For background, in my research work the idea that land readjustment/pooling is the way forward to urbanize fast growing cities (specially in Africa, where I work) is gaining some momentum. But, all is very research base, so as always, it sounds great in paper. Can anyone share thoughts on practical experience of implementing this method in lower capacity environments?

A radical take on a 15 minute city, but the point being everything from schools to jobs to groceries is extremely close, and there's a large fixed cost to going elsewhere.

If one building has a footprint of 2 acres (generous) then we're actually only talking 350m 90m (assuming a 2D grid and not a line) between the centres of each building. 300 people per building would give a density about 9000 people per square km, well above most North American cities.

Could foster community because people will more likely live, work, eat, and learn locally.

Would help the environment through less cars, more forests, and less impact on wildlife.

Has anyone here transitioned from a Planning position in a city of 60K+ to a rural town of just over 6K? If so, was it worth it? The rural role would be a promotion with a pay increase, but I’m curious about the trade-offs—professional growth, quality of life, and overall experience. Would love to hear your insights!

I love LA and I love trains, and I admire the world’s best transit-friendly cities. I’m just concerned in LA about how there’s really not much within walking distance of those stations, also the Metro has unfortunately (especially since the pandemic) gotten a stigma for only being for people who can’t afford cars…

I heard throughout the news about Kigali's (Rwanda) and Addis-Ababa's (Ethiopia) development and growth. As I'd like to know more about these cities, I wanted to ask if you know some online documents or books about these cities.

It would be very helpful.

Thanks a lot !

Is there anyone who works in Europe? I'd like to know what the urban planning profession is like in Europe. Is it better than what we have in the United States, or is it a field with very little prospects?

I'm asking because I'm a graduate of Estate Management and took several Urban planning (and even more Geography) courses for my Bachelors. I want to further my studies with a master in Geography, I'm still deciding on whether to just go for a master in Geography (with a focus on urban planning) or more specialization in Urban studies. If the field isn't promising in Europe, I will just go for an MSc in Geography.

Sure they can make nice pictures of skylines, but for the 'let's go walk around the town center' experience, these giant glass structures are completely useless. At best they contain one level of commercial - that makes them as good as the town square of any small town in America. That's also 1 story commercial. Oftentimes the citizen doesn't even get that, the buildings are often effectively closed off to outsiders.

So, here's the challenge, try to walk inside as many buildings as you can in your downtown and see how long you can go before the uncomfortable encounters with security guards asking you what the hell you're doing becomes to much to handle and you go to a bar to decompress. Then go watch a street view of Lubeck Germany and see how much more of a visitor experience a town center can be!

Add the fact that you have to maneuver around all the office workers to actually experience any of it. So not only is most of the footprint of this dense space completely useless to non badge holders, it's a pain in the ass to get in and out of. You have to coordinate some transit (30 minutes right there) or pay $20 to park. For RTD in Denver that'd be paying to park at RTD lot and like 9 bucks to take the train.

So, what we have is all our transit and transportation funneled at this dead zone of actual enjoyment. The actual spaces designed for people to enjoy are these new 'town centers' which don't have any of the infrastructure that the corporate overload compounds have. So we've boxed ourselves into a situation where Taos has more things to do and a much more enjoyable town experience built with 19th century adobe buildings than Denver does with all this glass and steel.

I’d love to hear your strategies for building broad consensus on expanding affordable housing in your communities. Fact-based approaches are persuasive for some, but others often require a different approach. How do you approach those who are resistant to change? Do you find that sharing images of past conditions or historical context helps? What else has worked? What strategies have you used to build empathy for those in less fortunate circumstances and bring resisters on board? Are anyone successfully using role-playing scenarios in their work with resistant community members?

I was reading about a situation years ago where a neighborhood council in the UK wanted to enact new buildings to have specific color requirements to fit with the brownish-red color scheme of the neighborhood. A lot of the comments on the urban planning group I was in were saying this was NIMBYism and trying to restrict housing from being built.

But like... how? I dont get the thought process here. Why cant developers just make the buildings they build that color scheme then? Its not costing them much at all, if anything. Its not asking them to re-do the entire building. Its a fairly superficial aesthetic change for buildings that havent even been built yet.

That is arguably the most ridiculous example, but there's a lot of others. I sometimes will see jarringly ugly 'modern' buildings in the middle of pretty aesthetically established neighborhoods, and my first thought is that "these things turn people into NIMBYs"

Why do developers build these buildings that so, so many people find ugly? Why build buildings that residents dont want, and doesn't fit with the neighborhood? And its frustrating, because LOTS of new buildings DO fit the local aesthetic. Its clearly not impossible.

