It seems that Doug Ford is allowing now in Ontario wood frame apartments up to 10 stories where as before wood frame apartments where cap at three stories in Ontario. Where more than three stories in Ontario requires two or more fire stairwells and hallway and concrete fire wall.

Many US states still ban wood frame apartments above 6 stories. Where Canada and the UK is even stricter as wood frame apartments above 3 stories are ban. But now Doug Ford is allowing now in Ontario wood frame apartments up to 10 stories.

For those who take it, it’s especially useful when then MTA NYC Subway is delayed, such as the 23rd st to 9th st route that allows one to avoid the always beleaguered F Train.

Are we sliding backwards from making cities and (denser) suburbs walkable and less polluted? Like it's not just the car washes, it's drive-thrus, it's apartment/condo complexes with bigger garages and worse sidewalk connectivity, it's snout houses, it's gas stations (we're building them like crazy in the area I live in)...it feels like everywhere except urban areas with the highest land values is getting a particularly aggressive version of the car-dependent development we've seen for the last several generations, and that it's a backwards step from the incremental progress made in the '00s-'10s. Weren't we supposed to be driving electric cars and walking/cycling more?

Like, the drive-thrus are bigger and the lines they generate are getting longer, it's like people are driving more than ever before in history. I might be biased because I live in a very suburb-dominated, sprawly metro, but it's apparent in other parts of the country too. And the design interventions preferred by traffic engineers right now (again, at least in my area) seem to be moving away from pedestrian safety - roundabouts and diverging diamond interchanges are hot and supposedly better for cars, but they scare me as a ped.

I know a some more progressive municipalities are keen on zoning for more density and fostering walkability and sprawl repair, but it seems like everywhere else is unable or unwilling to limit these car-oriented uses. I'm wondering if this is a product of simple economics, or if it has something to do with the emergency services of certain communities preventing the road diets or road safety improvements that would make more urban development possible? Tell me whether this is the same as the old sprawl or something new and more intense.

What city/country do you know of with an interesting or unusual zoning/development approval policy? Or most interesting proposed policy? (residents can vote for increased density on their street, non-profit or affordable housing as of right, developers pay more for faster approval process, ect.)

Or what would think would make for an interesting or usual policy?

I'm doing some research so any ideas help.

I am a city administrator in a legacy city in the Midwest. Our LEDOs and Metropolitan Planning Organization have developed policies to incentivize development along a regional commuter rail line. However, the gap financing needed to execute mixed-use projects in these communities often reaches tens of millions of dollars for developments with 150 units or more, typically subsidizing medium- to large-scale developers to construct the notorious "5-over-1" structures.

Our community faces a significant dilemma: we are eager to transform our image, but not at the expense of cobbling together over $20 million in resources to fill the gap for a single project. This raises the question: are there communities out there taking a different approach—one that prioritizes supporting local entrepreneurs with smaller-scale, incremental mixed-use developments in the 3 to 50-unit range? These are the types of structures we largely lost in the late 20th century.

For economically challenged cities, wouldn’t this approach be the most resilient and equitable? Supporting local developers could build community wealth, slow gentrification, and create a more stable downtown, driven by individuals with a vested interest in the community. This seems like a better alternative than funneling massive resources to large developers who can sell off their investments at any moment.

Wouldn’t a collection of smaller projects within a concentrated area achieve the same revitalization goals as a mega 5-over-1 development, but with far less financial strain on a municipality?

Are there any other communities waking up to this reality and adopting a strategy that prioritizes incremental, community-based development?

All comments and feedback are appreciated!!!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just recently got my first job in urban planning as a planning assistant in a major east coast (American) metropolitan area. I’ve worked in a related field (private sector) for the last two and a half years since graduating from school, no Masters yet. I start next week.

I’m excited- but nervous, since I don’t have a degree or direct experience in planning. I feel like I got this gig based on some of my work experience, but mostly off of knowledge of the field/region and passion for the work.

For those who work in large planning departments, what can I expect? For planners, what can I do to be helpful/reliable support in the work you do? Will my lack of experience/masters degree play a role in how prepared I am for the work? I do plan to go back to school and get my masters in planning in the next couple of years.

I am beyond excited to start my planning/public service journey. Any and all advice is appreciated!

My perception is that planners mostly focus on transit infrastructure, zoning, and public recreation, but I figured I'd shoot my shot.

