COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING IN PRACTICE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NEW ORLEANS VS. KANSAS CITY

KAYJATTA

INTRODUCTION:

The Master Plan of New Orleans is an official document that creates a long-term, 20-year policy and strategic framework that guide growth and development in the post-Katrina city of New Orleans. The Plan intends to bring New Orleans into the 21^st century, yet preserving its unique historic identity of culture, diversity, and urban fabric. In Kansas City, the Forging Our Comprehensive Urban Strategy often referred to simply as the FOCUS PLAN is a 25 year plan beginning in 1992 in order to prepare and well position Kansas City as a model of a “new kind of American city” as we enter into the 21^st century. Unlike New Orleans, Kansas City (FOCUS PLAN) appears to have a regional outlook.

The New Orleans Master Plan is created simultaneously with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO). The CZO is designed for easy use, to implement the policies set forth in the Master Plan, and to reflect New Orleans’ unique characteristics.

This paper attempts a comparative examination of the two plans with particular emphasis on the procedure, the substantive issues addressed (or not addressed), and the level of citizen participation.

 PROCEDURE:

The preparation of the Master Plan and the CZO for New Orleans is a citizen-led endeavor in strong collaboration with city government officials, businesses, real estate developers and civic leaders. A series of public meetings and hearings have been held to generate public and community input. This, it is hoped will reflect accurately how land is used in New Orleans.

This process has paved the way to a greater awareness about the participation t of citizens as enlightened architects of their own destiny. Part of the reason for the awareness of this new planning culture, according to Dr. George Amedee, Chair of the City Planning Commission of New Orleans, is the “increased neighborhood understanding of planning tools”.

The process of developing the new Master Plan and CZO for New Orleans include the following:

1.       Technical review of all the post-katrina planning documents and the current CZO.

2.       City Planning Commission (CPC) will hold public hearings and meetings on the Plan and make revisions.

3.       The CPC then approves the plan and forward it to the City Council.

4.       The City Council holds public hearings.

5.       The City Council then either recommends further revision by the CPC or approves.

6.       The Plan is then adopted upon approval by the City Council, also with public involvement.

By law, the Master Plan and its allied documents can be amended once every year with a mandatory public hearing. The Master Plan must be reviewed and updated, if necessary, every five years.

It is important to note that at every stage of the development of the Master Plan and the CZO, the public is intensely involved and engaged. Similarly, the FOCUS PLAN for Kansas City was created with strong consultation with diverse groups of citizens and neighborhoods from all walks-of-life.  However, citizen participation does not seem as rigorous in Kansas City as it was in New Orleans.

In New Orleans, the implementation of the Master Plan is reserved for the Mayor’s office, but the power to change zoning and related laws remains with the City Council.

New Orleans has a strong Mayor with strong executive powers who serves for two terms. Mayor Nagan in fact fired all but 8 of the 24 city council staff when he resumed after Hurricane Katrina. There are seven City Council members and no City manager. Kansas City on the other hand has a weak mayoral system with a twelve-member City Council and a City Manager.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:

The Kansas City FOCUS PLAN aims to achieve certain substantive goals. Among them are:

1.       To revitalize and energize the urban core as a place for residence, work, business, entertainment, and learning for its diverse culture and population.

2.       To promote quality suburban development in unison with the urban core in terms of connectivity because the two are interdependent.

3.       Ensure environmental sustainability by managing and judiciously using natural resources. Transportation and infrastructure are vital components of a well-designed city framework that supports environmental sustainability.

4.       Create jobs for the future by increasing opportunities in technology, education, culture, and the arts for everyone and especially for the younger generation.

5.       To attract financial investments to strengthen the city’s tax base in order to create more prosperity for the citizens.

6.       To build a bottom-up government dependent on strong partnership with citizens, businesses and communities.

The New Orleans Master Plan comparatively aims to achieve the following substantive goals, among others:

1.       Walk-ability-to create a park within a walking distance of every resident.

2.       Connectivity-to ensure that new development fits in with existing neighborhoods.

3.       Bike-ability- to create more bike routes, sidewalks and transits as alternative transportation.

4.       Business-to attract more retail and services to support the economy and neighborhoods.

5.       Citizen participation-to strengthen community participation in decision making.

6.       Environmental sustainability-to protect the future of the city through sound environmental management and sustainability. Planting trees and “greening” will be particularly encouraged.

