3 replies to this topic

[Icebergalley]

Here's an interesting posting about planners, planning education and planning departments..

Candor on Canadian Planning Departments and Planning Schools

Brent Toderian
22 March 2007 - 5:26pm
Tagged: Architecture | Planning
Since this is my first blog, let me introduce myself. My name is Brent Toderian. In 2006 I was appointed the City of Vancouver, British Columbia’s Director of Planning. Before that I was the Manager of Centre City Planning and Design for the City of Calgary, Alberta. I am a founding member of the Council for Canadian Urbanism (CanU) which is discussed below. I look forward to your comments on this and future posts.

It would be a shame if Allan Jacobs’ call to arms for North American planning departments, and city planning schools, in the Summer 2006 issue of Places (“The State of City Planning Today and its Relationship to City Planning Education”, Volume 18, no.2) went unnoticed across planning and design circles. Here is the link to the article: http://repositories.... ... ced/places (I suggest you read it first).

Having worked both as a municipal planning leader and private consultant across Canada, I found his comments remarkably candid, controversial and absolutely correct. This article could represent a key punctuation point in a discussion (and debate) on the future of how we plan and build cities, and educate our future city-builders on either side of the border.

I for one, am trying to ensure the article is noticed here in Canada. First, I’ve put it on the agenda to discuss at our annual “Big Cities Planning Directors Meeting”. Second, we’re making it a key piece in the National dialogue amongst many of Canada’s leading urbanists representing the city planning, architecture and landscape architectural professions. This dialogue has recently led to the creation of the new Council for Canadian Urbanism, or CanU. Formed by prominent design-emphasizing practitioners from across the Country - and in particular, influential municipal design voices from planning departments of all scales - CanU has been working to address many of the challenges Jacobs describes. Perhaps it’s the rare candor of Jacobs’ piece that makes it so useful to this discussion.

Its true that here in Canada, we think of ourselves as having a strong tradition of municipal city planning relative to the United States (based largely on stronger planning tools at our disposal, and a tradition from our Constitution of “peace, order and good government” as opposed to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and its connection to individual property rights). As a result, we have many good planning departments across the Country, with many passionate and talented professionals.

Here in Vancouver we’ve had a particularly strong tradition, over several generations of planning directors, of a strong voice in shaping a “city by design”. As a result, the Planning Department has enjoyed a very high public profile, and has received a rare share of the credit (deservedly shared with our many city-building partners) for Vancouver’s consistent recognition as one of the Worlds most livable cities. At present we’re in the process of defining our next era of city-building, with our “eco-density” initiative that sets ecological sustainability as our primary definition of success, and strives to make exceptionally designed higher densities with green technologies the new “business as usual” throughout the city (see http://www.vancouver.ca/ecodensity).

Embracing Jake’s spirit of candor though, I found his description of some planning departments to be disturbingly familiar from my work across the Country. Despite the tools, too many planning departments are too quiet, allowing their leadership voice in the politics of city-making to be muted. Others seem to emphasize the number of applications they process rapidly within a spirit of “customer service” as their key definition of success, regardless of the resulting quality of city-building. And as Jacobs points out, far too many have moved from a department of physically adept city-shapers, to the keepers of policy, demographics and rules. Urban Design is often either not present at all, or perhaps is a small piece of the department (perhaps a single individual called an urban designer, suggesting it should be considered a specialty along-side a heritage planner or a social planner, instead of a key dimension of a well rounded “typical” city planner in the department).

His observations are equally true in Canadian Planning Schools, most of whom have moved away from the physical (although thankfully some are trying to move back). But the crit should not stop with planning schools – in my observation it is also true that with the typical architecture and landscape architectural program’s emphasis on individual building design or the power of the plant type (respectively), bigger opportunities to teach holistic urban design and city-making are being missed. And yet all three design professions, in their worst moments, easily seem to fall into a “turf war” over which profession is best positioned to be (and train) the city-builders of the future.

Among other things, the CanU leadership from the three design disciplines are working together to promote a return to a greater civic design awareness and emphasis at all scales. This not as an end, but as a means of better achieving the important goals of urban sustainability, healthy and complete communities, civic beautification, social and economic integration, and so on. Rather than fighting over turf, we’re coming together as partner-disciplines, as urbanists, with a common goal of better urban environments, and a stronger and clearer urban agenda here in Canada. We’re still in the baby step stages, but we have some of the highest profile voices in the Country among our ranks, and we’re gaining momentum.

