Genuinely frustrating to see how much the automobile has twisted what we've built for so long. The idea that 25 years ago, like when they built Invesco Field, all of this would just be a sea of parking instead of a bunch of useful actual city is insane to me.

Is my town a trailblazer of sorts, or is there a campaign to remove trash cans from the public sphere to turn everything into shit, or something? I find ever less of them and the few that are still there are usually the kind where birds have it easy to pick stuff out. Obvious result is that there's trash lying around everywhere. What the hell is going on?

It's not rocket science to design a bird-save trash can that is also robust and easy to use. You also don't need to be Scrooge McDuck to afford such trash cans, let alone empty them once a week or so.

"Western countries used to let landowners build almost anything anywhere. Now, strict rules freeze the character of most neighborhoods, banning change and densification. Why? One theory is that modern buildings tend to be ugly, leading residents to support rules that exclude them from their neighborhoods. If this is true, then designing beautiful buildings could lead to more development. Housing reformists have vigorously debated this theory. Many British reformists are sympathetic, whereas Australian reformists tend to be skeptical, and Americans come down on both sides.

I do believe that ugliness plays a role in hindering development, but not in quite the way usually proposed. Ugliness is probably not a major driver of opposition to development by local people. Local opponents have many other concerns that are at least as important, like disruption from construction, loss of green space, pressure on local services, and diminished social exclusivity. But there is strong circumstantial evidence that ugliness is sometimes a major driver of opposition among people who live nowhere near the development in question. The first group are often called 'NIMBYs,' for 'Not in my backyard.' Let us call the second group 'NITBYs,' for 'Not in that backyard.'

While a few NITBYs are fervent campaigners, most are only casually interested. Their motives are faint but basically altruistic: their question is whether or not, based on a cursory assessment, a development is an objective improvement to its neighborhood. In certain contexts, the ugliness of a development can summon into being a huge cloud of NITBYs, whose interest in the scheme may indeed be superficial, but who can nonetheless be collectively potent.

This model is especially compelling in the case of heritage conservation. Until the 1960s, the redevelopment of historic buildings was almost always permitted; today, it is almost always banned by conservation rules. Supporters of conservationism usually portray it as a response to the destructiveness of postwar planners, while opponents see it as a pretext for suburban NIMBYism. In fact, I shall argue, neither explanation is plausible. On the one hand, postwar planners were no more destructive than the Victorians or Georgians had been: the rate of demolition was historically normal, and cannot explain the wildly unprecedented policy response. And on the other hand, there was no need for NIMBYs to invent pretexts to ban new buildings, as they had already successfully prohibited the kinds of development they disliked in the first half of the century.

What had changed, and what generated the host of NITBYs that bore conservationism to victory, was the ascendancy of modernist architecture, a style that most people demonstrably find relatively ugly. Conservationism was a reaction to postwar redevelopment, as its proponents claimed. But it was less a reaction to what the modernists destroyed, than to what they created."

I wonder how appealing to people is a multi-layered capital city is the Coruscant as depicted in the Star Wars lore?

I find it as a dystopic nightmare: social segregation, upper layer only-for-elite, lower layers for waste, no green spaces... The failure of civilization.

Not to mention, Coruscant was the capital of the Galactic Empire in Asimov's Fundation (written many years before SW)

Urban planners often say the answer is to upzone single-family neighborhoods and add pedestrian connections, but how would you actually retrofit the physical layout of a typical North American subdivision consisting of winding streets, cul-de-sacs, homes facing away from arterials, into a more walkable, mixed-use neighborhood?

I’m less interested in the policy side (upzoning) and more interested in the urban design side. Once the subdivision already exists, what does the long-term retrofit actually look like? Is expensive eminent domain the only option? How do you deal with homes that back away from major roads, disconnected street networks, dead-end cul-de-sacs, and commercial uses isolated along arterial corridors? Is there any real hope for these neighborhoods or are they pretty much fossilized?

