FWIW, I think planners can claim Chuck Marohn. And when I think about it, we do have some intellectual prowess on the "inside": Jeff Speck, Brent Toderian, Jarrett Walker, Tom Campanella, and Joe Minicozzi to name a few. Campanella in particular has a great essay in Places Journal on what he calls the "Jacobsian turn" in planning.
I also have many more people—less well-known but personally influential—whom I’ve had the pleasure of working with. I still agree with your larger point but it's worth acknowledging it's not all bad.
Chuck and I have an eerily similar origin story, starting out doing traffic impact analysis and then eventually going the AICP route. Speck's background is architecture. Jarrett was/is a transit operations specialist. Minicozzi studied architecture & urban design. Brent might be the outlier since he studied planning in Canada and went on to work as a local gov planner.
I wholeheartedly agree that many who went the AICP route are doing great work. My point is that it's in spite of the AICP Universe rather than because of it. APA doesn't nurture people who are explaining all the ways that Planning Inc. is failing us or working against human flourishing.
This critique is valid; there are plenty of planners, including those with whom I share the AICP credential, whose approach to the built environment would be described as “lawful neutral” or “lawful evil” on one of those 9-box meme graphics. Orderly, following rules, but not in service of the most desirable outcomes that folks like Jan Gehl and William Holly Whyte identified.
But every time I read a piece like this that ignores the political environment in which planning in the US takes place, this discussion feels half-baked at best.
In most US cities and towns, “Planning Inc” is composed of “recommenders” and city and town councils are the “deciders” for land use and zoning issues.
The most bold and forward-thinking planning director with the best support staff in the US is only as effective as the understanding of the issues of the median swing vote council member on their Council, who may be uninformed at best or actively hostile to best practices due to narrow perspective, limited experience, or xenophobia towards the potential residents of new development.
It’s completely fair to criticize the Planning Inc profession. But our planners are not modern-day Robert Moses characters running roughshod over everyone with their raw power. They are actors largely constrained by publicly elected non-experts.
A more complete discussion of this issue will assign appropriate ownership of these issues to the “deciders” as well as the Planning Inc “recommenders.” That ownership varies in each community. Knowing where the balance of power lies in each makes finding the way forward easier, and makes facing the problems more straightforward.
One of the worst aspects of Planning Inc. is that professionals DO function as Robert Moses clones in that they prop up car dependency.
Separating land uses, building setbacks, restricting land uses, requiring minimal traffic delays, mandating parking, propping up NIMBY public process against bike lanes, blocking density on transit corridors, etc. etc.
They aren't learning from the people they claim did the best work.
Loved this! I just finished Death and Life of Great American Cities. I particularly enjoyed Jacobs’ note on Illustrations at the beginning, where she said, “The scenes that illustrate this book are all about us. For illustrations, please look closely at real cities. While you are looking, you might as well also listen, linger and think about what you see.” Echoes exactly what you pointed out, that the most celebrated urbanism professionals were often just the most clear eyed observers.
Powerful articel on the outsider paradox. What stands out is how Planning Inc. celebrates these heroes in retrospect but actively resisted them in real time. Jane Jacobs wasn't just ignored, she was activley fought by planners defending urban renewal. The pattern suggests the field's gatekeeping function might be more about protecting turf than advancing good urbanism. If Shoup pitched parking reform at an APA conference today without his econ credentials, would he even get a hearing?
Thanks so much for this article. I found my way into planning (my undergraduate degree is in business), and it wasn't until I was well on the way into my career that I picked up a planning adjacent degree (sustainable urban development).
As I've made my way through this space, I've become increasingly grateful for my nontraditional path into the field for the perspective it provides. Lately, in describing myself, I've tended to avoid "urban planner," instead opting for "urban practitioner," since so much of what makes for vibrant places is emergent. I see my job as facilitating the conditions, for life to flourish, which feels much less path dependent than planning suggests.
Great piece Andy! A working theory: The NIMBY nature of local politics self selects for people who are fine with bureaucratic processes, not building anything, etc. Process over outcomes becomes mantra, so the outcomes are consistently mediocre, even when very smart and talented and well meaning people work for Planning Inc
Recent economic working paper estimates federal “planning assistance caused municipalities to build 20% fewer housing units per decade over the 50 years that followed” from the 1960s. By no means definitive but shocking if even remotely true
I appreciate and agree with the spirit of celebrating “anti-planning heretics,” outside perspectives as heros across sectors… but the framing feels a bit too binary. Planning has never been a rigid guild in the way medicine or law became. Even since its early professionalization in the early 20th century, the field has always been interdisciplinary: engineers, architects, artists, social scientists, ecologists, public-health reformers, designers and community organizers all shape it.
So yes, challengers from the outside shake loose stagnation- and there is a big boring block of it, absolutely! But established planners are also doing great work and the field has always been a composite of disciplines. Thank you for your piece.
FWIW, I think planners can claim Chuck Marohn. And when I think about it, we do have some intellectual prowess on the "inside": Jeff Speck, Brent Toderian, Jarrett Walker, Tom Campanella, and Joe Minicozzi to name a few. Campanella in particular has a great essay in Places Journal on what he calls the "Jacobsian turn" in planning.