Both the New Orleans Master Plan and the Kansas City FOCUS Plan, even though they are clearly comprehensive plans, contain substantive policy outcomes that appear consistent with advocacy planning theory for example. The level of citizen participation and community involvement exceeds expectation in both cases.

PLANNING THEORY:

The Master Plan for the post-Katrina New Orleans, Louisiana (NOLA) and the FOCUS Plan for Kansas City, Missouri (KCMO) are comprehensive plans as indicative of their broad area of target-zoning; land use; residential, transportation, commercial, etc, etc-over a long period of time. This definition is consistent with T.J. Kent’s version of a comprehensive plan as one that “covers the whole city, deals with all essential physical elements of that urban environment and recognizes its relationship with all significant factors, physical and nonphysical, local and regional, that affect the physical growth and development of the community; Innes, E.J. (1996).

The impressive level of citizen participation and community engagement in preparing the New Orleans Master Plan and the Kansas City FOCUS PLAN have satisfied  both Paul Davidoff’s ‘pluralistic ‘model and Banfields’ ‘Rational’ process. The process and substantive functions in both plans (New Orleans and Kansas City) have overcome structural obstacles as well as unleashed practical opportunities as outlined in John Forrester’s critical theory. The involvement of planning departments from universities across the United states-Princeton, Harvard, UMKC  for example- in post-Katrina New Orleans especially perhaps helped in the effectiveness of these plans by complying with the four norms of pragmatic communication that Dr. Forrester put forward in his article “Critical Theory and Planning Practice” (July 1980).

The resilience of the New Orleans Master Plan and the Kansas City FOCUS plan could perhaps be a refutation of Alan Altshuler’s critical view of comprehensive planning as “neither practically feasible nor politically viable”. Altshuler’s argument that “…public debate on comprehensive planning is impossible because of the scope and generality of comprehensive plans” appears invalid in the case of New Orleans (and to a lesser extent Kansas City). In both cases there was rigorous public debate and community involvement. Judith E. Innes’ “Consensus Building” model appears more inclusive, more broad-based, and more applicable in the cases of New Orleans and Kansas City comprehensive plans.

In the land use decision making in New Orleans, the story appears quite different. Citizen participation is low and the Big Easy (New Orleans) continues to be mired in frustration and lack of trust. “The frustration of those focused on economic development is matched by the frustration of residents who feel deprived of …participation in the future of their neighborhoods”, Innes (1996). The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) of New Orleans did not benefit from the rigorous public debate and the “consensus building” recommended by Judith Innes because the City Planning Commission wields too much power and discretion.  Perhaps Altshuler’s criticisms of comprehensive planning  as incapable of building consensus around the public good is valid in this case. New Orleans, unlike Kansas City, is perhaps mired in this general paralysis and inertia because it was just emerging from a devastating flood by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and emotions were still high and judgment poor on the part of both citizens and politicians.

CONCLUSION:

In this paper I have attempted to give a comparative analysis of NOLA Master Plan and KCMO FOCUS plan in terms of procedure, substance, and participation. In both cases, participation was overall good but particularly emotional and sometimes frustrating in NOLA. The substantive issues addressed were real and significant for a 21^st century American city. The procedures taken in both cases were classic bureaucratic ones.

In any case, both plans have endured and are significantly effective albeit with amendments. New Orleans is a drama that continues to play out today, but it is perhaps the biggest demolition and rebuilding exercise ever in American history bringing all kinds of interest groups (scholars, students of planning, real estate reps, developers, ordinary citizens, and others) together…

REFERENCES:

1.       New Orleans Master Plan

2.       FOCUS PLAN

3.       RUNAWAY DISCRETION: Land USse Decision Making in New Orleans

4.       PLANNING THROUGH CONSENSUS BUILDING: A New View of Comprehensive Planning (J.E. Innes, 1996)

5.       CRITICAL THEORY IN PLANNING PRACTICE (J. Forrester, 1980)

6.       ADVOCACY AND PLURALISM IN PLANNING (Paul Davidoff, 1965)

THE FALL OF MOAMAR GADDAFFI AND THE MODERN ICE AGE: THE EXTINCTION OF A POLITICAL SPECIES.

