I remember as a undergrad in college, a grumpy lecturer responding to the question "are there any trick questions", with a caustic quip; "we'll keep asking the same questions until the students get the answers right".
I published these ideas on the ‘Life after Roundabouts’ Blog between 15th and 28th June 2010.
1. Deal with the present
-‘Now is the time to plan for the future’ (or words to such effect) is a well-worn motto of many a planning consultancy at the moment. How fortunate for these experts to have such foresight, and know what lies ahead! (credit to David Engwicht here) Planners (‘the profession’) can’t be blamed for looking toward the next economic upturn, because the previous period has been so kind. However, those halcyon days are gone, and we need fresh approaches to deal with the crisis.
-What development plan faces the challenges of the next 1 to 5 years, not the next 20? Development Plans are increasingly becoming monolithic documents, conceived in red tape, where any life support for innovation or creativity, is sucked out in the course of the arduous process of getting them adopted. So, what are we doing now ... about now? How do we encourage investment, innovation, improvements, autonomy + the economy.
-We have to stop pretending this can be put on the long-finger. We have to take responsibility for making things happen, and make the system work – not work the system.
2. Be proactive
Local Authorities and in particular County Managers need to set the tone for planning and development. We're not talking about the fancy introduction to the development plan; but the things they say and do - corporate strategies - and strategic messages that affect every action of the institution. Most thinking is about 20 years out of date, and when they do talk about sustainability or the latest buzz – ‘smart planning’ , its linguistic delusion but little else. An organisation doesn't become 'smart' by giving a new label to the things it does and always has done. What County Manager has come out and said they want to have the most cycle lanes per person in the EU in their town, or that they want to dedicate their town centre to pedestrians, or that they won’t consider any new hypermarkets or business parks on the edge of town? Who is saying we must take the lead in reassembling the town? We need to raise the bar, be ahead of the curve, and lead!
3. Manage the town as a priority
Planning Authorities’ primary task is 'development management' or development control as it used to be called. However, this is only managing the changes that other people want to make. Town management should be the priority, and resources reallocated to this task. This is not necessarily making local plans or master plans but focuses on implementation and making things happen. If it is the vision of a local authority to make a town better (vitality, viability etc) then they have to do things to make it happen. Approaches include Town Centre Management Partnerships, Business Improvement Districts, Tax Incentive Financing, Local Development Vehicles etc, extraordinary temporal rate increases, or just shaking up budgets to redirect expenditure.
4. Stop using mono-use zoning
The first schedule of the 2000 Planning Act contains a host of regulatory instruments that can be used as objectives in a development plan. This includes layout of areas or structures, design, colour materials, floor areas, coverage, set-back and height. All the tools are there, but too many authorities don’t attempt to utilise them. Too often parking-space requirements and open space are used as controls. Plans should be used as opportunities design streets, perimeter blocks, and use design codes to guide the appearance of buildings. Great care needs to be given to the smallest detail, and zoning doesn’t fit the bill.
5. Make towns more attractive than suburbs/rural living
People must want to live in towns; unloved & dismantled by modernist planning, architecture and engineering. We’ve taken out the retail, housing and businesses, and flung them out to the suburbs in their own little pods. We’re a suburban nation, every bit as much as the US (Duany et al). We need to reassemble the town, and fundamental to that is to keep people living there, and re-populating the centres. For this to happen the centre has to be more attractive, and present better and wider opportunities than the suburban equivalent.
Sustainable urbanism must be at the heart of urban renewal, adaption and innovation. The historic fabric is an asset that denotes identity and character, just as established communities represent continuity and social fabric and local economies. During the tiger years continuity and respect for the fabric, was replaced with faith in the zeitgeist. The economics of development of individual plots can stand up again. The only situation where comprehensive redevelopment can be justified is when the public gain through new streets and parks can be achieved.
Local authorities need to undertake thorough reviews of their budgets to examine geographically where they are spending public money and who is benefiting. Look at most main-streets - is there a cent being spent? Quality housing + attractive residential streets, business districts (not parks) and retail streets = walkable towns + neighbourhoods = good towns = sustainable urbanism
6. Plant street trees
This is so important and fundamental to successful urban places, but it seems to have been forgotten about, or only ever addressed in expensive urban landscaping schemes or as part of road schemes (under Pt. 8 of Planning Regulations). Street trees are easy and cheap to achieve and can have a transformative effect on places. They are also much more beautiful than expensive steel street furniture. It should be an objective of every authority to have an ongoing programme of planting and replacing of trees. Street trees also serve the purpose of segregating traffic from pedestrian and parked cars, and no street is too wide if broken up by boulevard planting (see the wonderful Boulevard Book by Allan B. Jacobs et al).