More specifically, how often do urban/regional planners have work related to:

1. Power grid layouts and capacity
2. Siting of power plants
3. Specification and incentivization of certain types of power generation that a community prefers
4. Siting of supply chain infrastructure, I.e. Warehouses, factories, and distribution centers

I understand that much of this ultimately comes down to private sector decisions, and the bigger economic picture. Are there any careers on the periphery that deal more specifically with these things? My experience is that engineering and project management roles often have a very microscopic focus, and/or have too diverse of a workload to really specialize in these areas.

Urban governance seems to be kind of a dumpster fire right now in the United States. Are there literally any mayors of medium to large American cities that you think are doing good work (doesn't have to just be on urban planning)?

Riddle me that communists? But in all seriousness why does it cost so much to live in San Francisco and New York?

EDIT: the answer appears to be supply < demand. That seems like too simple an answer, is there data to back this up?

EDIT 2: I will do some reading into zoning history and other resources from strongtowns and the urban institute. Thanks all!

While increasing the supply of housing and the presence of mixed-use development is a net positive, it has come at the cost of gentrification of unique neighborhoods, and the displacement of locals elsewhere.

Edit/ I've heard a lot of complaining about past development experience. If mods allow, I'd love to have a serious thread where I can answer planners questions about why developers do some things we do. We can all learn from each other.

Edit 2/ I created one but the mods deleted it and I've respectfully requested it to be reposted.

Most planners know there's a massive housing shortage. Most planners also work in the public sector. How can the APA and the profession justify the current public engagement process that, in general, adds months to projects and often require small changes to appease the loudest neighbors while also advocating for more housing?

I tagged this post as serious because I'm not looking for answers like "we're just cogs in the machine" or "developers are bad." I am wondering why people with postgraduate degrees seem to overanalyze multiple facets of a project and get stuck in the details while overlooking the larger benefit. For example, a company I am working with is building a 300 townhome complex and the city is delaying it because of the size of the trees being planted in the required green space. This is a simple example, but you have hundreds of people looking for a house in a city, but you're focused on the caliper inches of trees. You're denying people homes because of some arbitrary self-imposed code section. I am not saying to eliminate codes. I am asking if planners agree we need to change th review system.

Why is the profession like this and how can it change?

Specifically a Mixed Member Proportional system. Since I feel like the US will be the birthplace of a new wave of reform politics on the municipal level, I think any push for a new movement should center around our election system. I think this because:

1. Supposed "non partisan" elections often fail to produce electeds who aren't some cog within a larger municipal machine nor show loyalty to the public as opposed to their own party.

2. MMP balances simplicity and effectiveness in a way that the Alternative Vote or Single Transferrable Vote doesn't achieve. Plus, it's a superior voting system for those who want to break up the two party system

3. Any implementation of MMP on the local level would encourage state governments to change their voting systems as well, then, eventually, election reform will become a national issue.

I've been asked a lot in the past about how municipal consolidation/a Metropolitan Government would work in my home city (Metro Detroit), and I genuinely believe that the implementation of MMP would held "de polarize" the wider electorate while ensuring that any new Metropolitan Government isn't just some dictatorship of the bougee classes in the suburbs.

That's why I'm dedicating my efforts towards making sure that we have the first government in America that is elected by this type of proportional representation

We have an incoming intern to our agency in January next year. We are currently working on what the possible assignments will look like for them. Here’s what I’m thinking so far:

• Help staff work on Recreation Plan
• Attend Planning Commission and other public meetings
• Help staff review development plans (plats, site plans, road improvement plans, etc)
• Review local and state ordinance

What else do you all think would be a good idea? The student is in Graduate school so I have no issue with throwing them stuff slightly more complex than we would with undergrad. Thanks!!

I feel like cities often treat livability and accessibility as burdens or unnecessary costs. What’s one small thing you think we should see more of to improve urban life? Personally, I think urban tree canopies in residential areas are often overlooked, at least in my city.

Hey guys, Just getting into this community, and was wondering if there are any urbanism meetups in NYC or events that you guys attend (eg review boards, etc.). I do have some ideas as a resident, but mostly just looking to discuss/learn at the moment. Hopefully this question isn’t too vague, apologies if it is.