As a city-planner though, like Jacobs, my own call to arms is for my discipline. The city–planner of the now and the future, has to be a design-savvy urbanist, a generalist who never stops learning. A renaissance person for cities, who understands how the physical relates to the social, the ecological, the economic, the cultural, the marketing/ ”branding”, the story-telling, and so on, and can bring it all together in a physical sense. A practitioner able to channel their inner artist as well as their inner scientist, to apply both rational and intuitive thinking, and know when which is most important. A creative, open-minded lover of the complexity of cities.

Are any planning schools producing this kind of practitioner? Some educators I know suggest it’s overly ambitious to try, as their students should learn all that “on the job”. I disagree. That needs to be the spirit of how and what they learn right from the start. Maybe its overly ambitious, but I’d be happy if schools were trying.

The discussion that Jacobs’ article spurs on is long overdue. The lack of constructive candor out there on these issues may be one of the reasons why we find ourselves where we are. Although I do think things are starting to move in the right directions here in Canada, in order for planning departments and planning schools on either side of the border to maintain, or re-gain, their relevancy, city planners and urbanists from all disciplines must be clearer and more persuasive voices in the shaping of our cities, able and willing to work with, but also challenge, the obstacles of short-term politics, the profit imperative, and NIMBY. I have tremendous faith in the three design professions, that we can be the leaders our cities need now more than ever.

Brent Toderian is the director of planning for the City of Vancouver, British Columbia.

[Icebergalley]

Sometimes even course outlines can have some tidbits of ideas..

With all the chatter about Bastion Square, a supposedly successful market here...

I wonder if there are things that the community planners could learn from this course.. or have they taken it and now putting it into practice... (saucey comment on my part)

http://www.pps.org/m... ... ing_course

May 18-19, 2007
New course content and market site visits!!!

THE WORKSHOP
What are the dynamics behind the incredible resurgence of public markets and farmers markets in North America? Through PPS's innovative research, grantmaking and technical assistance programs, we have gained an unparalleled perspective on how markets work. To be truly successful, markets need four crucial elements: the right mix of vendors and products; a strong sense of place; solid economic and operational underpinnings; and a firm commitment to the surrounding community.

Through this training course, learn about each of these elements and more through workshops and on-site tours of New York City's open-air farmers markets, indoor public markets, flea markets and urban farms. The workshop will cover:

Benefits of markets;
Ingredients of successful markets;
Introduction to Placemaking;
Market planning process;
Community engagement;
Partnership building;
Sustainable market operations; and
Market management.

Join us at our beautiful workshop space on the top floor (and roof deck) of the Audubon House, home to the National Audubon Society and one of the first green-designed building renovations in New York.

Past participants have included mayors, community development officials, neighborhood organizers and market sponsors.

MARKETS & PLACES
Nowhere is the vibrancy of public markets and farmers markets more apparent than in New York--a city rich in cultures, food, festivals, music and street life. This workshop puts us in the heart of the action. We'll visit some of the city's most famous markets, including Union Square--a former hangout for junkies--now home to the city's best known open-air farmers market and one of the best public gathering places in the city, which draws over 100,000 shoppers on a hot summer's day. We'll also visit smaller, though equally vital, neighborhood markets, like the city-operated Essex Street Market, which is sharing in the growth of the Lower East Side while managing to retain its historical customer base. Finally, we'll cross the East River into Brooklyn, to visit and learn about community-based markets and programs there that combine youth education and empowerment, urban agriculture, and local food system development--and are working together to improve their impacts across the borough.

[Icebergalley]

== AN INTERVIEW WITH TWO OF CANADA'S TOP PLANNERS
Toronto's Robert Freedman and Vancouver's Brent Toderian
offer their thoughts on good city building.
Apr 18 2007 -- Canadian Architect
http://www.planetizen.com/node/23911

The link will get you to the photo's including a Toronto Skyscraper and it's public process..

Canadian Architect, April 2007


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview

A Tale of Two Cities

An interview with Toronto's Robert Freedman and Vancouver's Brent Toderian explores the attitudes and ambitions of these two city-builders.


INTERVIEWER Ian Chodikoff

I thought that we would open with what the two of you have observed while working in different cities. How have these experiences influenced your work?