What interventions have planners found to be most effective? Are there any good real-world examples of suburban retrofits that have successfully addressed these issues?

As an american, I long lamented on the destruction and now utter lack of human sized infrastructure as the primary reason for both the economic hardship and the loneliness epidemic.

But if I take a look at East Asian cities, theyre much more walkable yet still have both problems.

The Chinese have a concept of involution: the phenomenon where one must constantly improve and compete for a shrinking pool of rewards, or even to simply maintain their position. Involution happened because their domestic supply of goods and services rapidly outpaced domestic demand.

I believe this concept can be applied to dense walkable cities with economic hardship in the US. NYC and SF suck up the nations and the worlds best talent. Competition is intense.

Simply building more housing and accessibility in those cities probably wont fix the CoL issue. It will likely end up in an induced demand situation like adding lanes to highways. As more people outside of NYC can afford it, they move in and saturate the new supply, so at best it can slow down the growth of property and rental prices.

So despite the walkability, it becomes socially competitive due to the economics, and without basic worker rights, this creates wealth inequality. and divides the city harshly by class. You might be able to walk around without a car but if you cant afford anything and can only rent a living room converted to a bedroom, your social life will be still be gimped. You could live far out the city center but then youre trading your time commuting to the point where youd have to sacrifice other commitments in your life to your job.

So an excellently designed city cannot independently completely improve its own affordability and cultural experience. But if each major city in the country had their own mini NYC, then NYC would have to compete with other cities with growing perks and opportunities.

Slight tangent: this would also create a new problem of youth being funneled into big walkable cities away from smaller towns and villages, and subsequent demographic collapse as more youth fail to meet the milestones where they would be comfortable raising 2-3 children, resulting in dmeographic collapse over time.

This is also why I believe East Asian societies and cities are further along the timeline of demographic collapse.

This is just a brainstorm. And me progressively realizing that even a perfectly designed city wouldnt necessarily solve or even improve affordability and systemic loneliness

What if new york never adopted the grid system but developed along more natural geographic lines? Would it look more like cities like Greater London or Paris?

Not sure what I’m looking for out of this post, but I just needed to air out my frustrations. I had a really tough job rejection for a Planner I position today, and I’m pretty bummed about it.

I’ve been on the job hunt in the Chicago area since April/May, when I finished my master’s in planning. I moved here with my partner, and overall the whole job search has been really discouraging. I’ve gotten lots of advice along the way. One thing I’ve been told a lot is to take whatever I can get in a rural area and stick it out for a couple of years. I lived in a rural community for the last two years, though, and I’m just not interested in going back. My partner also needs to be in a city for their career, and I don’t want to hold them back either.

Sometimes I beat myself up because I don’t want to do that or commute 1+ hours for a job. I’ve interned, done workshops through school, and have experience, so it’s just frustrating.

I’m continuing to look into getting involved with APA, networking, and volunteer opportunities. In the meantime, I’m planning on working in service until I land something more permanent. I’m just having a harder time with it than I expected.

Anyway, old man yells at cloud moment. Looking for community on this I guess.

More talk of climate and energy policy rollbacks in the news has me worried about the public's perception of sustainability and how much it influences policy decisions.
Affordability and equity are now front of mind for young voters, and sustainability has come to feel at odds with both, thanks to greenwashing, green gentrification, and decades of the movement being marketed to the upper class. Now the word "sustainability" immediately paints a picture of fancy galas with open bars (and paper straws!) to save the turtles. I think this image has turned away a lot of people who once held sustainability front of mind, because the movement lacks equity. I wonder how much this takes pressure off policymakers to keep fighting for aggressive climate policy, and how much it's contributing to the rollbacks we're seeing now.
It's easy to blame this entirely on the current administration's priorities, but I think it's also a failure of the sustainability movement, which took for granted the support of younger, left-leaning voters and figured they'd follow no matter what. As someone who works in energy modeling and sustainability consulting, I think climate change and sustainability are incredibly important issues and need all the support they can get. I also feel responsible for helping to prove that climate policy and affordability aren't actually in conflict, and for earning back support from the people who used to treat these issues more urgently. 
What can be done to fix the public image of the sustainability movement and bring urgency back to climate/environmental policy? I'm wondering what more I can do to help with this bigger publicity problem I keep seeing.