I personally am not obsessed with aesthetics. But the reality is that the majority of people in these neighborhoods do care about it, and they despise the look of the new buildings. Both poor and rich. Both renters and homeowners. And when their neighborhood gets filled with these jarringly out of place apartments, they will view new apartments as bad, and vote accordingly. We cannot just ignore local sentiments about this stuff, in the end, it is their neighborhood. They vote.

So why the hell do developers build this stuff? Are they trying to anger local residents?

https://imgur.com/a/DotMbZY

These are some examples. First two are the 'out of place' styles, the next three are more fitting (showing that yes, its possible!) and the last is an modernist grey new building right up against a more fitting new building.

I'm a third year university student starting in the business school, but my true academic/professional interests lie in topics like geography, transportation and land use planning, and economic development. I could see myself pursuing an MUP at some schools in my region (University of Washington, Portland State, etc.), but hearing that many planners are very dissatisfied with their work and all the horror stories of low pay and toxic interactions give me a lot of pause as to whether or not this is a worthwhile career to pursue.

So I'd like to ask any of you who currently work in urban planning or adjacent fields, what expectations should one have before pursuing a graduate program and an eventual career in planning? What are some reality checks that are necessary so as to not lead to complete disillusion/disappointment? Are there any adjacent fields that you would recommend planners look to?

Feel free to lay down any general praises or complaints you have for your career and the field as well. All insight is greatly appreciated!

Howdy from Tulsa, OK! Any of you ambitious, creative planners manage to work with your local Greyhound station RE: beautification, screening, litter control, better pedestrian infrastructure? Wondering how much of a David vs. Goliath fight I'd be in attempting to get them to be a better Urban neighbor and if anyone has any war stories or lessons learned to share?

I was reading this post: https://thedeletedscenes.substack.com/p/the-transition-is-the-hard-part-revisited and wondering if NIMBYism (here defined as opposing new housing development and changes which are perceived as making it harder to drive somewhere) is based in simple psychological tendencies, or if it comes more from an explicit ideology about how car-dominated suburban sprawl should be how we must live? I'm curious what your perspectives on this are, especially if you've encountered NIMBYism as a planner. My feeling is that it's a bit of both of these things, but I'm not sure in what proportion. I think it's important to discern that if you're working to gain buy-in for better development.

Hello! I have been out of the urban planning field for about 5 years. I just accepted a job in land use and permitting. I need resources on construction reading, surveys, plat books, real estate, encroachments, etc to study up on. If you can also provide online courses, I would be grateful! Please no negativity!!!

link : https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5109943-trump-administration-directs-widespread-pause-federal-loans-grants/

what does this mean for US DOT grants ?

I recently had an interesting discussion during a class lecture today in regards to how cities compare to each other in recreation and tourism. It inspired me to come here because I would like to hear your perspectives.

I'm sure we're all familiar with the different metro tiers in the US in terms of population. Small, Mid Size, Major, etc. With the sheer amount of metro areas in our country, different policies and practices make them extremely unique from each other.

My question is: In your opinion as an urban planner, enthusiast, or frequent traveler/tourist; Which cities are the best/worst planned in their tiers if you were to consider factors like Biking and Walkability, Park Systems and Greenspace, Public Transportation, Density/Sprawl, and overall infrastructure?

Which cities would you consider the most improved of each tier?

Anyone who's City or Department is submitting an application to the USDOT's BUILD grant don't submit until having reread the edits made yesterday.

The edits have eliminated Equity, Transit, Walkability, and Biking priorities. As well as any mention of electrification.

Before you submit make sure you're edited it to the new criteria. Below is the page this can be found.
FY 2025 BUILD Grants Notice of Funding Opportunity | US Department of Transportation

SHARE WITH YOUR FELLOW CITIES.

I am reviewing and working on a code re-write for our local landscape ordinance and was posed the question on what the best/most appropriate metric for calculating the minimum number of trees required in a vehicular use area (VUA, or parking, drive aisles, paved/graveled storage, etc.).

Our current method is that the interior landscaped area (ILA) is calculated as 10% of the site VUA, and for every 250 SF of ILA, one tree (small/medium/large) is required to be planted within, or 1 tree per 2,500 SF VUA minimum. We used to have a regulation that stated that for every 150 SF of ILA, one tree was required to be planted (1 tree per 1,500 SF VUA) but it got changed to one per 250 SF 10-15 years ago.