RF When I was working in the private sector down in the US, I was a consultant to cities. An interesting observation is that generally, Canadians are more deferential to government, relying on it for support. However, in the US, there are actually more government-funded programs that municipalities can go after than there are in Canada. For example, the HOPE VI public housing program involved a large amount of federal money where a variety of municipalities were seriously competing against each other for these precious dollars. At a certain time in history, American cities were having real difficulties. To some extent, this reputation still lingers north of the border, whereas it is recognized in many American states that cities are absolutely crucial in importance to the economy and to the state of the country.

BT My experience in Ontario was all in the private sector--about half of that time was spent working for municipalities as a consultant and about half in the context of development projects. Alberta was in the public sector. No matter where you are in the country, cities are facing similar struggles and have similar aspirations. The big difference is in the tools or lack thereof that municipalities have applied to achieve their vision. It has been a positive experience moving across the country to see the benefits of greater tools for municipal planning departments. Vancouver has a willingness to take ownership of the city, to shape it with a collective vision, and to use the tools at its disposal to take a strong position in negotiations about the future of the city.

RF American cities have many more interesting ways of raising revenue to take care of their own business--whether it is straight taxation or instruments like tax-increment financing. A lot of people in Ontario are talking about it, but these tools haven't taken off. Another thing is that a city like Pittsburgh has incredible philanthropic foundations that throw dollars at where they think they can make cities better. This is lacking in Canadian cities.

You speak of a movement around "Canadian urbanism" and how this movement relates to the critical importance of Canadian urban centres. What are the two of you doing to help define this movement?

RF More often than not, the dialogue is north-south (i.e., Vancouver-Seattle, Toronto-Chicago). This dynamic can be problematic when you are trying to solve things because there are fundamental differences between Canada and the US and some of the lessons are not a good fit. We should be doing a much better job of making contacts across Canada. A simple example is street widths that are, in many instances, set by safety issues and fire trucks. Often these guidelines are established at a national level, and many of these standards were set at a time when there was a different attitude about transportation and dimensions of streets which were contrary to good approaches to city design and urbanism.

BT As an update, the Council for Canadian Urbanism (CanU) has recently been established out of the Canadian Institute of Planners for urban-design thinking at a national level. At one time, there was a cross-border discussion as to whether or not Canada should establish a chapter of the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) but this was rejected. This Council was needed because of a shared frustration around a lack of physical emphasis within the public dialogue and within planning departments across the country. A growing tendency for silo-thinking over the last number of decades led to a necessity for more cross-disciplinary thinking betweeen the professions of architecture, landscape architecture and planning.

RF Each of the design professions is already sharing information with each other. The correct answer is that urban design is already a very cross-disciplinary activity.

BT But each of the professional associations were not communicating directly. There was a risk that this was becoming a turf war in terms of which profession was going to take control of urban design and urbanism. This movement is about bringing the three disciplines together to talk collaboratively about the promotion of advanced "city-building"--we like that term over urban design because it captures the spirit of what we are collectively trying to achieve. The other thing that we felt this group was missing was to become an advocacy group for better urbanism--and achieving specific goals around sustainability, liveability and healthier communities was very important. It can't be urban design for its own sake but it has to be urban design directed to achieving public goals.

What sort of professional ethos or method do you see our university programs and professional organizations advocating? Do you push for different types of approaches to city planning? How are our university programs and city planning departments facilitating this?

BT In the past, there was pressure to specialize. Increasingly, we are moving toward a broadly educated, urban-thinking city builder. However, none of the three design-related educations are perfectly hitting the mark. The planning education is not focusing enough on physical city-building. The architectural education is not doing enough to actually teach the perspectives or skill sets about urban planning, and that is also equally true with landscape architecture. Each profession has failed to embrace the overlap between disciplines. There is great discussion as to whether or not we should have more urban design programs or encourage all three disciplines to embrace the physicality of urban design and to embrace the overlap.1

RF Nonetheless, there is still a tendency to see more and more people with a variety of experiences, although with a high degree of specialization. Within planning, we have neighbourhood planners, policy planners, transportation planners, urban designers--and we work in teams. This is a pretty good model based on how we do business. Even within specialization, many young professionals would be better served through education that would expose them to a wider variety of experiences. There needs to be an emphasis where there is more of an overlap--whether this be in business, planning, landscape architecture or real-estate finance.

I'd like to know how an interdisciplinary approach can be applied to create and evolve a city vision. I'd like to know how you would bring in this kind of thinking to evolve your methodologies into the city-building process.

