Blog 4

Team Blog 4: Dharavi and New York City Bicycle Lanes

October 2, 2019 at 5:33pm by barry.265

Team Blog 4: Planning Theory and Practice

DHARAVI

For those unaware, the Dharavi Slums is a settlement in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, and is considered to be the world’s largest slums. Slums are home to some of the worst living conditions on earth from unsanitary to structionaly unsafe. According to Building a Slum-Free Mumbai, “Nearly one million people live in Dharavi.” Dharavi is a huge housing and planning problem that is affecting a large part of Mumbai’s population. The people living inside of Dharavi have created their own community. The people living in Dharavi are not necessarily poor, actually even most of them are well-educated. Dharavi is the outcome of an even bigger planning/housing shortage problem affecting Mumbai. With not enough housing for the middle/lower class, the people of mumbai are forced to live in the Dharavi slums. Overall Dharavi is a major planning/housing problem affecting a large population of Mumbai’s health and safety.

Due to the social and economic division amongst people living inside and outside the slums, one style of planning that could be effective is a Neutral Public Servant. In this case, a Neutral Public Servant would want to seek the best interests of, not just the Dharavi slums, but also the city of Mumbai. They would use their expertise and knowledge of the area they’re in to guide the people of Dharavi and Mumbai in achieving their goal of having better access to clean, healthy resources for all parts of the community. This includes people from both the slums and the middle/high class part of the city. One disadvantage that could root from this, is that Neutral Public Servants don’t actually tell the community what they should do to resolve the resource problems. The relationship between the people of the slums and the middle/high class citizens is practically segregated. Based off of interviews and research, many citizens outside of the slums reject any sort of interaction with the people living in them. This segregation’s revolved around stereotypes perceived of slum people, such as having a lack of education, being poorly groomed, and likely to steal things. With that in mind, it leaves concern for how well Daharavi will succeed in meeting its goal with such segregated communities. One activity that we’d recommend to settle this tension is to hold meetings where the people of the slums and middle/high class citizens can give their own perspectives on the issue and come to a common ground. This would hopefully help to achieve both sides concerns and set aside their differences in order to help resolve the problem(s) in their community.

Another style of planning that could help come into play for the Dharavi slums is an Advocate. The Dharavi slums, being a settlement in Mumbai with little resources, puts the people living there in a very vulnerable position. An Advocate would represent the group with less resources to try and have their concerns heard. They could also go and advocate for developers and developers to support their side, to give the people in the slums a better platform and to get their voice heard. Even with the advantages of using this planning style, other cons could surface. Advocate’s could lack the critical aspects of planning for the community itself; in other words, they could preach for the minorities voice to be heard but also miss the bigger social and economic forces between Dharavi and Mumbai. Therefore, while an Advocate planner does look to have the people of a community involved and have their opinions heard, they must also appeal to their committee a plan that would help with the actual problem.

NEW YORK CITY: BIKE LANE PROBLEM PLANNING APPROACHES

If you’ve ever been to New YorK City or seen a movie based in New York City, the sidewalks are filled with pedestrians walking in every direction and the streets packed jammed with cars. So, where does that leave the cyclist trying to find a quick, efficient, and safe way of travel through the city. The cyclist are left with the only option of riding in the crowded streets alongside motor vehicles where it can be very dangerous and sometimes fatal. According to The New York Times, “In 2009, 12 cyclist died in crashes. In the years since, the figure has been as high as 24 in 2017 and as low as 10 last year.” There’s an obvious problem as we can see that many people are dying from this every year and not to mention the amount of people that have been severely injured cycling. Planners are working hard to find the best solution to keep cyclists safe on their journeys through the crowded city. In the next several years the streets of New York City will have a safe and efficient way of travel for cyclists.