7. Only set objectives in a plan that can be followed by direct action
The core objective of a plan should be clearly understood, and achievable through a set of direct actions or measures - it should not be a result of trickle-down effect.
If a planning authority has a core objective to improve a town centre, there are measures to achieve this i.e. town centre management, environmental improvements, increase population, promote business districts.. and then stopping things happening in suburbs in competition to this.
What has tended to happen, particularly in the tiger years, is that these improvements are expected to happen by osmosis. By this logic a new shopping centre on the edge of town, or even in the town centre, will improve everything else around it, simply because it is there. A new business park will be good for the town .... if because it brings people/business to the general vicinity of the town.. suburban populations will support the town centre. It hasn't turned out like that.
Its the same for tax incentive sites - the hope that the redevelopment of one site is going to solve all the other problems. This is great for a developer, as they can promise a town the earth to get an uber scheme through, but it also makes a place dependent on the something that may not be the right solution. So if a town is to be made a better place (and if anybody cares) by creating a new pocket park – well, make that the first priority to make it happen, not the last. Investment is a follower not an instigator... retail follows footfall... people want to go to nice places... nice places need to be created, realised, enhanced & cared for..
This was all highlighted in the paper yesterday again, concerning regeneration projects in Limerick. The fact that they want to demolish and rebuild a failed suburb, is hailed as being good for Limerick City. Its not! Limerick City centre is emptying at a rate of knots - the regeneration project is a hopeless waste of money for the city. If they are serious about doing anything for Limerick, they would bring the people back to the city - away from social, physical and economic segregation.
As highlighted in recent ECTP awards, the European Planning tradition is particularly good as setting key objectives as the vision for the plan - where everything else follows - i.e. addressing the river, building bridges, the sustainable town.. They don't do the business school vision statement, brought to Ireland by the UK consultants i.e. "this is a vibrant, safe, clean place that people love to spend their time drinking coffee outdoors in". One is a plan - the other is symptom!
8. Don’t plan to solve traffic congestion
Cities and towns have a certain amount of space, and we make choices as to who gets to use that space. Wider pavements means more space for pedestrians, street cafes/vendors. Buses want bus lanes, cyclists want cycle lanes, and people want to be able to drive their car from beside their bed to their destination (paraphrasing M. Garrido). Traffic congestion is a symptom of this competition for space, and trying to solve traffic is a one way ticket to nowhere-suburbs, designed by road engineers. So priorities have to be set for that ‘space’ between buildings (the ‘ways’ and ‘interways’ as Cerda called them). Its not something that can be solved by segregating or bypassing the town, because that deprives users other than the cars of the new ‘urban ways’. Rather, expand the network of streets, and reduce the blockages (L. Krier) so that everyone can benefit from the investment, and good streets can be created.
9. Manage the message
The towns that will succeed are the ones where businesses understand that they are collectively dependent on the place they make their living from. A business makes money because of the qualities of a town, and vice versa. Towns need to managed autonomously and collectively to sell and promote the place. Most traditional towns have inherent qualities, so it doesn’t need to be made up, but they do need to step up.
Managing the message means that you can't let a single retailer, business or a mall take ownership of marketing the town. It also means controlling the hyperbole/delusion. Its not enough to say great things about a place - without taking real steps or investments that make the statements reality. It happens too often that the stuff on websites and in corporate documents fall apart the minute you drive into town, or walk down its main street.
10. Make infrastructure happen.
This last entry on the list, goes under the sub-heading of 'blindingly obvious - Mr. Stupid'. I also thought of titling this entry 'Build Infrastructure'. But given I have a great wonder for how any building remains standing, I believe that planners are the last people to be entrusted with the actual building bit. However, moving from a position where we understand we need infrastructure (roads, water, public transport) to providing it, is the part planners do get involved in, and should be more proactive at.
Any local authority in Ireland is now strapped for cash and not in the building business. Developers can't get the cash from banks to develop. So are there any alternatives?
Utilities provide a reliable return on investment over time... because you can charge people for it over time, and get your money back with a predictable return on the investment. So what is to stop local authorities or communities progressing water treatment works etc that they can invest in, or perhaps raise bonds/shares and get on with the project?
Who would have thought 10 years ago that collecting bins could be huge business? Well, from the bills I got from 'Panda' you would guess barristers were emptying wheelie bins. Look at National Toll Roads. Communities and local authorities should be able to make money on infrastructure development - after it’s built (not before which is the basis of section 38 of Planning Act).
NAMA should be looking around the country for where they can maximise investment into locations that would collectively support new infrastructure. Particularly water supply, and waste water. Infrastructure of this nature, and the capacities available, ultimately dictate where investment should go. This investment needs to be aligned with planning strategies, so that infrastructure goes where it is needed, and the pipes follow the strategic plan and not the other way around.
