2 ms·

I guess there's planning and there's modern planning. Even the Romans did grids, which is a pretty good system. And it makes sense to keep really noxious thing

by davidw 7y ago

I guess there's planning and there's modern planning. Even the Romans did grids, which is a pretty good system. And it makes sense to keep really noxious things like tanneries or smelly factories or whatever away from, say, schools and places people live, where possible. But modern planning in the US is hyper-detailed to the point where it stifles the natural evolution of our cities. And developers? They build what they're allowed to build. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/upshot/developer-dirty-word-housing-shortage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/upshot/developer-dirty-wo...

wahern 7y ago
> But modern planning in the US is hyper-detailed to the point where it stifles the natural evolution of our cities. That may be true, but as was pointed out by commenters to a recent Strong Towns article, planners are the least of our problems. It's zoning policies and NIMBYs--which through various public comment and challenge procedures effectively gives them veto power--which are far and away the greatest impediment to healthy, incremental growth. The days of Robert Moses are long gone. Almost all professional planners subscribe to the religion of Jane Jacobs[1], sometimes to a fault. We don't need to get into the philosophical weeds about top-down vs bottom-up evolution. Our most substantial problems lie along a different axis. [1] The tenets of the religion vary among the adherents, like any mature religion.
- davidw 7y ago
  > planners are the least of our problems. It's zoning policies and NIMBYs Sure, I agree with that. But a lot of that zoning and NIMBYism seems to use the idea that cities can be 'planned' as a crutch. "We have traffic because it's not 'well-planned'" - as opposed to realizing that you have traffic because the modern portion of your city is predicated on automobile ownership for pretty much every facet of your life.

by davidw 7y ago

wahern 7y ago

> But modern planning in the US is hyper-detailed to the point where it stifles the natural evolution of our cities. That may be true, but as was pointed out by commenters to a recent Strong Towns article, planners are the least of our problems. It's zoning policies and NIMBYs--which through various public comment and challenge procedures effectively gives them veto power--which are far and away the greatest impediment to healthy, incremental growth. The days of Robert Moses are long gone. Almost all professional planners subscribe to the religion of Jane Jacobs[1], sometimes to a fault. We don't need to get into the philosophical weeds about top-down vs bottom-up evolution. Our most substantial problems lie along a different axis. [1] The tenets of the religion vary among the adherents, like any mature religion.

davidw 7y ago
> planners are the least of our problems. It's zoning policies and NIMBYs Sure, I agree with that. But a lot of that zoning and NIMBYism seems to use the idea that cities can be 'planned' as a crutch. "We have traffic because it's not 'well-planned'" - as opposed to realizing that you have traffic because the modern portion of your city is predicated on automobile ownership for pretty much every facet of your life.