New York City has become an increasingly pedestrian friendly city with many people choosing to bike to their destination. To keep up with the amount of residents choosing to bike, New York City has started initiatives to fund dedicated bike lanes and paths to make biking safer. One of the planning approaches discussed in class that would work well for creating bike lanes and paths in New York City would be a neutral public servant approach. A neutral public servant approach would be beneficial because a large bike path system would require public input so that it is

able to best serve the diverse community that is impacted by the network of paths and lanes. By guiding the community towards a practical solution, rather than telling the community what they should do, a neutral public servant approach could be useful in guiding the community to come up with a solution that serves the most people, most effectively. The complexity of New York City makes a community driven solution difficult because there are many factors that would affect the efficiency of the paths and lanes. Without expert input, it could be difficult for residents to come up with a plan that would be realistic and work efficiently in the densely populated city. A good activity to encourage community involvement would be to have a series of meetings, where residents can propose what they would like to see included in the bike system plan, and a solution could be met by compromising on a plan that would best impact everyone in the community.

Another approach discussed in class that could be beneficial for designing a network of bike paths and lanes for residents is the consensus builder approach. The consensus builder approach could work well because a series of bike paths and lanes would affect thousands of people in a place like New York City and it would be necessary to take into account many different views and opinions on how best to implement the plan. Using the consensus builder approach would also allow the planner more freedom in creating a plan that is efficient, and would be more effective at reaching a compromise among the various views of the residents. The drawback of the consensus builder approach is that with so many different views and opinions expressed, it could be a challenge to take into account all views, resulting in some residents feeling that their voices are not heard. An activity that would be useful for a consensus builder approach would be to send out a poll asking potentially affected residents what they would like to see included in the proposed bike lanes and paths, and include a section for comments and concerns, and create an updated plan based off of the input of the community.

SOURCES

DHARAVI

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/For-a-better-Mumbai-fix-the-slums-first/article14506153.ece

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/18/best-ideas-redevelop-dharavi-slum-developers-india

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/building-slum-free-mumbai

NEW YORK

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/nyregion/newyorktoday/nyc-news-bicycle-safety.html

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bike-safety-study-fullreport2017.pdf

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bike-safety-plan.pdf

MCM PLANNING – Sewage Waste Systems in Senegal and Columbus

October 2, 2019 at 11:38amOctober 2, 2019 by djigo.6

Sewage system problems in Senegal

Dakar Senegal has a population of roughly 1 million people. The city is very crowded, and it is impossible to build a proper sewage system because so many houses and buildings have already been placed. One of the ways Senegal is tackling this sewage issue is through hiring trucks that pick up poop from houses and take them to be properly disposed of. Due to the capital City of Senegal lacking proper sewage system infrastructure many residents are forced to dump sewage into the streets or doing other non sanitary acts. Most of the people that dump onto the streets can not afford to hire the trucks to pick up the sewage. Wealthy residents are the main ones that use the truck business but are also straying away from the business because drivers will increase the price knowing the homeowner is wealthy.

In 2011 Bill and Melinda Gates started a 200 million dollar initiative called “Reinvent the toilet challenge” which grants universities around the world with funds to research ways in which a toilet can turn waste into a reusable item or water, a waste processing system which works on its own. Millions of kids each year are killed by pneumonia and diarrhea each year because they are exposed to pathogens from human feces. With the 200 million dollar grants, Universities have come up with a lot of great ideas. One of the most innovative toilet stations invented is a solar powered eco-San system that extracts clean water from human waste and uses that water to re-flush. A small plant was recently placed in Senegal. This plant is self powered and uses human waste to produce clean water, fertilizer and electricity. The plant already has over 100k customers.

