Even though the building of cities has a long and a correspondingly complex history, the concept of city planning as an organized profession has only been around for less than a century (Garvin). Practiced under several names (town, community, urban land use, or physical environment planning), most cities in the current modernistic concept of planning display considerable degrees of forethought and conscious design not only in their physical layout but also in their functioning. Today, the building of cities is done for several reasons that bear in mind the diversity potential of urban forms and the complex functions that cities perform. Numerous lessons emerge from the urban planning initiatives undertaken over the 20th century (Garvin; Hall).
First, there are different players in the urban planning game, each with different roles to play (Garvin). Two main types of players exist – those who play the starring roles (entities that devise, implement, and support or prevent change), and those who play the supporting roles (providing the stars with the financial, policy (political) support and the design expertise they need to succeed). The stars of the game include well-known figures such as community leaders, reformer-critics, the government, or private developers (Juvera). Second, while there is an increasing level of ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word “public” in urban planning, the fact that they are an important supporting actor in the planning game is undisputable. They include community associations, labor unions, political parties, and the chambers of commerce. Their roles include opposing or endorsing proposed urban projects, providing public testimony, and advocating civil rights and preferences. In the midst of the 20th century, however, the role of the public grew beyond supervision, to become explicitly integrated into the planning process.
Third, whereas all the different players in the planning game play vital roles, not all of their ideas or criticisms are thought-provoking or transformational (Hall). Thus, thorough deliberation and evaluation of the planning ideas are necessary to sift through the notions presented in both the public and private domains. Such reflection will facilitate the identification of novel or conventional concepts that are both practical and inspirational. Transformative planning ideas, whether visionary or critical, stimulate action, move the masses, and attain legendary status. On the other hand, some ideas only accentuate the ignorance of their sources in matters of urban planning. Fourth, urban planning involves a lot of red tape in the form of legislative laws that may either facilitate or derail the planning game. These laws cut across the federal, state, and local jurisdictions, each with a variety of players. Federal laws apply countrywide and give a general direction to the process. Examples of government agencies acting at the federal level include the Department of Housing and Urban Planning, and the Department of Transportation, which provide low-income housing subsidies, and traffic dimensions respectively (Garvin). Statutory and local planning laws, however, differ according to the geographical, economic, social, and political peculiarities of each region (Hall).
Fifth, entrepreneurship and risk-taking are the cornerstones of the planning game (Garvin). While all the other players play crucial roles in articulating the vision and setting the legal framework within which planning occurs, it is the effort and courage of entrepreneurs and private developers that bring the ideas to fruition. Entrepreneurs aim at improving the lives of the community whereas private developers lean towards profit-making. Notwithstanding the divergence of these motivations, these players ultimately serve the same role of mobilizing funds and implementing the plan. Most often, they act under time and information constraints, with the added stress of uncertainty regarding the success of the project. For this reason, they are the star players in the planning game. Sixth, urban planning is governed by certain economic and political rules (Garvin). Economic rules revolve around market demand, maximization of net operating income, and calibration of risk at every stage of development. Conversely, political rules focus on rallying support for the project among stakeholders, critics, and the public through persuasion, deliberation, and legislative actions. Therefore, careful contemplation and meditated action are necessary to strike a balance between the two sets of rules to achieve success.
Seven, although the chance of success is high when players obey all the economic and political rules, the risk of failure is greater if they fail to adjust their strategies to the continually changing conditions in the urban planning environment. Change is an inevitable feature of all economic markets. In urban planning, the variations in matters such as technology, conventional wisdom, legislation, fashion, unexpected outcomes, social and moral tenets, and consumer tastes and preferences, may disrupt the implementation of a plan. Thus, the players must be flexible and willing to adjust their strategies and realign them with such changes for a better outcome. Eight, the planning process has two sets of participants - active participants and bystanders. These actors can become either winners or losers depending on their input. Winning players comprehend all the rules of the planning game and use them to their advantage such as Haussmann and his team in the construction of Paris (Garvin). The side benefits of their actions may indirectly benefit other people such as the community in the form of increased customer traffic to local businesses (winning bystanders). Conversely, losing players do not understand the game and, therefore, make numerous costly mistakes that result in the failure of the projects. Their flop always affects other individuals indirectly (losing bystanders). A losing player can either recover from a failure or abandon a potentially transformative project entirely. That is why entrepreneurs are essential for urban planning because their risk-taking spirit allows them to learn from their mistakes and build the courage to try again.
