Compose Plans Like Artisans
Know Your Final Product
The “Plan of Chicago” by Daniel Burnham and Edward Bennett was more than just a planning document, it was a literary composition. Not too many planning documents ever reach that level of recognition. Most plans become some form of hard copy or digital document but do not often attain recognized beyond their pragmatic value. Planners should treat plans as more of an aesthetic and literary challenge in which the exercise of talent and skill is essential.
A planner, skilled in one process, who uses it over and over, is often criticized as wielding “a hammer looking for nails”. Planning texts are replete with technical methods in search of problems. I even wrote a book entitled “Presenting Statistics” which defined over 100 different ways of organizing data for decision-making, schedules, budgets, and related planning variables. A need for critical thinking, however, underlies the use of these tools and techniques. The first step is knowing which types of planning tools will become part of the final product and to use those tools like true artisans.
1. Tools that describe conditions
These tools rely heavily on graphics of existing conditions – photographs, aerial maps, tables regarding demographics and history of the key places. The knowledge that is communicated should be relevant directly to the proposed solutions (i.e., visualizations) to be achieved and the process of implementation.
2. Tools that evaluate visualizations
These tools depict the content of the visualizations and how those solutions might evolve. Communication tools might compare the value of the visualizations amongst different groups and goals. The visualizations might address the content of solutions for the different neighborhoods and districts, their future expected value, and the impact on the surrounding content.
3. Tools that prescribe implementation
Finally, planners need tools that show how to implement the selected visualizations – moving from the current situation to the future achievement. These types of tools often depict plans for resources, scheduling and phasing, financing arrangements and the needs for coordination among multiple parties.
All of these images come from design competitions in which were conducted with professional jurors seeking the best ideas from good designers. Each competition contained strict rules, presented a detailed statement of goals and constraints, and prescribed the material and concepts that competitors had to present. The projects which were the basis for the competition all included critical planning goals and outcomes. This includes competitions for: Pittsburgh’s convention center, a city of the future for Milwaukee, new multifamily housing for Seattle, a memorial for Astronauts who died in the line of duty, a new town and courthouse near Williamsburg, and a redesigned Peachtree Street in preparation for the Olympics in Atlanta.. In all cases, the process and outcomes produced concepts based on high level talent and skill.
Play Tools Like Instruments
Planners can think of their tools the way musical composers think of instruments. That is, more than one instrument may be needed and it is the combined composition, and the place of each tool in forming that composition, that matters more than the individual merits of each tool. If the process you have used creates an achievable visualization then you have to compose a way to communicate it effectively using the tools at hand – the instruments of planning. All of the following “instruments” should be played effectively or, when played ineffectively, just create “planning noise” that obscures meaningful dialogue:
• Statistics
Statistics should be minimized and defined thoughtfully. Too many plans repeat statistics solely to appear knowledgeable. (I say this having begun my instructional career by teaching statistics to planners for close to ten years).
• Narratives
A story line should be succinct and to the point. The story line should represent multiple planning audiences in order to demonstrate how different conditions, for multiple populations, interact within one place.
• Pictures
Pictures, including photographs and photo-realistic images, should show how different issues are combined within one possible outcome. The images should always show the existing context as part of the planning issues. Too many photorealistic pictures from project proponents show only the project (usually with some happy people in the foreground). It should be mandatory to always show how a new proposed project fits into the existing context.
• Diagrams
Diagrams should demonstrate meaningful logical relationships among variables with enough documentation to be more than overly abstract conditions.
• Public presentation
Public presentations, like performances, should appeal directly to the intended audience and communicate ideas intellectually and emotionally. Public presentations can also include walking tours and visits to key places in the context as well as places comparable to the proposed visualizations.
• Maps
Maps must portray a broad range of key variables and should be combined with diagrams, keys and narratives to fully explain their relevance. The way in which maps are drawn and graphically composed is, by itself, the legitimate subject of artistic talent. GIS maps shown with great precision are useful, but so are “tourist” style maps in which the scale and proportion vary along with both two and three dimensional representations of conditions.