One of ways the Senegal government can go about tackling this issue is by building big underground tanks in residential areas that collect human waste. People can dump their waste at these tanks and then the waste be transported to the Omni processor that Bill Gates has provided for the country. Many people of the country can not afford to have the truck drivers transport their waste. Having these big tanks will make it easier on the residents as it is the governments job to keep its citizens safe and the city clean. The cons that might be seen with this approach might be that the city is overcrowded and their isn’t much space to create these big sanitation tanks within neighborhoods. These tanks might also create a bad stench in the neighborhood.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-wants-world-to-move-past-flush-toilets-2018-11

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/sanitation-senegal-competition-poop-pickup-2018-12

Columbus Sewage problem

Columbus currently faces the problem of sewer overflows and basement backups commonly caused by heavy rains. This problem causes the affected areas to be engulfed in the smell of sewage as well as affect the water quality of the city. Since 2004, the city of Columbus has been under scrutiny from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency for the amount of sewage that washes into waterways during heavy rainstorms. This has caused Columbus to set a record portion of their budget to go towards water and sewer protections. As the population of central Ohio grows, so does the urgency of this problem because a larger population means a larger production of waste that has the potential to overflow into the water that feeds the city.

https://www.columbus.gov/utilities/projects/clean-rivers/

https://www.dispatch.com/article/20160430/NEWS/304309887

Advocate Style:

The pros of this style is that an advocate planner would listen to the people who are directly affected by this problem and have to deal with basement backups and unsanitary water. Advocate planners often represent less fortunate groups who, more often than not, have to deal with problems such as sewer issues because they can’t afford to live anywhere else. Therefore, advocate planners would be most likely to fight for the change that would assist those who are affected by the sewage overflows in Columbus. Possible cons of this style is that advocate planners might have a hard time creating a plan that benefits and is supported by every person they are avocations for because it is hard to please everyone. Another possible con is that advocacy planners might have difficulty getting large public support for a plan that benefits the lower class population because those who fund projects are often of the upper class.

Radical Style:

The pros of this style is that radical planners use rationality and facts to create the most efficient plan that maximizes achievement. These planners are often experts in the field that they are working in and minimizes the consequences of their plans by using specialized knowledge to make decisions. Possible cons of this style is that radical planners acknowledge that it is impossible to please the entire public so they don’t allow public interests to influence their plans. Marginalizes voices are often ignored in order to create one plan that is efficient but not necessarily beneficial to the entire population.

Blog 4 CCDC

October 2, 2019 at 11:07am by lang.551

Mac, Henry, Taylor

Problem 1: LA County Housing Crisis

A planning problem facing Los Angeles county is a shortage of low income housing. Over the last 18 years, median rents increased by 32% while median renter incomes decreased 3%. Currently, residents spend approximately 47% of their monthly income on housing. This percentage is higher than in any other major city in the United States. The lack of affordable housing is fueling an increase in homelessness. There was a 16% increase in the number of people who became homeless for the first time from 2017 – 2018. Many areas like Skid Row can be found throughout the county. Tents, shopping carts, bicycles, and mattresses line city streets. The proliferation of tents impedes the ability of police officers to identify drug dealers and human traffickers. There are currently about 60,000 homeless people and many more low income wage earners struggling to maintain their current housing. Homeless shelters are operating beyond capacity. Paying utility bills and buying food are sacrificed to pay rent. Residents are dismayed by the urban blight while the homeless and working poor are frustrated by an inability to secure stable housing. The county estimates that over 516,000 affordable housing units need to be added just to meet the current demand of low income renters.

Articles:

Advocate approach:

The advocacy planning style could be used to tackle the affordable housing shortage in Los Angeles. Strategies utilized by this style could include the use of rent control. New builds and/or existing structures should have rent ceilings that do not exceed 30% of the monthly earnings made by a full time minimum wage employee. Similarly, the county could reallocate funds currently being spent on addressing disorder problems to subsidize rentals for low income families. This would be more affordable than new builds. Refurbished shipping containers and new 3D printed houses could be used to provide new housing opportunities. Both are cheaper than new builds and can be implemented in a more timely manner. There are pros and cons to the advocacy planning approach. This approach would greatly improve the quality of life for homeless and low income residents. It would promote self esteem and enable these residents to feel valued. Having a stable home would facilitate securing and maintaining employment. Crime and aggressive panhandling would likely diminish along with other signs of disorder in downtown and tourist areas. Tax dollars dedicated to cleaning up these areas would be saved. This approach to the housing crisis, however, could be hard to implement if powerful community stakeholders were opposed to the idea. Property owners who would forgo income from rent increases may oppose these planning strategies. Residents in areas where new affordable housing would be added could be another source of opposition. Middle income residents may not want shipping containers or 3D homes in their neighborhoods for fear it would diminish property values. In the end, while directly benefiting the underprivileged renters and homeless, this planning style will improve the physical environment of the city in a fiscally responsible manner.

