Housing Complex

Has Community Planning Engagement Gotten Out of Hand?

Mr. Duany. (www.dpz.com)

Andrés Duany, New Urbanism pioneer, is getting exasperated. As he explains in a recent interview with Architect magazine, the super-empowered city planners of old made some huge mistakes, but the system that's replaced it–allowing super-interested locals to kill projects if they've got the time and resources to complain enough–makes it really difficult to get anything done at all.

The problem isn't public participation itself; Duany helped popularize the charrette process, which helps communities set priorities jointly, rather than set off reactionary fights. Rather, it's that public participation done right–that is, systematically and comprehensively engaging a cross-section of the community–can be expensive and time consuming.

Conventional public participation makes the mistake of privileging the neighbors, the people who live within a half-mile of the given proposal. So it becomes extremely difficult to, say, locate a school or an infill project. While democracy doesn’t need a great number of voters to function well, it does require a full cross-section to participate. That is the source of its collective intelligence. You can’t confuse neighbors with the community as a whole.

We propose using the jury pool or the phone book to invite a random group, which is then understood to be apart from the self-interested neighbors, just as the developer or the school board are acknowledged as vested interests. The neighbors must be seen as vested interests as well.

It's a problem with which District residents are intimately familiar, on issues from sidewalks to density to homeless shelters. The city's regulations heavily privilege those most proximate to proposed projects, most notably rules about who can protest liquor licenses. The mentality skews that way as well: Zoning Commission member Konrad Schlater is fond of saying–as he did most recently at a hearing on a huge building project over the tracks behind Union Station–that impact on the neighbors is the "most important" factor to consider when weighing cases.

I tend to think that's a cop-out–neighbors' priorities differ from the attributes that make a project more holistically beneficial, which requires more work to figure out. But it's certainly the way our rules are set up, and how our politicians are incentivized to behave.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Has Community Planning Engagement Gotten Out of Hand? - Housing Complex - Washington City Paper -- Topsy.com

  • m

    Which city planners of old do you speak of? The ones from the turn of last century whose large public works projects cleaned up Victorian era slums, or their successors of the urban renewal camp in the 50's and 60's who redeveloped without regard to people living in cities?

    While it's easy to point, and yell nimby, and say neighbors are all anti growth. The opposite side of the nimby coin are the many developers who cloak themselves with a non-profit organization to eek out every last cent of tax incentive. Clearly, these projects while superficially have a feel-good component are not as you put it 'holistically beneficial'.

  • Eric

    "m", your argument is contradictory. Obviously Lydia is speaking of the planners during the misguided urban renewal period who were allowed to clear entire historic sections of the city with abandon (see: 1950s-1970s Southwest DC). Additionally, she does not imply that neighbors will always be of the NIMBY persuasion, just that those who are not immediately adjacent to projects also deserve to have the opinions heard, and are perhaps an equally important part of the equation. The real opinion of the community is not heard if only the immediate neighbors are, and I think you probably have the capability of understanding that nuanced fact.