• Case Studies
Case studies should be chosen because they represent critical conditions from other places that directly relate to the planning problem
These hand drawn plans – the Midtown neighborhood in Milwaukee and the housing component in that plan called City Homes – have been included in prior comments of these essays. The point here is that the designers who drew (and redrew) these plans devoted considerable skill and talent to communicating critical concepts to multiple audiences of stakeholders, officials, and leaders. These drawings represent a much higher level of artisanship than simple diagrams and photorealistic sketches.
Don’t Play Solos (Or Silos)
If every technique is a different type of instrument, then planners must be the best musicians. Should the planner perform as a one-person band or an orchestra? Most planners, like many musicians, have used their instruments in multiple settings and audiences.
Individual planners and planning teams often play a range of instruments. Like musical instruments, these tools are effective only when conducted with skill and coordination. In most complex planning projects, planners need to use multiple tool sets that have to be played together. Problems arise when the outputs from these different tool’s sets do not fit the composition of the plan, such as:
A market analysis might indicate only a few types of short-term investments that are likely to be successful, an overly fanciful visualization that includes many long-term investments not unlikely to be relevant OR a market analysis can include strategies for implementing new investments
A cost benefit analysis may show very limited benefits to the sponsoring agency compared with a community impact analysis that shows major benefits to underserved populations OR a cost benefit analysis can show how all actions benefit distinct places or groups
A community engagement method may reach a widespread group of existing businesses compared to an analysis that only indicates new businesses to be sought after OR a community engagement method can show outcomes that are mutually supportive amongst new and existing businesses
A due diligence analysis may uncover major environmental problems compared to a socioeconomic analysis that uncovers major cultural problems OR a due diligence analysis can include cultural as well as physical variables
A historic preservation analysis can reveal buildings to be saved compared to an analysis of the urban character which reveals buildings to be demolished OR a historic preservation analysis can show ways that different building types can be co-located.
If we think of each of the tools sets as a different group of instruments it is easy to see how lack of coordination will produce chaos, conflict and discordance. The key is to use the tool sets so they fit together into a larger composition or in the case of planning projects, the visualization of solutions. Some planners who use these tools on a regular basis may think that modifying the way each tool is used implies a “methodological misuse” of a specific method — the wrong way to use cost/benefit, the wrong way to use market analysis, the wrong way to do due diligence. That is, some planners want to see each tool used in its “purest” fashion. There are no “pure” tools any more than “perfect cities” or “best methods”.
Discover Where “God Is In The Details”
This quote from Ludwig Mies van der Rohe has been etched into the mind of most architects. It was followed, years later, with the opposite but equally accurate quote — “ the devil is in the details” — presumably because too many actions were undertaken without proper concern for details. For planners the difficulty in adhering to these lessons is simply a lack of resources. If we only knew ahead of time which details were most important we could avoid more failures. In my experience the details that count are the operational definitions of the titles and subtitles of the tools and how they are manifest in the document. Tools should be described using everyday language for the variables in our plans. Although professional jargon and “specialized” definition often helps the rhetoric of politics and plan approval it also misleads audiences., especially with regard to details. Here are some frequent examples of the use and misuse of details:
• Details for Density
Planners always map and measure density. As noted earlier the numerator in “density” can be defined in terms of units, people, or households. The denominator can be defined in terms of acres, lots, blocks, parcels or census tracts.
Several years ago we were measuring disposable income in a poor Milwaukee neighborhoods and used the mean disposable income per household as a measure of income that would be relevant to attracting new businesses in a “walkable” area. The mean disposable income came out much lower that a comparable number in a wealthy suburb. The use of the tool led to the conclusion that the wealthy suburb is a better place for a walkable business. Then we decided to redefine income density as “mean disposable income per acre”. The city neighborhood, using this revised definition, easily explained and understood, was much higher.
• Details for SWOT
Many analysts have used the typical table of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) for analysis. It is convenient and easy to list items. Recently, I was a group setting preparing a SWOT table for a large region — one city in the region (i.e., Milwaukee) municipality was listed by some team members as a strength, others as a weakness, some as a threat and sill others as an opportunity. All were correct. So was a SWOT analysis a useful tool? The ensuing debate was not helpful. It could have been but this would have required a more careful definition of SWOT terminology and the overall SWOT table should be interpreted.