Consensus builder approach:

There are also pros and cons to a consensus builder approach. A consensus builder would look at the ideas of businesses, the government, and low income community members when proposing a solution for the housing crisis in Los Angeles. The businesses, for instance, have a vested interest in the downtown area. They want it to be appealing to tourists and free of signs of disorder. The government has a similar interest due to taxes brought in from tourists frequenting local businesses, hotels, and restaurants. They want the city of Los Angeles to have a positive reputation in attempts to draw new businesses to start up or relocate. Low income community members want affordable housing. One consensus builder approach may be to build affordable housing near public transportation hubs. With affordable housing and access to transportation, low income individuals can afford to take the lower paying jobs that often go unfilled but play an important role in the overall functioning of the area. This would also be a benefit for business owners, as it fills their need for employees. Another idea is to have inclusionary zoned areas. A predetermined percent of new builds in non low income areas would be dedicated to affordable housing. In exchange for accommodating multi-unit low income housing, single family homes receive a property tax reduction. In addition, LA voters have already approved $1.2 billion in funding for the development of affordable housing, which shows community support. The state’s No Place Like Home program also has more funding available which will reduce the amount needed by taxpayers and the state. One pro to the consensus builder approach is that all sides benefit in some way. Taking all sides into account promotes a true sense of community because different groups are working together toward a common goal. These ideas could also reduce the cycle of poverty that homeless and low income children are likely to succumb to. A disadvantage of this approach is that the government, taxpayers, and businesses will bear the majority of the cost. Also, there is no way to ensure that all parties will benefit equally. Some groups will ultimately benefit more than others. It may also be difficult to get the parties involved to agree on specific plans which could make the process long and laborious.

Problem 2: Hong Kong Housing Crisis

Articles

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/2125641/does-hong-kong-have-housing-crisis-answer-depends-whether-you

https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-hong-kong-housing-island-20190403-story.html

https://www.todayonline.com/owning-home-impossible-dream-say-hong-kong-youth-frustrated-over-citys-housing-crisis

Similarly, Hong Kong is facing a major housing crisis. Housing in Hong Kong is the most expensive in the world, with the cost increasing 400% since 2003. Average rent, which can be over $2,000 a month, is growing much faster than income, which means the problem is only getting worse. Furthermore, many properties require high deposits or fees that make them impossible to rent for low income renters, or renters who could afford the monthly rent but not the upfront cost. Roughly 45% of the country lives in subsidized public housing, but the demand is much greater than the supply. Many young professionals view owning a home as an unrealistic goal, and have resigned themselves to sharing cramped rooms or living in “coffin homes” that are barely big enough to accommodate one. This partially stems from the high density of Hong Kong, which is one of the most dense areas of the world. Despite this density, the majority of the territory is actually undeveloped. The government has designated large swaths of the country as protected parks or agricultural assets, rejecting development and constraining the population’s expansion.

