A matter of trust and truss

Building bridges of rapport with public support

Prepared 22 October 2008 for Paul Bedford (JGI454H1F, University of Toronto).

————— —— —————

In this paper:
Introduction
Building bridges before building cities: earning trust
Three tiers plus one: neighbourhood-Level planning
The conduit: planner as Rosetta Stone
Endnotes
References


Introduction

As calls for citizen-driven participation and sustainable development rise to the forefront, the nature of urban planning risks finding itself hobbled by baggage. One such parcel is historic: professional planning inherits a chequered reputation from infamous antecedents like Le Corbusier or Robert Moses, the latter of whom having razed much of New York City in an “urban renewal” campaign; dissenting voices like Jane Jacobs articulated this contempt for such top-down brokers who expressed limited compassion for citizen-driven involvement on matters of advancing planning policy.[1] Deserved or not, some citizens remember these contentious days and still bristle with suspicion when a planner is brought into the process.[2]

There also resides an institutional obstacle: planners in Canada and elsewhere must manage bureaucratic and sometimes hostile governance barriers, tempestuous political undercurrents, and fiscal bottlenecks. Each of these can derail the necessary support to execute regional planning initiatives beyond the proposal stage. And with the way the global climate is demonstrably changing as a result of human industrial activity, planners now confront the sober reckoning of how past planning policy played a hand in this. Today’s planners were bequeathed the remnants of unsustainable growth strategies championed by predecessors: low-density suburban monoculture over holistic urban communities; tax-base expansion over incubating socio-economic linkages; and advancing private vehicle mobility over integrated public transit solutions. For new planners, mending these chasms will take creativity.


Building bridges before building cities: earning trust

Perhaps the widest chasm exists in establishing the public’s trust and support as planners work together to advance some of the most significant changes to the urban landscape in generations. For any hope to press in service these changes, there are three ways planners can build bridges.

First, as civic mentors, planners at all levels must jointly collaborate to develop scalable best practices for sustainable development (and/or smart growth) for any metropolitan area — in turn showing citizens how these can nourish region, city and neighbourhood without penalizing quality of life. For this to gain traction, these principles must be unambiguous. UBC’s Sustainability by Design initiative did just this by proposing six “sustainability initiatives” to empower citizen involvement and help them quickly visualize those key areas which planners must consider when balancing sustainable growth: jobs, corridors, walkability, green space, infrastructure, and housing.[3]

Second, planners must link sustainable regional growth with a compelling case for even-handed political governance. Representation by population at the federal level — “one person, one vote” — is a constitutional cornerstone that was dismissed in the 1980s by a rural-oriented, “pluralist approach”; given that over four-fifths of Canada’s population is urban, this policy undermines support for funding regional infrastructure projects and drawing essential attention to the nation’s economic nurseries — even in Québec, where the pluralist approach is favoured.[4] By restoring “rep-by-pop”, rural sustainability (and working with, not against cities) can actually be better tied to urban sustainability as interdependency between both become increasingly cogent.

Third, planners must be ready to partner with community groups while also holding fast on wider regional plans. Transparently informing the public on the consequences of obstructing sustainable practices is crucial here. Impacts on environment (air quality, watershed preservation, etc.); real costs for goods and services; quality of life and public health; and compromises to regional economy are salient points to raise during negotiations. Absent such candour, well-meaning grassroots efforts risk morphing into adversarial NIMBY resistance, thus risking derailment of sustainable planning.[5]


Three tiers plus one: neighbourhood-Level planning

Urban planners must balance long-term comprehensive policy while resolving specific land-use approvals at the local level. This supports a case for creating multi-level planning teams— each level facilitating valuable communication at every level between citizens and regional leaders. Godschulk presented a framework for coordinated development using three levels of planning: regional, city, and borough (“small-area”).[6] He relates this framework to Denver regional planning, though the basic tenets are just as transferable to other urban locations.

By situating planners at each level, each can concentrate on goals within their scope while communicating with each other. At the macro level, the regional planner collects input from municipal leaders, intra-regional city planners, and provincial ministries to help construct and advocate for 25– and 100-year planning visions (and “backcasts”) for the “city region”.[7] The city planner can hone this vision while drafting plans at a municipal level, soliciting input from borough planners whose purview allow for greater attention on secondary plans (which harmonize with the city plan). Where Godschulk’s model falls short is the gap between borough planners and the people who live and work within those areas of the city. This disconnect can ignite citizen resistance.