On the 17 of February, protests erupted in the Eastern region of Libya against the 41 year rule of Col. Moammar Gaddaffi. The protests, like its predecessors in Tunisia and Egypt, quickly engulfed the oil-exporting country. The protesters called for the ouster of Gaddaffi and his sons-the apparent heirs to the throne.
Shortly after the protests started, one of Gaddaffi's sons, Seif Islam Gaddaffi, made a statement on the national television vowing to crush the protest and threatened bloodbath, but also promised economic and political reforms.
Within days, starting with Benghazi the entire eastern half of the country-long been marginalized from Libya's oil wealth- fell to the protest movement and Gaddaffi had no option but to hunker down in the capital Tripoli. When Gaddaffi himself appeared on televison, it was the usual eccentric, delusional self-style dictator. Dressed in colorful Beduin gabe, just one of Gaddaffi's long evolutionary descend, he denied there was any protests in Libya, then blamed it all on Al-Qaeda, and cited western imperialism and their intent to take Libya's oil fields. Gaddaffi then urged his supporters, many of whom are mercenaries and dissidents from sub-Saharan Africa who Gaddaffi had harbored, trained and armed over a long period of time to export his 'revolution' across the continent, to go out and kill the protesters whom he referred to as "rats and cockroaches".
To be continued...

LAWS OF THE GAMBIA; REVISED EDITION 2009

KAYJATTA

http://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/rule-of-law-cannot-exist-without-transparent-legal-system

The Point newspaper has reported Lexis Nexis as the publisher of the Revised Edition of the Laws of the Gambia, 2009. According to Lexis Nexis’ David Desborough, the company has signed a six-year contract with the Gambia government. That is excellent news!

It is barely a year and a half ago that I was consulting with a good friend of mine about my interest in collecting, formatting and recording the laws of the Gambia in a digital format so as to help simplify legal research and make it more efficient. I had just started to sketch the outline of the business plan. I guess I better shelf that idea…

I am a great admirer of the services of Lexis Nexis, having enjoyed free access to it through my school; and I share David’s position that “the rule of law cannot exist without a transparent legal system…, a clear set of laws that are freely and easily accessible, strong enforcement structures and an independent judiciary”.

Computer Assisted Legal Research (CALR) particularly is a quicker and more efficient way of finding applicable legal opinions and thus good law as compared to the traditional legal research in the law library.

However, CALR could be expensive as it requires subscription and many law firms; especially the smaller ones try to limit its use. They try to balance CALR and traditional legal research to keep costs down. Furthermore, CALR technology does not necessarily bring legal knowledge to the doorstep of everyone. It is useful only to those with the specialized knowledge of the law and are skilled in the traditional legal research. CALR is not a substitute for traditional legal research in the law library. The American Bar Association (ABA) still insists on access to the law library (traditional legal research) for all law schools.

Therefore, unless Gambian law firms wisely utilize CALR that may be provided by Lexis ( Nexis) as part of this project, the result could be an escalation of legal costs and thus stifle access to legal counsel. David Desborough’s claim that the implementation of Lexis Nexis’ CALR technology could “alleviate poverty” in the Gambia may be a little more than what they call in sales “puffing”.

Overall, the initiative to compile and update laws of the Gambia in an orderly researchable way is a good venture and I applaud the Gambia government and all those involved in making it a reality.

THE END OF GRAVITY:

This paper was previously published on 'Bantaba' and on my Yahoo blog.

By Kayjatta


Gravity or gravitation is a fundamental force of nature in which objects with mass (and weight) attract one another. Weight is actually the pull of gravity on objects that have mass. This is Newton’s view of gravity and the universe (Newton’s proverbial apple falling to the ground), a view that has been in use for 300 years by lay persons and scientists alike.
However, Newton's conception of gravity has been debunked by Einstein who viewed gravity as "warps (curvature) in space-time”. Einstein’s 1905 paper, Special Relativity, finds gravity in the Newtonian sense troubling and inapplicable; especially in the case of objects (things) that do not have mass, example photons (light particles). Newton is however still relevant in larger objects such as planets.
Now there is a new professor in town, as reported in the New York Times. Dr. Erik Verlinde, a professor of physics and “string theorist” (String theory is a 1980s theory that posits that all matter and energy are made of one –dimensional strings-with only length but no height or width) seeks to change everything with fascinating but controversial evidence that gravity after all does not exist. In his recently published paper on January 6th, 2010; On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton, Dr. Verlinde of the University of Amsterdam (who recently toured the United States to argue his findings) advanced that “gravity does not exist-as a fundamental force, it is a mere consequence of the laws of thermodynamics” , and that science and scientists have “…been looking at gravity in a wrong way”. This assertion appears consistent with the 1970s findings, of Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking ,of a strange link between black holes and thermodynamics.
Dr. Verlinde’s new findings have divided physicists across the world with reactions ranging from outright rejection to skepticism and cautious approval. Dr. Strominger of Harvard acknowledged that Professor Verlinde’s findings have “…inspired a lot of interesting discussion”, especially with regards to dark energy (an anti-gravity) and dark matter (stuff that holds galaxies together).