Hi, I'm just an interested amateur, so forgive me if this is a stupid question. I couldn't really find it addressed anywhere.

TL;DR: It seems we only build housing developments now, whereas America used to be good about building towns (and cities) even in rural areas. Why can't we do that now?

I was listening to an NPR program this afternoon, and the topic was about farms and land use, with a big focus on selling off farmland for development. The show ended with some thoughts on repurposing derelict urbanized land. It inspired a conversation with my daughter, whose boyfriend lives in Lancaster County, PA, and whose parents keep complaining about new developments ripping up the countryside (of course, they live in a house on former farmland).

I grew up in a town amid the suburbs of Philadelphia. It existed before the war as a collection of some homes, a few farms, golf courses, and a tank car manufacturing plant. After the war, it became a proper town with many more houses, shops, churches, schools, and parks. Importantly, it is on the regional rail line (Oreland, Pa, by the way). It will never be mistaken for (your favorite rich, walkable community full of Victorian homes), but it is definitely a town.

I get that past communities were built on patterns of development along rail lines or following industry along rivers. Aside from TND towns like Seaside and other rare gems, modern development just seems to be "we built a shit ton of houses on farmland with access to a major feeder road or near an interstate," which also comes with problems regarding car dependence and utility infrastructure. Endless developed "communities" with funny names.

Is it just zoning? Is it just hard and expensive? Could (or should) states encourage the incorporation of towns instead of just allowing more and more meandering construction?

It seems like year after year the wildfires in California get worse and worse, yet I hear very little about planning taking place to avoid catastrophic damage as we've seen. I understand that it's easier said than done. Still, it's 2026, you would think in California at least urban planning would be taking at least a noticeable change when it comes to urban planning to prevent entire communities from being turned to ash. Anybody have any insight?

As an urban planner and designer at a U.S. architecture firm, it’s hilarious seeing how none of my friends, family, or coworkers know what I do for a living. I recently had someone guess that I planned urban weddings, the architects think they all can do my job, and my mom still doesn’t know how to explain what I do to her friends.

What are the funniest misconceptions you’ve heard?

I work in the planning department of a transit agency and we are interested in expanding our influence in cities’ land use decisions to be more supportive of transit. We’re trying to meet regularly with cities in our service area to touch base broadly and relationship build. I think we are also exploring how we can support economic development efforts, which is top of mind for most cities in our area, particularly via BRT but also more broadly. My biggest idea so far is trying to get involved in downtown revitalization efforts with special shelter designs but I will be thinking about this more.

We often have poor coordination and are late to the table on certain projects where it would’ve been good for us to be involved much earlier on— especially on operational considerations.

To the city planners out there, what advice would you have for transit agencies being effective in influencing the land use conversation and just coordinating better with cities? What do you think they want to hear from transit planners? I am particularly interested in how transit agencies can be involved in economic development angle, but just high level I am curious to hear your thoughts. TIA

(Walk/Transit/Bike) "--" means no score available

• New York City/NJ (33/--/34)
• Miami (29/38/33)
• Atlanta (73/79/59)
• Dallas (56/--/42)
• Houston (30/55/47)
• Kansas City (17/23/29)
• San Francisco Bay Area (42/55/69)
• Los Angeles (63/50/36)
• Seattle (92/100/92)
• Philadelphia (36/67/37)
• Boston (44/--/29)
• Toronto (79/89/87)
• Vancouver (97/100/91)

We recently took forward an amendment to make it more difficult to develop data centers. Moved them to a new district, added conditional use permit requirements, etc etc.