Enter the agency of planning at the neighbourhood level. By adding a fourth tier, junior planners who live in the neighbourhood can be dispatched to work closely with community leaders and resident associations. Planners provide their disciplined expertise on the intricate linkages between regional and localized planning decisions while liaising between residents and developers to reach solutions on real estate projects within the neighbourhood. It also opens a way to energize and bring residents directly into the regional planning process through design charrettes, town halls, and workgroups (such as the imagineCALGARY initiative).[8] The cost for adding neighbourhood planners to municipal budgets is justified by the savings recouped from avoiding cost-prohibitive NIMBY tactics; a planner in the neighbourhood can reduce “concerns [of] bias … because all stakeholders … are committed to being open, honest, and working toward a consensus.”[9]


The conduit: planner as Rosetta Stone

Strategies for smart, sustainable planning visions continue to evolve with new approaches — from the planning sector, not-for-profit groups, developers, and citizens. Explored wisely, these approaches can ignite imagination, inspiration and, ultimately, the co-operation planners require to advance planning goals. Citizens affected by these changes must constructively find ways to articulate themselves within the process and not feel excluded by it. Thus, planning ideas must be articulated in plain language. Planning initiatives at a regional level, no matter what they propose, must clearly connect with planning challenges at the neighbourhood level — and vice-versa.

This interconnectedness should resonate with citizens in a way which draws attention to both inspired hopes and negative ramifications — not only for themselves, but also for their neighbours and their city. When Calgarians articulate a goal to drive less in their city and to do so only with “emission-free fossil fuel alternatives”, planners must creatively and unambiguously show the irreconcilable relationship of tomorrow’s sustainable goals and today’s unsustainable reality of a local economy powered by the petroleum industry — how one cannot exist with the other in place — to navigate the process and hone practical outcomes.[10] By isolating ambiguities and calling out problems that jump to quick, but shortsighted workarounds, residents can also recognize the consequential impacts of NIMBY tactics at the expense of reaching common civic goals. Likewise, planners must learn to recognize themselves as both interpreters and architects of the planning process and be able to articulate what developers, politicians and citizens cannot. While the what and when can be envisioned by any of these parties, planners must also envision the how and why.

The planning community hosts a remarkable level of talent, as evidenced by a myriad of visioning proposals and anecdotal accounts of clever, innovative adaptations to satisfy developers, residents, and the city.[11] The mark of leadership which planners must demonstrate comes not from the discipline itself, but from soft selling skills and a gift for connecting with people. Ultimately, it is the public’s support upon which we as planners are most dependent to advance the changes we need to establish sustainable urban systems and growth.


Endnotes

  1. See Wilson, Paul. 2000: 37. Also see Rothstein, Edward. 2007: E1.
  2. See Oh-Willeke, Andrew. 2008.
  3. See UBC Design Centre for Sustainability. 2006: 7.
  4. See Williams, Russell Alan. 2005: 99–100.
  5. See Toronto Star. 2008: AA06.
  6. See Godschulk, David. 2004: 10.
  7. See Crombie, David. 2006: 6. Also see Cities PLUS. 2003.
  8. See Praxis Group. 2005: p. i.
  9. See Maginn, Paul J. 2007: 6.
  10. In re: Toronto walking tour led by Paul Bedford, 27 September 2008, on working to find a way to enable a Shoppers Drug Mart shop on Yonge Street near Davenport to be installed in a zoned area requiring higher density for mixed-use applications.


References

Crombie, David. 2006. An urban agenda for a new century. The Urban Century, Spring: 6. Toronto: Toronto Hydro Corporation.

Godschulk, David. 2004. Land use planning challenges: coping with conflicts in visions of sustainable development and livable communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter, 70(1): 10.

Maginn, Paul J. 2007. Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: the potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography. Qualitative Research, 7(1): 25–43.

Oh-Willeke, Andrew. 2008. Against planners. Wash Park Prophet, 30 April. Retrieved 19 October 2008.

Praxis Group. 2005. Interim report on findings from the written questionnaires and the visioning sessions. imagineCALGARY: Shaping Our City’s Future. Calgary: Praxis Group.

Rothstein, Edward. 2007. Jane Jacobs, foe of plans and friend of city life. New York Times, 25 September: E1.

UBC Design Centre for Sustainability. 2006. The site is to the region what the cell is to the body. Sustainability by design. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

Williams, Russell Alan. 2005. Canada’s system of representation in crisis: the ‘279 Formula’ and federal electoral redistributions. The American Review of Canadian Studies, Spring, 35(1): 99–134.

Wilson, Paul. 2000. Urban legend: at 83, Jane Jacobs is still coming up with radical ideas about how cities work. Saturday Night, March, 115(2): 37–41.

Toronto Star. 2008. Windmills vs. NIMBYism [editorial]. Toronto Star, 20 October: AA06.