THE PLAZA PLAN AND THE HIGHWOOD/POLSINELLI-SHUGART CONTROVERSY:

THE PLAZA PLAN AND THE HIGHWOODS/POLSINELLI-SHUGART CONTROVERSY:
                           
                                                       KAYJATTA
INTRODUCTION:

The Plaza is Kansas City’s premier outdoor shopping center. It has a large regional and international appeal, as evidenced by its strong tourist attraction.
The boundaries of the Plaza stretched from 43rd street to 55th street, and State Line to the Paseo.
The Plaza is designed with characteristic low-rise buildings with Spanish architectural theme, adorned with works of art, sculpture, fountains and flowers that beautify the streetscape (sidewalks and public spaces). The Plaza comprises of:
1. Country Club Plaza- developed by the J.C. Nichols Company and consists of restaurants, hotels, offices, retail stores and boutiques.
2. Cultural District- which consists of Nelson Atkins Museum, Art Institute, University of Missouri, and Rockhurst College.
The design concepts that were envisioned by J.C. Nichols and other founding fathers of the Plaza since the 1920s are still basically valid.  This is perhaps why any changes in zoning (the Plaza Plan) purely to accommodate Highwood/Polsinelli-Shugart office building will mark a serious departure from not only good ‘law’ but also a tradition of good planning practice.
The Plaza Plan was originally approved in 1989 by the City Council and reaffirmed in 1995. The purposes of the Plaza Plan, among other things are:
1. To maintain the quality and unique characteristics of the Plaza area.
2. To ensure all new developments are compatible with its existing design features.
3. To conserve and preserve the amenities of the Plaza while accommodating growth and change.
The design characteristics of the Plaza include the following:
1. Low-rise (2-3 storey) bell-towered buildings with similar architectural style and materials.
2. Continuity of shops and restaurants along sidewalks.
3. Display windows and entrances to buildings facing sidewalks to create an active place for window shopping.
4. Inter-connected sidewalks decorated with fountains, flowers, sculpture and other works of art
5. Buildings are adjacent to the sidewalks and facing one another to create a sense of enclosure.

PRESENTATION OF FACTS:

Highwoods, a commercial property management firm proposes to construct a mammoth office building of nearly 205,000 square feet, seven to ten storeys in the area of the Plaza that is zoned District R-5 disallowing general office uses.  This Behemoth of a building-which will require the demolition of the Neptune Condominium and the historic Balcony building-, is to be leased to a law firm, Polsinelli/Shugart LLP. Both the Westport Area Plan and the Plaza Plan recommends only multi-family and retail uses for this area of the Plaza.
Highwoods subsequently petitions the City Council to review and change the zoning to allow its construction project to go through.
The City Council is poised to adopt and grant a zoning change to allow the project to proceed, despite widespread public opposition. The Kansas City Star (newspaper) which is essentially the advertising agent for Highwoods is also in support of the planned construction.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE HIGHWOOD/POLSINELLI-SHUGART BUILDING:

The impact of the project in relation to the Plaza Plan includes the following:
1. Traffic –this building will complicate the movement of traffic in and out of the Plaza area and will require severe modification to Broadway and 47th street.
2. Parking-the project will reduce private off-street parking spaces from 599 to only 46 unrestricted spaces to other Plaza customers.
3. Winter shadowing- a large swath of Broadway will be cut off from the sunlight by this giant building therefore making it harder to clear ice and snow during winter.
4. The Bowl Concept is violated.
5. Height- conservatively measured at seven storeys, but may actually be up to ten storeys, is way beyond the recommended height for this area.
6. Massing- the building has a monolithic form thereby violating the architectural features recommended for this area.
7. Setback-violates the existing building/sidewalk relationship.
8. Pedestrianization- not easily accessible to pedestrians.
9. Property values- the building will obviously affect property values negatively in this area.