Entrepreneurial Approach

One possible approach is entrepreneurial based development of housing. Many in Hong Kong feel that the government does not listen to the concerns of the people, so it may be beneficial to switch to a private solution. Under this plan, government restrictions on land use would be lifted, allowing entrepreneurs to develop the land as they see fit. In the event that the government does not want to give up all of their control, they could also relax restrictions and allow entrepreneurs to bid for projects or compete for funding that would go towards improving housing conditions. This approach has many potential benefits. The newly competitive market would create competition and help drive down prices as companies compete for business. The competition would also encourage innovative solutions, especially if the government is willing to fund them, and offer alternatives to citizens. Additionally, if restrictions on land use were relaxed, private companies could more efficiently allocate the land and expanding the livable area of the territory. While these benefits are promising, there are some strong negatives to consider. It is very possible that entrepreneurs could collude, or that a monopoly or oligopoly will develop in the housing market. This could exacerbate the problem further, leading to even higher prices and less supply, as oligopolies inefficiently produce resources. With the high number of Hong Kongers living in publicly subsidized housing, it is possible that the economy can not actually support profit driven housing. Without government aid, many citizens would be unable to afford any housing at all, which is a step in the wrong direction. Finally, a large portion of the restricted land is protected to preserve the quality of water on the island. A purely entrepreneurial approach where these restrictions are relaxed or erased could have serious environmental consequences. For this reason, many environmental activists oppose this solution.

Neutral Public Servant Approach

In stark contrast to the entrepreneurial approach, the planners could also act as neutral public servants. A neutral public servant uses their expertise to help the community enact their plan, but does not offer their opinions or tell the community what they should do. This could be especially powerful in Hong Kong in light of recent protests against the government. Hearing from those who are directly impacted and figuring out how to best serve them could be a powerful tool to alleviate tensions. There is a fair case that those living through the crisis might have the best ideas for how to fix it. That said, the approach is potentially problematic. With such a complex problem, it is possible that there will not be a clear public consensus for how to proceed. With many diverse opinions, the planner may have to make decisions that appear to be opinionated. With the charges of a corrupt or unresponsive government, any appearance that the neutral public servant is not truly neutral could be destructive to the public sentiment. Furthermore, it is possible that the public’s plan will not be comprehensive or effective long term. The planner can help advise against this, but ultimately if the public wants a short term solution the planner must help them enact it. This could make other styles, like consensus builder, more effective, as they add in more diverse perspectives and create more compromise.

KRD & Associates Blog #4

October 2, 2019 at 10:39amOctober 2, 2019 by roby.115

Issue #1 Traffic Problems in Columbus,OH
Many of the jobs in the city have moved out of the heart of downtown into the suburbs, which are underserved by bus routes. Some residents have a commute of 30 minutes or more. Underserved communities, usually composed of minorities, struggle to find reliable transportation to and from work. The city has taken steps to increase reliability and expand the location of bus stops but there is still more that can be done. As the city grows, investments must be made in more reliable public transportation. Minorities and underserved communities are suffering the most as a result of this broken system. For there to be a difference, people should be prioritized over vehicles. The city has to figure out how to do this in an efficient way of advocating for the people who don’t have cars or a way around the city.

The Advocacy approach would highlight helping those without the means to get around. Things like a shuttle or bike share and scooter share are services that are convenient while trying to get around. These services are not only more convenient, but they are also beneficial to the environment. They are sustainable transportation services that are a greater good for those who use public transit. The flip side to this approach would be people who don’t use public transit may not like it. The scooter-share could get in the way of those who want to drive the speed limit. The scooters have to be driven in the street so they could easily be in the way of others. Even though there may be cons to focusing on those who are facing the most issues, it still helps. The advocacy approach focuses on one specific issue which would be looking out for those in need of a better transportation system.

The Economic approach to this issue would maximize economic gains and prioritize making a profit from an improved transportation system. Everything would be designed to maximize revenues and make the system more efficient. This can be beneficial for many different reasons. An economic approach to the transportation issue in Columbus would look at placing stops in areas to spur economic development and to help residents get to those areas safely. These areas, which are traditionally underserved and underdeveloped now have access to public transportation. Some cons to this approach could include some areas being left out as a result of companies trying to maximize revenue. Locations with a high minority population may be left out due to their lack of funds to pay for the transportation, therefore, the stops will not be in their neighborhoods. Implementing policies to improve the efficiency of public transportation along with increasing the number of stops and routes throughout the community and underserved areas will help to alleviate the stresses felt by many members of the community who depend on public transportation.

