Re: "The Economic Benefits of Open Space"

[Emery Graham <"egraham"@ci.wilmington.de.us>]

Bob,

I certainly understand your perspective. As a planning practitioner I'd like
to hear your perspective on the value of "collaboration" as a means to
arriving at contemporarily acceptable land use solutions. Specifically I'd
want to know your practical perspective on the balance of the various
collaborators ability to negotiate, evaluate, and reason regarding the
choices, means, and likely outcomes of their decisions.

I happen to come across an article by Sherry Arnstein on Citizen
Participation. Not being from the discipline of "planning," I wasn't
familiar with her work. I'm told that this article is a highly respected
piece of work. What she describes fits very well in the perspectives of
"citizen participation" and the literature of "system power" and "tacit
knowledge." It enlivens Pierre Bourdieu's literature on "social
reproduction;" "habitus and field."

I'd offer these perspectives to you, and those of your discipline,  as you
make your contributions to this debate.

Emery

Robert G. Paterson wrote:

> Another two cents--
>
> Seems like there are some over generalizations here that may be leading
> to disagreements.  For example, what constitutes high density is
> debatable--one person's high (29 du/acre for example -- a common current
> apartment complex density at about 3 stories) may be another person's
> "moderate and reasonable density." (and there are mechanisms to keep a
> portion of those units affordable).  As a planner, I have a bias that
> says no one is right here--it depends on the situation in the community
> taking into account a myraid of factors relating to different types of
> "open space" that serve multiple publics and community needs, the
> compatibility/suitability of various lands and adjacent properties
> (remediated or otherwise) for various open space uses (active and
> passive), and a collaborative planning process that allows the various
> "publics" (all affected neighborhoods, environmentalists,
> preservationist, social justice groups etc.,) to have an equal voice in
> the planning and decision making.  Open space planning (all types) is an
> integral an early part of the "community planning process."
>
> For example, in the nieghborhood planning for the Montopolis Community
> that we completed here in Austin, we have an illegal dump that looks
> like it will one day be cleaned up and capped and then used as a race
> track that meets the community's desires (Montopolis is a moderate, to
> lower income ethnically diverse neighborhood).  The land use study that
> came up with that recommendation was inclusive as can be--using a
> neighborhood survey (to see what is important from the entire
> neighborhood perspective, not just the active residents), multiple focus
> groups (with children, residents, and property owners) and an intense
> one-day planning charrette, followed up with draft plan review sessions
> and then subsequent modifications to fit neighborhood needs.
>
> As the EPA's new Sustainability guide to brownfileds suggests
> "collaborative planning" for an area is key to successful brownfield
> redevelopment that is successful, respectful, and responsive to multiple
> community needs. Unfortunately, in too many communities, we don't have
> "genuine" participatory planning, and as such, we have conflicts flare
> up where collaborative effort might have found creative solutions.  As
> an academic and a experienced planner with 15 years experience, I can
> say with some certainty that the "seeds" of conflict are manifest in
> just about every development project (whether brownfields or
> not--probably more so for brownfields). The question is whether you
> anticipated it and seek to channel and solve problems jointly through
> planning or try to deal with the aftermath when mistrust and hostility
> are at their peak?
>
> We should seek to create planning processes that are fair, open and
> truthful -- and be on guard for manipulative or symbolic "public
> involvement" that is all too common these days.
>
> Okay, enough said...
>
> Bob Paterson
> University of Texas at Austin