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 21st 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 21st 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 21st 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)
No comments:
Post a Comment