Issue #2 Affordable Housing in Columbus,OH
As Columbus continues to grow, especially in parts of downtown, new housing developments are popping up everywhere but not as quick as they are needed. A gap of 54,000 housing units currently exists in Franklin County alone. These housing developments can change the entire look and feel of a neighborhood, displacing residents in many cases. Most of these residents include the poor and minority populations. These residents cannot afford to live in these new apartment complexes so they have to pick up their lives and move as a result of the high demand for new housing. This can be detrimental to a family as a result. Not only have they lost their homes, but they also have lost their friends, schools, and in some cases, jobs. This is a major issue facing Columbus but many groups are looking at ways to solve the housing problem.

The Advocacy approach to this issue is to continue to expand affordable housing initiatives. It is important to build low-income housing in a variety of areas, rather than specifically in the inner city or on the periphery of suburbs where they remain out of sight and out of mind. This planned approach would require that affordable housing be built in the suburbs where residents of the units are close to services and other amenities, such as busing and good-paying jobs. This will help to build mixed-income neighborhoods in which the rich and the poor can coexist. This would not only make affordable housing more convenient and valuable to the people using it, but it would also close the sizable deficit of housing present in Franklin County and the rest of Central Ohio. Unfortunately, many people currently living in these suburbs may not be on board. Many residents worry that the presence of affordable housing in wealthier suburbs could lower land values and possibly raise crime in the area. However, as shown through successful mixed-income neighborhoods in Grove City and Whitehall, these fears are largely baseless and do not occur when these affordable housing initiatives are put into effect. The advocacy approach would be focusing on addressing the needs of those who do not have access to affordable housing through new initiatives and the development of new units.

The Economic approach to this issue would again look at how to maximize profits when it comes to affordable housing. They would look at ways to improve the efficiency of the building process and to maximize the number of units included in a new development. To make housing affordable in certain areas, demographics must be taken into account. Affordable housing units will not always bring in the best profits but they only usually make up 20-30% of the units in the entire complex. Some pros to using this approach would be the ability to jumpstart economic development in certain areas through the construction of affordable housing. Depending on the location, workers could have better access to public transportation and more job opportunities. Some cons include developers only focusing on areas that can make them the most profit which usually leaves out minorities and underserved populations. To avoid leaving these populations behind, a policy of a minimum percentage of affordable housing units in each new apartment complex could help these minorities be successful.

Works Cited
Housing
https://www.columbusceo.com/business/20190826/columbus-affordable-housing-push-grows
https://www.dispatch.com/business/20190928/construction-of-new-homes-and-apartments-lags-far-behind-need-in-central-ohio
https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190204/lack-of-affordable-housing-is-suburban-problem-too
Transportation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/03/free-public-transport-downtown-workers-columbus-car
https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/01/31/columbus-must-revolutionize-our-transit.html

Stranded In Central Ohio

By:Sam DeLong,Casey Klusman,& Ari Roby

Proxima Project Blog Four

October 2, 2019 at 10:22am by cosgriff.8

Problem: New York City Education

Summary and Planning:

The articles below really come together to show that even though inner city schools have thousands of in need children, the infrastructure of the schools are not built up to set up the kids for success. New York City has the highest population in a city in the US, yet the governments serving them are not doing them justice by not providing them with the funding they need to prosper educationally. New York prides themselves on their educational standards, but when it comes to inner city schools in need, they let them fall by neglecting them without funding.

Planning as an advocate in this situation would be extremely helpful and strategic. The reason these schools have not been remodeled is because the people inhabiting them aren’t being heard and no one is taking control of that responsibility. The people really need a voice to be heard in order to get support for the funding and grants to pay for the new schools being planned for. Since there is such little support for such a big project, they need an expert to back their needs. An advocate planner can accomplish all these priorities.