Nine, the public realm approach to urban planning is just as important as the private investment approach, and can yield substantial benefits for a city as a whole. Most people hold the misconception that planning initiative undertaken by the private sector yield the most returns. The Paris experience is a testament to the effectiveness of public spending on public property such as infrastructure and utilities (Garvin). This strategy led to the creation of unique scenery, city streets and archways, parks, and remarkable building designs that shape the daily life of Paris residents. Finally, an elaborate, step by step planning process is essential to the success of any project. Planning is the foundation of all undertakings and exists long after a project is complete. It includes creating the guidelines for planning, hiring experts to do the actual planning, testing the validity of various options presented by the planner, creating an appealing futuristic image of the project, gaining public support, identifying the implementers of the plan, mobilizing funds, and sustaining public support until the project end. Chicago planners successfully used this process in designing and building the city (Garvin).
Two cities influenced by the design theories of the 20th century include Canberra in Australia and San Francisco on the west coast of the United States. Canberra City is not only one of the last ‘City Beautiful’ but also the largest Garden City in the world (Fischer). At the time of its development, the dominant design theory was the Garden City Movement that sought to create safe, healthy, and beautiful living environments for the ballooning working class population (Basiago; Miller). The underlying tenets of this theory involved combining the best elements and attributes of country and town life that inspired people to live a desirable lifestyle. The planners and architects of Canberra aimed at incorporating various aesthetic principles and striking a balance between light and space to accord the city a capital status (ACT Planning & Land Authority). As a result, broad streets, vistas to the hills and parks, big house blocks, and spacious squares, characterize the north and south suburbs of the capital city. The country features incorporated in the design included mature gardens and tree-lined verges that added beauty to the residential areas. While these unique traits comprise some of Canberra’s most prized possessions, they have also posed redevelopment challenges such as the need to renovate old buildings, changing lifestyle choices because of old age, climate change, technological advancement in construction, and varying architectural preferences. The hurdle for urban planner today is achieving a balance between preserving the traditional aesthetic character of these suburbs, and realigning redevelopment plans with contemporary trends. Modern planners revolve their modification plans around the three pillars of the garden city design – the block, the street, and the dwelling.
The origin of the garden city movement was the nineteenth-century England. The movement grew to become one of the dominant theories of urban planning in the 20th century (Miller). Ebenezer Howard is credited for initiating this theory. Created during the industrial revolution, the garden city design sought to raise the living standards and sanitation conditions for the working population. The majority of these workers had moved from the country to the cities to search for well-paying jobs in the factories. This unbridled migration put pressure on the urban environment leading to congestion and unsanitary living conditions. Howard identified three pillars underpinning the movement – country, town, and commerce and trade. The country lifestyle emphasizes nature and beauty that created a pleasant and fresh atmosphere while the town lifestyle stress on access to elegant and safe housing with plenty of opportunities for social interaction. Commerce and trade enable people to access other social amenities, public utilities, and commercial goods and services.
Walter Burley Griffin designed the garden suburb in Canberra in 1911 by laying out the plans for the terrace houses, the parks, residential streets, and the main avenues (ACT Planning & Land Authority). In 1921, John Sulman implemented the plan but with significant changes. For instance, instead of subdividing the land into smaller allotments and accentuating the parks and streets as advised by Griffin, Sulman built single-storey cottages on large blocks of land (he preferred trees and gardens to parks). In 1927, more houses based on the income needs of the public servants and their families were constructed after the Parliament moved to Canberra. Nevertheless, the traditional aesthetic style was maintained, drawing attention. This trend continued until the 1970s where the government focused more on commercial use rather than the street effect due to the burgeoning urban population that put pressure on the existing open spaces (ACT Planning & Land Authority). This shift led to the narrowing of streets, removal of footpaths, shrinking of lawns, and emergence of fencing walls made of brick or concrete that redefined the image of the suburbs. By the late 20th century, traces of the movement had all but disappeared from the city environment. These changes highlight some of the
Similar to most American cities, the city of Francisco rose to prominence as one of the most influential urban settlement in the country. Historically the growth pattern of the city can be traced from early exploration and settlement for military purposes by Spanish settlers through the settling of San Francisco’s first Spanish inhabitants and religious affiliations, to the establishment of the urban foundation that gave rise to the city we know today. After the Gold Rush fever had hit the city in the early 20th century, the spin-off effects such as increased migration necessitated new planning practices that changed the way the city was planned. Initially, the city was designed mainly to accommodate the needs of the influx population drawn in by the Gold Rush. Therefore, the city was built in a block-like grid pattern. This planning system allowed the city residents spend quality time and energy on their work. However, the design greatly hampered intra-city transportation. The increasing influx of people prompted the need for the East to West Coat United State travel, and thus, the Railroad connecting San Francisco to the East Coast was created. The increasing population continued to put pressure on the city’s transportation network for the greater part of the 20th century until the cable car system came along to provide relief. During this time, the city of San Francisco consisted of three main communal parts – a small village situated near the Bay Shore called the Yerba Buena, a few scattered settlements around the Latino Mission Dolores (currently the Mission District) and the Military Presidio (Phillips). This pioneer settlement arrangement presented a significantly proportionate challenge to the planning prospects of the city (Juvera). The realization that the city was built around an unwelcoming geographical downtown core, constant changes in the housing patterns, frequent disasters such as the 1906 earthquake and fire as well as the construction of the support transit lines compounded this problem. Because of these challenges, a need for some comprehensive city design plan was needed. This was when the “City Beautiful” movement emerged.