BT I think that cities have to move back to emphasizing a physical vision for the city. Too many master plans for the city are closer to strategic plans than an actual physical vision. City planning departments have lost their physical sense--it is too much about process, facilitation, politics and demographics than it is about an actual physical vision for the city. Build your processes to deliver that vision instead of standing in the way, and then staff your departments with the right renaissance people to be able to negotiate that vision.

RF We are at an interesting stage of post-amalgamation Toronto. Our new Official Plan took a while to approve but it is now essentially in place. It is a very good blueprint. Seventy-five percent of the city is relatively stable and not open for much change. Twenty-five percent of the city contains areas for growth: the downtown and central waterfront, avenues, and areas of the city such as Yonge-Eglinton, Scarborough, Etobicoke and North York. Our work is cut out for us, particularly in that 25% of the city will grow, intensify and thrive.

BT In our EcoDensity model, we are thinking about how our city will evolve in every context. How to do this properly and sensitively? Our tools allow us to deliver on the quality that we are able to show through pictures--this is key. Because of the tools that we have in Vancouver and in other cities with development permitting and discretionary systems, we can say to stable residential neighbourhoods that "you too can evolve in a way that adds quality and amenity." In Vancouver, the percentage of the city that is going to evolve is 100%--it's just a matter of how much, where and how. Under EcoDensity, the whole city is in play.

RF Let me talk about the "Avenues" [or corridors] that relate to the 25% of land discussed in the official plan that is designated for intensification. We have to get really serious about what we are doing with public transit. The realities of budget constraints are a short-term view of the problem. We have to take a 50-year view to get the Avenues on the map and support high densities that support high-level transit. This means lining the Avenues with mid-density housing, retail and commercial services to create a spectacular result.

BT And having the ability to ensure that the tools for the follow-through is key. If you show a picture that the city cannot deliver, the people have no reason to support it. This is the challenge that most cities have. Every time a developer does a poor job on a project, it hurts us all because the public says, "you promise us this, and we got that." I truly hope that Ontario and other jurisdictions continue to look closely at tools and mechanisms like development permitting and discretionary zoning because it has been the absolute key from both the public and private sectors' perspective to achieving the urbanism that we have in Vancouver. Developers like it too, because it is key to the public's buy-in. Therefore, the public has the confidence that both the city and developer can deliver on what is being promised.

In Toronto, many developers complain that the existing development climate prevents them from making financially viable projects along the Avenues. What can be done?

RF I think that we have to take the long-term sustainable view. Much of the talk relating to sustainability concerns either LEED standards or environmental standards being generated by the City of Toronto. If you look at the potential energy savings that comes with intensification just by the fact that many people take public transit and live in combined units, then you are much more ahead of the game in terms of sustainability. So, the Avenues concept is bound to catch on in Toronto where a range of housing types appealing to all kinds of people is built. The numbers will make more sense if we can get help through creative financing tools, or financing from other levels of government to seriously support transit--streetcars, rights of way and additional subways.

Do you think that the issues of sustainability will be a panacea applied to urban conditions in your cities and help consolidate disparate interests?

BT I think that sustainability has to be the number one overriding goal for the next generation. All of the design professions haven't been doing nearly enough to promote the sustainability agenda. There has been a lot of discussion but not enough walking of the talk. Robert and I often talk about the challenges around climate change and how our joint professions haven't been doing enough to fight for the patterns necessary to truly address the challenges of climate change. EcoDensity in Vancouver is about making ecological sustainability the number one building goal of the city. Immediate liveability has been the primary definition of the city in the past instead of understanding how sustainability affects long-term liveability.

RF The key is marrying the liveability and sustainability. I am convinced that many cities have healthy densities--such as when you have a number of people supporting excellent transportation systems contributing to liveable cities. I think that it's the density and the liveability that are all very achievable.

BT We are no longer in an era where we can pretend that we are not sick. Cities haven't seen themselves in that position enough in the past. With the new public awareness around climate change, cities have the best opportunities that they have ever had to go further with the public alongside. Vancouverites can very easily make the connections between living patterns and climate change but those connections need to be made as we enter into what Al Gore has called the "era of consequences."

How do you both personally want to promote your urban design agendas beyond official plans and projects? What legacies do the two of you want to bring to your respective cities?