Approaching the issue from the standpoint as a consensus builder might be effective in helping shine light on the public schools of New York City and its burrows. The issues vary a lot depending on where you are in the city. A consensus builder may help by educating policy makers on the problem and offering some solutions to help the crumbling infrastructure of these inner-city schools. A downside to using this method would be the possibility of the officials doing nothing. Another downside would be the chance for bias and more harm when getting the publics opinion and forming statistics. The chance for bias and possibly advocacy against a plan may hurt the crumbling infrastructure even more.

Articles:

https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2019/01/17/struggling-schools-nyc-essa/

https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2018/09/17/nyc-schools-with-high-share-of-low-income-students-lag-in-funding/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/opinion/the-central-crisis-in-new-york-education.html

https://wibx950.com/how-bad-are-new-yorks-schools-and-teachers-really/

Problem: Traffic in LA

Summary and Planning:

These articles highlight the traffic issue in Los Angeles, CA USA. These articles recognize the problem, some even going as far as ranking LA as the worst place for traffic congestion in the United Sates. Drivers and commuters in LA can experience hours in traffic and significant losses in gas, therefore wasting on average $2,800 per year. The articles also mention shocking statistics for how long a person spends in traffic (9 days each year alone). While a congestion level of 45% does not seem that high, the statistics stated show the dramatic effect of traffic congestion at the current level.

We believe the best style of planning to fix the problem is entrepreneurial. This style of planning is strategic and task oriented. These two ideologies are crucial when dealing with public transportation and the effectiveness of roadways. However, with this style comes some drawbacks. Planners who use this style can be distracted by the heavy business aspects and lose sight of the overall wellbeing of the population, and out of the box thinking required to fix the problem. An entrepreneurial planner may suggest things such as increased public transportation, or a special lane designated for paying drivers.

Another solution would be approaching this problem would be using radical planning to enact change. To use radical planning, one could file a lawsuit against the city, and/or organize protests to create awareness for need of an effective, reliable public transit system. Another reason this viewpoint might be addressed is from the angle of climate change. Protestors could express how the traffic in Los Angeles contributes to the warming of the planet and that a public transit system would be much less damaging on our environment. A downside to using this approach would be the fact that it could do nothing. Without facts and neutral opinions, it may hurt the development of a massive public transit or other ways to alleviate congested traffic. It may hurt it by not providing a detailed plan on what the government should do in some cases.

Articles:

https://usp100la.weebly.com/history-of-transportation.html

https://www.sgvtribune.com/2018/09/14/los-angeles-ranks-no-1-for-traffic-congestion-in-u-s-heres-what-you-can-do-to-avoid-or-ease-lengthy-commutes/

https://www.dailynews.com/2018/04/19/los-angeles-has-the-worlds-worst-traffic-congestion-again/

JEB Blog #4

October 2, 2019 at 9:47am by burdsall.7

Planning Problem #1: Homelessness in San Francisco, California

This article explores the rate of homelessness and the dangers that it brings. The numbers would have jumped 30% in 2017 if they didn’t change the rules for qualification of homelessness. A resident even said that she was spit on by a man that looked beaten and high on something. This is caused by the increase in big businesses moving into the area, causing low income jobs to be getting less and less prominent while also getting harder to find. They are opening more and more homeless shelters but they are unable to keep up with the increase in homelessness. Finally, the increase in housing prices is making none homeless people move out because of the fear of becoming homeless.

Advocacy planning aims to represent groups that are unable to voice their opinions. This tends to be people of lower socioeconomic standings whose opinions get overheard by the upper class. Advocacy planning is a great approach to try to fight a homeless crisis. An advocacy planner in this case would not push for a ban of homeless from the streets instead they would push for increased options for the homeless. These options include more beds at shelters or increased affordable housing. San Francisco’s main problem is with many large wealthy companies moving into the city housing prices have skyrocketed causing many people unable to afford homes. A problem with the advocacy planning approach in this situation is that San Francisco is home to a large upper class population so it will take a lot for the lower socioeconomic classes voice to be heard.