I also have many more people—less well-known but personally influential—whom I’ve had the pleasure of working with. I still agree with your larger point but it's worth acknowledging it's not all bad.
Chuck and I have an eerily similar origin story, starting out doing traffic impact analysis and then eventually going the AICP route. Speck's background is architecture. Jarrett was/is a transit operations specialist. Minicozzi studied architecture & urban design. Brent might be the outlier since he studied planning in Canada and went on to work as a local gov planner.
I wholeheartedly agree that many who went the AICP route are doing great work. My point is that it's in spite of the AICP Universe rather than because of it. APA doesn't nurture people who are explaining all the ways that Planning Inc. is failing us or working against human flourishing.
This critique is valid; there are plenty of planners, including those with whom I share the AICP credential, whose approach to the built environment would be described as “lawful neutral” or “lawful evil” on one of those 9-box meme graphics. Orderly, following rules, but not in service of the most desirable outcomes that folks like Jan Gehl and William Holly Whyte identified.
But every time I read a piece like this that ignores the political environment in which planning in the US takes place, this discussion feels half-baked at best.
In most US cities and towns, “Planning Inc” is composed of “recommenders” and city and town councils are the “deciders” for land use and zoning issues.
The most bold and forward-thinking planning director with the best support staff in the US is only as effective as the understanding of the issues of the median swing vote council member on their Council, who may be uninformed at best or actively hostile to best practices due to narrow perspective, limited experience, or xenophobia towards the potential residents of new development.
It’s completely fair to criticize the Planning Inc profession. But our planners are not modern-day Robert Moses characters running roughshod over everyone with their raw power. They are actors largely constrained by publicly elected non-experts.
A more complete discussion of this issue will assign appropriate ownership of these issues to the “deciders” as well as the Planning Inc “recommenders.” That ownership varies in each community. Knowing where the balance of power lies in each makes finding the way forward easier, and makes facing the problems more straightforward.
One of the worst aspects of Planning Inc. is that professionals DO function as Robert Moses clones in that they prop up car dependency.
Separating land uses, building setbacks, restricting land uses, requiring minimal traffic delays, mandating parking, propping up NIMBY public process against bike lanes, blocking density on transit corridors, etc. etc.
They aren't learning from the people they claim did the best work.
Loved this! I just finished Death and Life of Great American Cities. I particularly enjoyed Jacobs’ note on Illustrations at the beginning, where she said, “The scenes that illustrate this book are all about us. For illustrations, please look closely at real cities. While you are looking, you might as well also listen, linger and think about what you see.” Echoes exactly what you pointed out, that the most celebrated urbanism professionals were often just the most clear eyed observers.
It took me so long to read it the first time because I kept stopping to write quotes like that one!
Powerful articel on the outsider paradox. What stands out is how Planning Inc. celebrates these heroes in retrospect but actively resisted them in real time. Jane Jacobs wasn't just ignored, she was activley fought by planners defending urban renewal. The pattern suggests the field's gatekeeping function might be more about protecting turf than advancing good urbanism. If Shoup pitched parking reform at an APA conference today without his econ credentials, would he even get a hearing?
Exactly! So much of what the heroes pitched was "because planning does this bad thing, what if we ___."
Thanks so much for this article. I found my way into planning (my undergraduate degree is in business), and it wasn't until I was well on the way into my career that I picked up a planning adjacent degree (sustainable urban development).
As I've made my way through this space, I've become increasingly grateful for my nontraditional path into the field for the perspective it provides. Lately, in describing myself, I've tended to avoid "urban planner," instead opting for "urban practitioner," since so much of what makes for vibrant places is emergent. I see my job as facilitating the conditions, for life to flourish, which feels much less path dependent than planning suggests.
Keep up the great writing!
I like that approach of focusing on being a doer.
Great piece Andy! A working theory: The NIMBY nature of local politics self selects for people who are fine with bureaucratic processes, not building anything, etc. Process over outcomes becomes mantra, so the outcomes are consistently mediocre, even when very smart and talented and well meaning people work for Planning Inc
Recent economic working paper estimates federal “planning assistance caused municipalities to build 20% fewer housing units per decade over the 50 years that followed” from the 1960s. By no means definitive but shocking if even remotely true
https://www.tom-cui.com/assets/pdfs/BresslerCui_701_draft.pdf
Process over outcomes for sure!
Very good article that articulates what everyone with a livable cities mindset is forever frustrated about.
I appreciate and agree with the spirit of celebrating “anti-planning heretics,” outside perspectives as heros across sectors… but the framing feels a bit too binary. Planning has never been a rigid guild in the way medicine or law became. Even since its early professionalization in the early 20th century, the field has always been interdisciplinary: engineers, architects, artists, social scientists, ecologists, public-health reformers, designers and community organizers all shape it.
So yes, challengers from the outside shake loose stagnation- and there is a big boring block of it, absolutely! But established planners are also doing great work and the field has always been a composite of disciplines. Thank you for your piece.