BT Being a city-building leader is more than just reviewing process or creating plans, it is about stimulating dialogue and awareness across the city. I have the benefit of being the new kid coming in with fresh eyes and trying to foster what I have been calling "constructive candour" about the future of Vancouver urban design, architecture and planning. Vancouver is probably the most successful city "by design" in Canada. My predecessor Mr. [Larry] Beasley often used that term to describe the success of the city and I believe in that. I believe that cities should be shaping their successful futures, but there is another layer that can be placed on top, and we learn about this layer by looking at cities like Montreal--and that layer is about creating a city of design. It is about fostering a culture that promotes the best design, open-minded collaborative discussions about design creativity, risk-taking, experimentation and doing it all in a way that recognizes great design results out of that freedom. Much of the dialogue I'm having in Vancouver is about combining the need to continue successful city-shaping efforts while fostering experimentation and creativity that will lead to great examples of good design.

RF I love the term "city by design." It is hard not to be envious of the ability to get things done in Vancouver. One of the things that I have been trying to do is run a major symposium every year. We did something on the design review panel, the waterfront, mid-rise development and then last year we did something on tall buildings. When we can, we set up charrette processes to work on specific issues such as Shuter Street. We've done charrettes in all the different districts--a range of places that all serve to bring the public together to participate in actual physical design exercises. Encouraging competitions such as a residential tower for Regent Park, the revitalization of Nathan Phillips Square, and a highly publicized competition for the central waterfront are examples where we have the public's awareness of the issues being discussed in Toronto. Working with outside organizations like the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, the Canadian Urban Institute and the Toronto Society of Architects have helped to position our initiatives even further.

BT The new breed of urbanists must become experts in barrier-jumping because you don't get to pick the perfect system or the tools in your toolkit. You simply have to become experts at achieving the public interest no matter what tools you have at your disposal. Another aspect to remember is the ability to embrace cities and realize that they are partially rational and partially intuitive. Your approach has to address both these parts.

RF In many ways it comes down to the people and the attitudes. In Toronto, we have very dedicated staff, a chief planner and mayor who stand behind excellence in design. The difficult system that we have is ultimately who will be making the final decision. There have been some recent OMB reforms that will be quite helpful in limiting the ways OMB cases are being reviewed. In terms of the "city by design," Toronto's cultural institutions are all taking shape and on the brink of coming together, as well as the waterfront and a few other issues. There are some pretty amazing things happening right now.

BT It helps to explain the difference between "city by design" and "city of design." Robert doesn't have the same tools as we have here in Vancouver. Certainly, the City and public sector is leading by design with the hopes that it will spread. The term "city of design" captures what cities can do when they don't have the city-shaping tools at their disposal. Vancouver doesn't have enough in this area. I want Vancouver to be more a "city of design"--and pay more attention to civic architecture and fostering a broad design culture where everybody is doing their best work.

RF In terms of something else that we've been instrumental in setting up is the design review panel--a pilot project in six areas across the city that should be up and running by the spring. I am certain that it will have a very positive impact on the city. It is clearly going to be different than the experience in Vancouver. I am confident that the design review panel will have a positive impact on not only the actual designs being presented, but in continuing to foster a better discussion about the general state of design in the city.

BT I think that one of the things that has made Vancouver city-building a success has been a spirit of experimentation, risk-taking and working within the grey areas of the law. Both Robert and I have backgrounds in law. There is a new fear brought on by the advent of risk management as a profession--there is a danger that cities aren't embracing innovation and risk-taking. Complex, messy and advanced city-building is about taking on risk and a willingness to experiment. The risk management profession may put innovation in city-building in jeopardy. It is important to risk failure in order to achieve innovation.

BT Advanced city-building cannot just be about knowledge and rational thinking but about intuition and a true, deep understanding of cities. In the past, the city-planning profession has lost some of its intuitive understanding of how cities actually work. The next generation of city- builders have to embrace the messy complexity of cities. Cities are both rational patterns and controlled chaos--the cumulative collection of works of art from many people.

1 The role of planning departments, the type of city-builder and role of education were addressed in a recent article by Alan Jacobs in Places magazine (Summer 2006). Jacobs explained what is necessary for us to move back to a system of city-planning departments with a willingness to take physical leadership.

Robert Freedman is the Director of Urban Design for the City of Toronto and Brent Toderian is the Director of Planning for the City of Vancouver.


Table of Contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© 2007 Business Information Group.
A member of the esourceNetwork
Business Information Group Privacy Policy

[renthefinn]

Wow interesting interview, I like what BT had to say, I'm excited for the possibilities in Vancouver. It 's a little strange how many differences there are with the local government systems between BC and Ontariario.