The realm of urban planning is
particularly contentious. Because the urban environment
affects us in such a personal way – it defines how
we live, who we are and what we do – debate
regarding its development and form is highly volatile and
always politicized. Just about everybody has a stake in
how the built environment should look and as such there
is no shortage of opinions as to how the urban
environment should be designed and developed. On one side
of the debate are those who believe that the current
paradigm of urbanism in America – with its suburban
sprawl and its automobile dependency – is wasteful
and destructive and leads to a poor quality of life. This
faction would like to see the typical city's ever-outward
pattern of growth come to an end in favor of development
at a denser, more pedestrian-friendly and more
aesthetically pleasing scale; they oftentimes champion
increased regulation, expanded public transportation and
new ideals such as “Smart Growth” or “New
Urbanism” as means to this end. On the other end of
the debate are those who believe that there is nothing
wrong with the way our cities are built today: the
sprawling suburbs and the prevalance of the automobile
are simply the result of consumer preference and economic
growth. This faction sees concepts such as “Smart
Growth” or “New Urbanism” to be little
more than futile and unnecessary exercises in social
engineering. They are generally opposed to expanded
public transportation (especially rail) and oftentimes consider the
entire profession of urban planning, as well as
planning-related regulations such as zoning ordinances,
urban design guidelines, growth boundaries or
environmental restrictions, to be unnecessary and
obstructive government interference. Some even liken
planning to socialism.
Of course, this is nothing more than rhetoric. If there
is one thing I have learned about urban planning, it is
that the imposition of “socialist” ideals is
very difficult, if not impossible, to impose on urban
development that in the United States is deeply rooted in
free market capitalism. Virtually all urban development -
from the turn-of-the-century downtown to the 1920s
streetcar suburb to the post-World War II master-planned
suburb to the 120,000 square foot Wal-Mart of the 1990s -
is a result of the market. Even the "New
Urbanism" movement is in fact market-driven; places
like Seaside and Celebration and Kentlands would never be
built if there weren’t a demand for that type of
community. The fact is that urban development in the
United States has been, is and always will be directed by
for-profit forces, even in spite of land use controls
such as zoning or urban design guidelines.
It is, on the other hand, true that land use regulations can be overly onerous and discourage development. Sometimes communities that do not wish to "grow" write their development regulations with this very purpose in mind. In other cases, however, well-meaning community leaders who strive for a higher standard of development within their city or town can inadverently run business off with unduly harsh regulations or a slow and cumbersome review process. The trick is to find a happy medium between the desire for a community to grow and prosper and the need for a community to maintain its efficiency and quality of life. In my experience, if one side is accusing you of being "anti-neighborhood" or "pro-growth," and the other side is accusing you of being "anti-business" or "anti-growth," then your community's land use regulations are probably about where they need to be.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are very few "rights" or "wrongs" in a field as diverse as urban planning. Urban development is a reflection of oftentimes ethereal forces such as politics, the market and personal preference, and as a result there are very few absolutes to be found. This is why it is important to be wary of claims made by both sides of any debate regarding the urban form; look past the rhetoric of one side or another, because the truth is quite often somewhere in between.