Just curious if anyone else has this same pet peeve.

I work on a lot of site plan reviews, and I have a number of regular applicants who, the moment they receive denial comments, immediately call me to talk about the comments and often just basically argue with me about them. I appreciate that different people have different communication preferences, but do any of you find this frustrating?

Like on the phone, it’s harder for me to give accurate responses to questions on the spot, and it feels like they want to be somewhat off the record with the conversation. I prefer to have my correspondence in writing to protect myself and the public. It also helps prevent the whole “but so-and-so at your office told me I could do this and it wouldn’t be a problem!”.

Idk, just venting a little I guess. I try so hard to accommodate everyone, but I just find that phone calls often muddy things up and it’s harder for me to track things, especially when I have like two dozen ongoing cases and a bunch of permits in various stages of review!!

And which policies would you like to see be tossed in an effort to help these states (California, Massachusetts, Washington, etc.) trend towards affordability?

I was gonna save this post for /r/left_urbanism 's review of a chapter in our reading series on urban politics which touches on how bureaucrats guide development.

While I don't disagree that there are factions within local government who make accomplishing actual policy change hard, there's little to no textbooks that'll cover what makes places like Rustbelt cities so attractive to the billionaire class.

Currently, there's an extortion plot """""""negotiation""""""" going on right now between arguably one of the most powerful billionaires in the entire Midwest (Dan Gilbert, owner of Rocket Companies), General Motors, and the city of Detroit regarding what's going to happen to the Renaissance Center (it's a well known collection of five buildings on Detroit's riverfront, usually on the right in skyline shots).

GM is moving into the newly completed Hudson Tower (skyscraper owned by Gan Gilbert's real estate venture called Bedrock) and is asking the public for subsidies to tear down two towers, and, supposedly, if it can't get the money that it's asking for, they're threatening to tear down the whole complex.

Since I'm typically cynical of business people, I don't see how this isn't a blatant shakedown of city hall, but, the pessimist in me thinks that they're going to quietly okay this when no one is paying attention (a.k.a at the last hour during the evening).

I know that on the national level places like South Korea is basically a bunch of businesses in a trench coat, but, how often is this story in the context of urban planning? and, what can cities do in order to stop stuff like this?

Hi -

I was recently hired to manage neighborhood planning for our city, which will also involve evaluating and likely modifying our current neighborhood planning process. I'm hoping to network with planners from other cities who do similar work.

For background, I worked at a nonprofit community design center/consulting firm that did neighborhood planning, and another five years at public housing agency completing and implementing a Choice Neighborhoods plan involving redevelopment of obsolete public housing and other associated community improvements.

I'm particularly interested in how other cities manage the implementation of neighborhood plans. Thanks!

This monthly recurring post will help concentrate common questions around career and education advice.

Goal:

To reduce the number of posts asking somewhat similar questions about Education or Career advice and to make the previous discussions more readily accessible.

Please use this thread for memes and other types of shitposting not normally allowed on the sub. This thread will be moderated minimally; have at it.

Feel free to also post about what you're up to lately, questions that don't warrant a full thread, advice, etc. Really anything goes.

Note: these threads will be replaced monthly.

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 unusual 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?