Proposed by Daniel Burnham in 1905, the ‘City Beautiful’ movement plan revolved around the construction of grand boulevards and Haussmann-style of city avenues (Jordan). This urban planning system oversaw the incorporation of a Giant City Hall at the heart of the city. Besides, a large section of the neighborhood was set aside for the creation of a nature park. However, following the 1906 disaster, the city opted for a build-as-quick-as-possible route. The result was the different organizational city parts we have in San Francisco today. In the mid-20th century, San Francisco faced two redevelopment problems – an influx of capital that threatened the minority living there and the unprecedented fast-paced transformation of industrial spaces into residential homes. In the eyes of the city developers and planners, these circumstances were not unusual as cities throughout the country and beyond underwent similar transformations over the course of the century.
What was, however, different was the city’s approach to planning. Here, the residents had a greater say in the development process. For instance, when the City Beautiful Movement began in the latter parts of the 19th century, there was widespread consultation and incorporation of public input in the design of the city. The intention was to improve the housing practices with a special focus to the low-income tenements and to inspire the design of green spaces, parks, and streetscapes in selected parts of the town (Jordan). The result was the adoption of European Urban Development Policies particularly the German Zoning and Street Practices as well as the English Urban Comprehensive planning campaigns (Phillips). According to Phillips, the city adopted these plans to deal comprehensively with its inner-city congestion problems, promote even socio-economic growth and stability, and increase the quality of life for its inhabitants. Through its Housing Act of 1949, for example, San Francisco implemented the first one of a kind Planning Model in the name of Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA) that continues to shape the development of most cities in the county to this day. URA aimed at clearing and redeveloping slums in the major cities in the country including San Francisco.
Another planning initiative that played a significant role in shaping the urban skyline in San Francisco was the introduction of the ‘neighborhood unit’ approach to city planning. This approach suggested the creation of a city neighborhood area made up of accessible pedestrian buildings, parks, and one or two shopping areas that culminated in the creation of suburban residences in a suburbanization process. However, as deindustrialization and suburbanization continued to thrive in the city for a greater part of the 20th century, the ensuing urban-suburban dichotomy led to socio-economic challenges to city planning as racial, and income segregation took hold due to capital outflow and lack meaningful investment in the urban center. Today, however, San Francisco stands as one of the novel cities with comprehensive urban planning guidelines that help address issues related to such aspects as public versus private city development realms as well as ways of exploring the establishments of a good city community.
Works Cited
ACT Planning & Land Authority. Garden City Values and Principles. N.p., 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://www.planning.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/6700/gardencity_values.pdf>.
Basiago, A. D. "The search for the sustainable city in 20th century urban planning." The Environmentalist 16.2 (1996): 135-155. CSUN Oviatt Library. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <10.1007/BF01325104>.
Fischer, Karl. "Canberra's Centenary." Town Planning Review 84.2 (2013): v-xiv. Print.
Garvin, Alexander. The Planning Game: Lessons from Great Cities. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013. Print.
Hall, Peter. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2016. <http://site.ebrary.com.libproxy.csun.edu/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=10864830>.
Jordan, D. P. "Haussmann and Haussmannisation: The Legacy for Paris." French Historical Studies 27.1 (2004): 87-113. CSUN: Web of Science Database. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://muse.jhu.edu.libproxy.csun.edu/journals/french_historical_studies/v027/27.1jordan.html>.
Juvera, Elizabeth M. Ecodistricts in San Francisco: The Implementation of Neighborhood Regional Planning and Its Potential Effects on Environmental Resilience. MA thesis. University of San Francisco, 2015. San Francisco Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1155&context=capstone>.
Miller, M. "Garden Cities and Suburbs: At Home and Abroad." Journal of Planning History 1.1 (2002): 6-28. Sage Journals. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <10.1177/153851320200100102>.
Phillips, Lucy K. Revitalized Streets of San Francisco: A Study of Redevelopment and Gentrification in SoMa and the Mission. MA thesis. Scripps College, 2012. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. <http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=scripps_theses>.