PLANNING THEORY: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Both the Plaza Plan and the Westport Area Plan are comprehensive plans. They have long-range comprehensive goals sweeping across wide ranging development and
environmental issues over a long-term period. The Plaza Plan for example has been approved over 20 years ago and is still the official binding document that guides the development of the Kansas City Plaza with regards to transportation (traffic), housing, business (shopping) and more.
Comprehensive planning, as put forward by Alan Altshuler, requires understanding of the overall goals of the community. In this regard, it could be argued that the City Council’s unitary decision (as contained in the “Staff Report”) in favor of Highwood/Polsinelli-Shugart in this epic controversy is not based on an understanding of the goals of the community. Therefore, Professor Altshuler may have had a point by arguing that “City Planners may have a shallow factual and causal knowledge in public policy than specialist planners”. Consequently, the City Council, without any consultation with specialist or advocacy planning alternatives may have deprived itself of all the facts and thus arrived at a decision that negates public good. This contention is consistent with Banfield’s (1959) characterization of planning as a “rational process of selecting the best means to choose the correct answer”. Peter Marris, notwithstanding, doubts there is any such “right answer”, arguing that the “right answer” is a product of the subjective decision of the decision-making body. The City Council, by using a unitary and arbitrary pro-development decision making process may also have debunked the fine qualities of the “Planning Imagination”  outlined by Leonie Sandercock, namely: political, audacious, creative, and therapeutic.
The benefits of plural plans (Advocacy Planning) as a democratic process as indicated by Paul Davidoff- competitiveness, improvement, and involvement- appears lacking in the City Council’s approach.
Professor Davidoff, himself a consummate attorney and planner decries the unitary, aristocratic, neo-conservative approach pervasive in city planning, and calls for a more contentious, adversarial and pluralistic approach.
The five characteristics of the non-Euclidian planning model-normative, innovative, political, transactive, and social learning-is in agreement with Banfield’s ‘Rational Process’ as well as Davidoff’s pluralistic democratic approach.

CONCLUSION:

Certainly, imposing a 7 to 10 storey mammoth office building in the heart of the Plaza in a flagrant violation of the Plaza Plan, the Westport Plan and all the legal instruments that have been put in place to guide the development and growth of the Plaza, and in the process knocking down the Neptune Condominium and the historic Balcony building, is not going to go down well in Kansas City. The Highwood/Polsinelli-Shugart building is like a new dislocated species in a new ecology; the environmental and economic impact could be severe.
Local businesses, property prices, and the total ‘pedestrian experience’ will be impacted negatively; and interestingly the Polsinelli-Shugart law firm will not create any new employment.

REFERENCES:

1. The Plaza Plan
2. The Westport Plan
3. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning, Paul Davidoff
4. Advocacy Planning as a Bridge…, Peter Marris
5. Why the Rational Paradigm Persists, Dalton
6. Toward a non-Euclidian Mode of Planning, Friedman, J.
7. Towards a Planning Imagination for the 21st century, Sandercock, L.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER AND THE MISSING FORTUNE:

http://observer.gm/africa/gambia/article/lady-arraigned-for-stealing-from-deputy-speakers-house

Honorable Fatou Mbye, the gambia's Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly is mentioned in a lawsuit accusing her domestic worker of stealing nearly a million dalasis in cash and jewelry from her home.
This is a juicy story, and my mouth is already watery with all kinds of questions for the Honorable Speaker. Madam Speaker:

1. Where did you get that kind of money from?
2. Why are you concealing such a large amount of money in your home?
3. Are you involved in money laundering?
4. Are you part of the gang of drug barons in the Gambia?

In general, only criminals; I mean drug dealers, money launderers, and corrupt government officials stash such large cache of cash, precious stones, and other valuables in homes and other unconventional places away from the eyes of financial institutions. The country is hurting and the Gambian people are suffering daily under the burden of the excruciating poverty, while the Deputy Speaker sits on a treasure trove worth millions of dalasis of probable illegal money. This is a character indictment!!!!
Please investigate this woman....
The deputy Speaker, Fatou Mbye should resign immediately or be fired, and investigated by the notorious NDEA (National Drug Enforcement Agency).

EGYPT'S CONFLICT ENTERS NEW PHASE: IS CIVIL WAR INEVITABLE?

The popular uprising in Egypt has entered a new phase. The Thuggish pro-Mubarak (government) militia has entered the stage-riding on horsebacks in a Janjaweed style-clubbing and hacking opposition demonstrators and the media. CNN's Anderson Cooper, for example has been kicked and punched in the face by the pro-Mubarak militia that some described as mercenaries deployed by the embattled Eyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak.
Egypts is at the verge of all out civil war as the two factions openly fight in the streets. Either Mubarak must resign or the opposition protesters must relent by lowering their demands and accept Mubarak's concession that he will not run for re-election...
What do you think?