I've seen the following methods in my research and was wondering what the general thoughts/experience were on the following:

1. Parking lot trees per number of parking spaces, i.e. 1 tree for every 7 spaces
2. Percent area of VUA, i.e. 20% VUA must be under canopy at mature growth
3. Number of trees per VUA SF, i.e. 1 tree per 2,000 SF.
4. Percent area of ILA, i.e. 1 tree per 200 SF ILA.

Additionally, how does everyone calculate ILA? It seems that most communities calculate it as a percent of a VUA, but there may be variations on the percentage.

What is everyone's experience with these strategies or are there any recommendations? If you have example communities that would also be a great deal of help. If there's a secret fifth strategy I'm not thinking of, please let me know!

Company towns in the strictest sense are towns where nearly all property, services, and businesses are owned by a single company. They were most common in the US during the 1800s and 1900s and very few of them actually developed into proper cities (Gary, Indiana is probably the closest thing to a company town that became a sizable city). However, I think the strict definition of “company town” actually ignores a lot of places that were built out and controlled by a private company, some of which absolutely turned into sizable cities.

Take Myrtle Beach — which today has a population of 400,000 people — but started out as a small fishing community that nobody knew about, until Franklin G. Burroughs envisioned the area for tourism around 1900. The Burroughs family started a development company, bought up most of the land in the region, built a railroad to the beach, built a hotel, and even came up with the name “Myrtle Beach”. They founded a company (that today is the Borroughs & Chapin company) to manage the land, and since then the company has been involved in nearly every major development that has happened in the area. The first hospital, the first shopping mall, the second shopping mall, etc. B&C’s website catalogues each major development. They are also deeply intertwined with the local governments (this should be a given as they own a ton of land, and that lets them exert influence).

B&C’s vision for Myrtle Beach was tourism, so as a result the entire region was developed to support (and is now entirely dependent on) tourism. The region has over 157,000 hotel accommodation units which puts it on par with Las Vegas. 42% of all jobs in the region are tied to tourism. Obviously, this comes with a ton of problems. Within a month of the COVID lockdowns, Myrtle Beach lost 17% of all of its jobs (though it rebounded after COVID). Tourism-related jobs don’t pay well and there isn’t much else industry there, so the region has struggled to attract a strong middle class and has instead acted as a magnet for retirees; around 48.9% of the region’s population is more than 50 years old and the 50+ age range is the fastest growing population in Myrtle Beach. These retirees typically come from out-of-state and they drive up housing prices, making it harder for working-class residents to afford living there.

I don't think Myrtle Beach is a company town in the traditional sense, where a single company provides everything to the community (housing, groceries, etc). However, Borroughs & Chapin basically controls the city and all big decisions directly involve it. The company is not directly accountable to the people who live there nor does it have a commitment to Myrtle Beach at the end of the day (in fact, it has started to shift its focus to other cities to diversify its portfolio). If not a company town, what should this kind of situation be called? How common is this across the US?

In the past, urban planning has focused on making cities walkable, commutable by bicycle, trolley, train, horse, or automobile.

Various transportation forms favor certain community sizes, and architecture. Horses favored homes with a separate rear stable, and nearby hayfields. Trains favored rails, station platforms, nearby coal, and the development of slums on "the wrong side of the track". Cars encouraged wider streets, Traffic signals, two-car garages, freeways, enormous parking spaces, a network of mechanics, gas stations, and roadside diners. Trolleys required tracks, trolley barns, trolley cables and electric lines. Bicycles did not require garages, but led to certain suburbs developing with narrow areas for bike parking, bike racks, and bike barns.

Electric scooters seem like a pretty viable and adaptable form of transportation, but the rented bird ones raised some concerns about where to park scooters, and how to charge them. Does anyone foresee specific community sizes and infrastructure that might encourage more use of these devices, or design features that would limit their adoption?

I was recently perusing government census data and what I found was quite interesting. For the 1950 census, which was when most US cities peaked population wise, you will find that a lot of our major cities had a population density over 10k PPSM. For frame of reference, consider that Boston MA, often considered one of the densest most walkable cities in America, currently has 13k residents per square mile. This kind of shows the extent to which our cities became hollowed out during the era of car centric suburban development. Quite astounding and sad really.

I will leave the link here for you to take a look: https://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/1998/demographics/pop-twps0027/tab18.txt

(Please excuse the archaic 1990s Geo-cities looking user interface)

Hey urban planners , I’ve been thinking what are some things that urban planners rarely focus on or discuss? We often hear about transportation, housing, and sustainability, but surely there are issues that slip through the cracks…

I want to hear from you what’s one overlooked issue in urban planning that we should be talking about more?

Every city is looking the same specifically major transplant cities.When do yall think the trend will stop and city new buildings will all be different from each other.