Different transportation, land-use, environmental, and other corresponding planners propose their work for new city urban plans in order to address the existing problems by identifying the major gaps they had. The existing land-use was following bad planning principles and it is already a failed plan. When planners integrate their proposed spatial plan to existing land use, they will have a real challenge in aligning. So, as a planner, what would be your choice to align the proposal you have with the existing land-use?
What is your suggestion?
Any help is appreciated very much.
@ Mollalign, I think it is not practically feasible to remove the existing un-planned land uses which is really a costly affairs. Therefore, I suggest to go for the second option i.e. to compromise the planning standards.
If you have to make do with existing choices, there may be ways to adjust your new added planned activity to ameliorate (as much as possible) the weaknesses of the existing conditions. So if blocks A B C are existing, and weak, what arrangement of new blocks (D E F) could offset these. For example, preserving green space near a dense settlement, or adding public space in a way that encourages healthy activity patterns. If the errors are truly awful (say a source of emissions near an area for residential development) you might be able to close the offender. I believe some "trash burning plants" have been shuttered for these kinds of environmental clean-up reasons. Although the costs of correction can be high, urban areas have proven over time that land uses can be changed in very big macro ways. In the US, many failed large shopping centers provide space for new multi-use development and / or smaller shops and residential.
I also consider option 2 as the more reliable, viable and practical. However, considering the new existing and coming situation, more appropriate urban, rural and territorial standards have to see beyond the urban circumscriptions, in order (now more than ever) to generate an integrated, equitable and sustainable planning approach. From this basis, we are to rethink a set of renewed standards for urban, rural and regional planning, as mobilization patterns, social/economic flows, assets location, different interrelations, the need of an environmental improvement, among others, need sound changes in land-use for an integrated territorial management.
You are not stuck with unsuitable land uses.
Here is the example on removing a trash burning power plant, which had many problems: "the toxic fumes being emitted from the three 270-foot tall stacks. Dioxin levels went up for miles around the plant. In 1993, the newly created Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio acquired the plant from the City of Columbus. The plant was shut down in November 1994 due to the financial and environmental strains it caused. The former trash burning power plant sat vacant for the next decade, being used only as storage for SWACO."
The quote is from this source which has pictures of the destruction of the plant:
https://www.ohioexploration.com/structures/trashpowerplant/
The expected results from executing 1. and 2. in terms of cost and benefits to each stakeholder can help in further decision processes. Of course, one has to consider what is within the possibilities of the decision-makers regarding the plan. And also the resources for the planning process, considering scenarios 1. and 2. If the benefits for a plan considering the interventions needed for reverting the initial conditions, from 1. to 2. are viewed as beneficial, also to those who effectively have power to change this, it might be worth the extra effort.
I could add to the previous responses that there are always contradictions between general planning rules and the concrete place ("locus solus" as re-proposed by Aldo Rossi in the sixties), but we plan more or less with the characteristics of the place.
From a southern perspective, I will go for option 2. Like @Luis Fernando indicated, we need to rethink our understanding of city making especially in the global south. Obviously the city is being shaped largely by the people as opposed to 'our plans' - let's plan from the peoples perspective (inclusive, participatory planning). Miraftab's piece on 'insurgent planning' will offer you a clearer insight of my point of departure. Hope this helps
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers