’t think a lot of people could pass it blindly having a planning education but not studying for this exam specifically. Many questions were hyper specific to what were essentially footnotes in the main 450 page textbook, and I don’t think it did a great job fully encompassing all that you were supposedly expected to learn and know prior to taking it.

I got something like 10-12 wrong and only took it once. It was stated before the exam that you would not be given your actual score and instead CNU would review results and determine who passed over the following weeks (I’m assuming so they could curve it if there were oft-missed questions). I was immediately given my raw score though, so I don’t know what that was all about. Since a certain score was not what determined if you passed, though, I just kind of hoped/assumed that that was a good enough score and didn’t take it again despite apparently being allowed to. Luckily I was correct, as a month later, I got an email congratulating me for passing with a certificate and info on how to maintain it.

Overall, there are definitely issues with this accreditation and process, mainly when it comes to communication and transparency. That being said, I personally feel it was still worth it for me since my goal was just to learn a bit while getting some resume fodder. If you have similar goals or someone else is paying for it - or just want to rack up another accreditation for fun - I’d say go for it. If you’re paying for it yourself, or think it’s going to get you majorly ahead professionally, or anything I’ve noted here is a dealbreaker though, I’d reconsider and spend your energy, time, and money elsewhere. The course and exam both need some major retooling and I’m still not convinced my being accredited will ever help me beyond another resume line showing I’m trying to keep up with the profession - I guess time will tell.

I hope this is helpful to someone and I’m happy to answer any questions now or later for anyone reading this post in the future!

Title more or less speaks for itself, I'm a sophomore majoring in Urban Planning and Design rn, taking a drawing class and I'm just totally helpless, it's honestly astonishing how bad my drawing skills are. I'm just wondering as a planner how much you generally have to draw? whether that be in private practice or working in government, whether that be for municipal government or some sort of planning authority?

My city of residence has this clause in their "Neighborhood Traffic Management Program":

The General Plan ensures that arterials and collectors provide access to the higher intensity commercial and residential districts. It is intended that local streets in single-family districts be protected from the adverse impacts associated with traffic generated by either higher intensity development or changing travel patterns. 

I ask because I imagine that "higher intensity residential districts" also deserve to be protected from the adverse impacts of traffic--in fact they suffer more from localized pollution and traffic violence. I say this because I expect that residents of higher-density areas are less likely to be car-dependent & are more likely to be vulnerable road users.

While I see the merit in protecting single-family neighborhoods from heightened traffic, it seems to me like the policy indirectly limits the potential for mixed-use or higher-density developments, as the single-family areas remain "protected" at the expense of others.

Do you agree with my city's written policy? If not, how would you revise it?

Do you know good book references (maybe available online, and if not, just the title) about urban planning in Global South Cities ?