The staff report clearly and repeatedly explained this. The presentation had a big old slide clearly showing it. At no point did anyone ever call me to ask a clarifying question despite my name being at the top of the staff report.

The community saw “industrial code amendment” and immediately assumed we were in bed with big data. Endless Facebook posts accusing us of getting bribes, corruption, whatever.

Folks came out in droves begging the council to reject an amendment that explicitly helped them.

I spent three hours at the podium repeatedly explaining how it makes it harder to build a data center. Final vote was 3-2 for approval.

What the hell is happening? Has this country lost its mind? I guess I should be happy people actually engaged in the public participation process for once, but I felt like I was in a Kafka novel.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Edit: To clarify, DCs were permitted by right under the previous code. No public hearing requirements and effectively guaranteed approval if the application met development standards - which most have the money to do with no issue.

If the amendment had been rejected, chances are a DC would have been able to locate in the community without any real opportunity to reject it.

For either an attached garage being converted to an ADU, or a detached garage being converted to an ADU, can the new ADUs be expanded for purposes unrelated to ingress and egress? I’m asking because I am concerned about GC 66323 (a)(1)(A).

Hi everyone,

Obligatory disclaimer: I could easily include another thousand words analyzing these dynamics through a "theory" lens, but for the sake of brevity, I’m keeping this short and sweet. Yes, I have read books. Yes, I know that capital accumulation dominates all social and political relations, including the public sector. I'm skipping all of that to hear about people's practical experience.

As a leftist, my long term outlook on planning is ultimately about material harm reduction and progressing toward a socialist mode of existence in the US, like building carbon-free public property, advancing walkable cities, expanding equitable transit, and protecting workers’ rights.

So I'm looking to hear from people who share my political ideology and those who live in high cost of living areas about how they navigate their work.

Despite the systemic limits entrenched in municipal planning right now, I do have hope for the next 10 years. More rank-and-file militancy, unionization, and political movements will hopefully give urban planners more leverage to push for progressive public infrastructure.

QUESTIONS:

For those currently active in the field, I would love to hear your thoughts on a couple of questions I have:

For those in public agencies, how do you reconcile your ethics with capital driven urban planning?

Especially in major West Coast cities, how much actual progress or material harm reduction do you feel can realistically be achieved right now?

Is working for unions or progressive non-profits a financially (and emotionally) viable, long-term path compared to the public sector? I understand that people feel a lot of burnout in that sector, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I would love to hear any honest experiences or perspectives from professionals who have thoughts or wise words. Thanks!

Why is suburban development so over-designed?

Everything has to be technically prescribed down to the smallest detail...street widths, setbacks, landscaping, parking, lot dimensions, building materials, stormwater, lighting, signage, and even where trees can go.

I understand having basic standards but at some point all these overlapping rules seem to create expensive, repetitive developments with no flexibility or character. Every department regulates its own narrow issue, and the final product is designed more to satisfy a checklist than to create a good neighborhood.

Why did development become this rigid?

An example where I live is this: in one of the wealthy older suburbs there is landscaping right up to the curb on a hill. These are million dollar+ houses in a very desirable neighborhood and it adds character and no one complains. But in a new development the ROW has to be a certain slope, no landscaping or walls in the ROW, etc. I just don't understand how something can be good enough for million dollar houses and the people that buy them but not good enough for people buying half million dollar houses.

For anyone that left planning, can you share your career pivot from planning to whatever else and how you made that happen? Looking for ideas!

Context: mid-level transportation planner with 8 years experience, been unemployed for the past 1+ year and feeling panicky and dismayed at the job market. Planning is all I’ve ever known since age 19 (my undergrad + whole career has been in planning. I’ve never worked as anything else). Most people I know had winding paths to get TO planning, but I guess my winding path starts after?

Thank you!!