The sub for my home state has this ongoing discussion about how to make it better. But every single solution has a new problem or obstacle. Can’t have thriving towns because no work. No industry comes there because there is no labor. People are isolated so they don’t become skilled or have nothing around to become skilled in. And it’s like a never ending cycle.

For those of you who have a better grasp on economic development in urban areas, where do you start? What is the foundation of a healthy community? Is it futile to think dying towns can be revived?

What are examples of shared streets where pedestrians have priority but cars are still allowed in WA state? I’m looking for examples outside of Seattle aside from Bothell Main Street and Park Lane in Kirkland.

My mom owns this land that is just outside city limits: https://imgur.com/a/gq7pe5P

It's a small, rural town. We have a housing shortage. I'm looking to plan some development for the land, and I'd like to avoid the typical SFH subdivisions, though I think we'll have to do at least a bit of that to raise funds for "better" projects.

I'm personally leaning toward something like 4-5 story mixed-use buildings. Retail on the ground floor with apartments on top. It's only a town of 11,000 people though so probably couldn't support a ton of that. However this section of town is pretty far from commercial hubs, so a bit of retail space could be good for the neighborhood.

Also open to ideas of something like a public park or monument if it might provide some public value while also helping me get more value out of residential development.

While we would need to make money, I'd like to use the opportunity to do something that would provide smart long-term value to the town. So if you had a developer approach you about a potential new subdivision and wanted your best ideas and not just how to milk the most value out of the land, what would you suggest?

Seems like everybody who doesn't like bike lanes always comes up with the same talking point: "nobody will use them! I never see people riding!" But you don't nearly as often hear people say "why are we paying for sidewalks nobody ever walks on?!".

I suspect that a lot of the motoring public see cyclists as dangerous and alien, since not many people cycle for transportation, especially outside of a few very bike-friendly places. But even for die-hard motorists, pedestrianism is a universal thing we all engage in.

I feel like planners trying to communicate the reasons for installing cycletracks/bike lanes spend enough time describing why they're good for cyclists, but fail to connect bike lanes to the pedestrian experience. Properly designed protected bike lanes, even if never used by a single biker, provide a valuable buffer protecting the sidewalk from road traffic. I think we'd be able to overcome a lot of the opposition by focusing on this particular aspect - especially in urban areas where fears around gentrification cause locals to oppose bike lanes. For some reason,people have a hard time believing the fact that most cyclists in America are poor, but they don't seem to have as hard of a time grasping that many poor people commute as pedestrians.

It seems like people (including planners & other servants of local govt) see the words "bike lanes" and logically assume their role is chiefly for moving cyclists around. Obviously, they fit into a wider complete streets paradigm, but I think the concept is communicated poorly.

Do you folks in planning agree with my assessment? How have you been able to build support for taking car space away for bike lanes?

Hi. I'm a reporter covering housing and development news near a big city. I'm trying to compare SF zoning reform happening in the city I cover to other communities in the country and so far I've put together a pretty substantial list of cities that have undergone (or are in the process of) reforming their SF zoning. It doesn't have to necessarily be completely upzoning to allow four flats, but I'm hoping you all can comment some cities that are reforming their SF zoning so I can make sure I can add them to my list.

So far, I have: Minneapolis, Portland, Berkley, Sacramento, Austin, Alexandria, Boise and Spokane.

So what am I missing? Thanks!

Not sure if location is necessary or not but I live on the outskirts of a mid size city on the east coast. Half of my street is 2 way, the other half is 1 way. I live on the 2 way section, because it's 2 ways vehicles park on both sides of the sidewalk making it difficult to navigate.

You can't walk down the sidewalk pushing a stroller, some sections are so congested kids have to walk in the road heading to school or their bus stop. A person using a mobility aid such as a scooter or wheelchair would never make it down the sidewalk. You can't walk back from the store pulling your grocery getter cart without having to the walk in the road.

Most residents on the street don't care, the attitude is they need to park on the sidewalk because it's 2 ways and there's nothing they can do about it and people walking need to get over it. Some have driveways they refuse to use, or there are designated parking areas for multi family units yet people still park on the sidewalk.

I'd really like to see a change on my street and in my community. I have no idea were to begin or how start. I tried contacting the borough about parking regulations and what can be done but they didn't have interest. Cars need to park somewhere, I was told.

I'm open to any advice, suggestions, input etc.