Another SWOT detail concerns the use of the term “threat”. In business this word usually implies economic competition and regulation. In planning the word “threat” often implies issues of crime and disasters. Instead, for urban areas the use of the word “challenge” provides a more productive definition. When the word “threat’ is replaced with “challenge” a SWOT analysis yields different answers.
• Details for Cost/Benefit
Cost benefit analysis was defined by analysts as comparing the benefits of a decision with the costs, using monetary units as the measuring stick. A problem quickly emerged when analysts noticed that each action that created a benefit led to another action which might induce further benefits or costs. Similarly, a major cost could easily create another benefit. The simplest example is the cost of a major public works project. The government expenditure is a cost but, for the organization and individuals hired to do the work it is a benefit.
The first level of benefits and cots was defined by the federal government as the “first order”, the next level as the “second order” and so forth. This was a convenience and possible arbitrary decisions – both for analysts and politicians. It was not, however, a rational analytic decision. Unfortunately planning decisions most planners, today, believe that it is a methodological “truth” that such analysis must only include first order outcomes. To go further is methodologically incorrect. In fact, it is not incorrect, only difficult and definitely buried in the details of how planners use their tools.
The point here is that planning decisions should not be judged using first or second order outcomes, but relevant outcomes in the context of the planning project. For example, in many current projects the issue of social and economic justice has been raised as a highly desirable outcome. Is it a “first” or “second” order cost or benefit? Should we simply say that it is a relevant outcome that should be included?
• Details for “Places”
As Associate Dean of my School of Architecture and Urban Planning I was charged with measuring the new square footage for our newly proposed building and, specifically with estimating the net “usable “square footage as compared with the overall gross square footage. At the State level one Building Commissioner overseeing the project objected to the fact that almost 50% of the square footage was not usable and that the plan had to be changed and to produce an efficient net to gross ratio. After all, he argued, the percentage of non-usable square footage in many private office buildings was 25% or less.
We know this was the result of terms defined inappropriately. In the private sector all usable square footage was subject to rent. In the public sector all unusable square footage was actually subject to shared uses that were subjectively used by all parties. To solve this dilemma, as planners, we renamed many of the hallways, open corridors, and shared meeting places as “exhibit” areas. The unusable square footage dropped precipitously, the ratio dropped below 25%, and the project was approved as planned. Was this a success or a failure?
We have all heard the expression “god is in the details” the “the devil is in the details”. For cities, and specially public places, the details can make the difference between a memorable place or simply just a conventional condition we have seen too often – nothing extraordinary. These illustrations show a multitude of different types of details in public places which turn ordinary places into memorable experience that, in turn, make our communities more effective. For me the images all became associated with memorable public places. Left to right, top to bottom these details include: arcade in London, carvings in Oxford; buttresses on the side of a church, an alley/pathway; courtyard corner, passageways, oxford carvings, multiple links between place, a series of opening, an indoor arcade, colorful retail, balconies on apartments, slit building townhomes, street instrument, single street garage doors, signage, hillside architecture, the Pike market pg., and two versions of bicycles.
Always Tailor Your Methods
“We shape our tools and then our tools shape us”
This concept was attributed to Marshall McLuhan but apparently written first by Father John Culkin, SJ. In the example noted previous all of the issues required a change in the details:
Density had to be redefined in terms of disposable income per acre, not per capita
SWOT need to be redefined so that the differences in the four categories were clear
Cost/benefit need to be remeasured in terms relevance to the community, not the overarching bureaucracy
Geographic are had to be recategorized to change the usefulness of different places
These examples clearly demonstrate how planners should reshape their tools so that they measure and evaluate factors that are directly meaningful to the problem (rather than just following conventional prior practice). If we want to reshape our cities and places we must reshape our tools. In most cases it may require no more than changing the definition of some of our key concepts. In some cases however, especially with the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) it may require much greater effort.
Topic Summary
Know Your Final Product
Play Tools Like Instruments
Don’t Play Solos (Or Silos)
Discover Where “God Is In The Details”
Always Tailor Your Methods