Collaborative planning may be San Francisco’s best option to tackle their homelessness crisis. Collaborative planning is the coming together of all sides in hopes to find a common ground that the group can agree on to make a positive change in their shared society. A collaborative planner can communicate with people of any socioeconomic status. The lower class and homeless will fight for more affordable housing units or shelters for them to stay. These people may also vouch for help from professionals to get them out of poverty and off the streets. The upper class may not want these shelters and housing units around their neighborhood because it may decrease the value of their homes.The planner would now have the tough task of finding a common ground for these two sides. The downfall of the collaborative planning method is that one side may be interested in working together but the other sides may want no part in compromising with that group of people for whatever reason.

References:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-homeless-stats-city-blames-big-business-residents-officials

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/homelessness-in-the-san-francisco-bay-area-the-crisis-and-a-path-forward

#2 Traffic jams in Columbus, Ohio

This article explores the issues of the traffic in the central Columbus areas and how the highways are getting more and more congested during rush hours. In 2018 alone, Columbus drives on average lost 71 hours of their lives in traffic. It takes Columbus drivers about 4 minutes to travel a mile in the inner city areas during peak hours. There are many solutions to this, but some just aren’t possible. An ODOT administrator says that we have, “built as many lanes as we can”. With this, we have no more space to open lanes without obstructing other roads and ways of travel. One of the positive solutions is to open a “smart lane”, which would be another lane on the shoulder during rush hours that would allow for more traffic flow. So far, all we’ve done is added signs that warn drivers of the traffic speed up ahead, but drivers don’t appreciate the money put into recognizing the traffic problem and not fixing it.

Radical Planning is the field of planning that focuses on radical solutions to challenging modern day problems. A Radical Planner would look at the problem of traffic in Columbus and create a radical solution to the problem. For example, Elon Musk is a radical planner with his idea of building an underground tunnel system that can reroute traffic, maybe this idea could be implemented in Columbus which would relieve traffic congestion. Radical planners would be unlikely to take advice from other traditional planners and would focus solely on new ideas. The main advantage to radical planning is that unlike other more traditional planning fields, radical planning isn’t afraid to try out new ideas and would risk going against the wishes of a community if they feel it would have a positive effect in the long run.

Another type of planning would be advocacy planning. An Advocacy Planner would focus on representing an interest group, like the commuters of Columbus, and would collect ideas from them and represent their wishes to the city. An advocacy planner for Columbus would work with commuters to find ways to relieve traffic. This could include Ideas like building more highways, increasing the speed limit or even creating one-ways to redirect traffic more efficiently. I think that the best idea for Columbus would be finding ways to have less people on the Highways. Maybe creating better public transportation would lessen the need for people to drive individually. Many people have petitioned for a better public transit system in Columbus for years and an advocacy planner would work with them to make that happen.

References: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dispatch.com/news/20190218/its-not-your-imagination-youre-sitting-in-traffic-longer%3ftemplate=ampart

https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/bad-central-ohio-roads-are-causing-drivers-more-than-just-headaches

Pretty Plannerz Blog #4

October 2, 2019 at 7:54am by robinson.2361

Planning Problem 1: Homelessness in Los Angeles

Homelessness in Los Angeles is at an all time high across many counties. In Alameda county the percentage of homeless people jumped to nearly 43% and in orange county, considered one of the wealthiest counties in the nation, jumped to near the same at 42% homeless in just the past two years. LA counties total homeless population is around 59000 people. This is about the same amount of people that inhabit all of Kissimmee, Florida. This alone shows the urgency and severity of the homeless issue in Los Angeles. The city and county officials are now struggling to provide and build housing for nearly 60,000 people. This is one of the biggest problems– how do we tackle this problem with effective and efficiency? Many groups such as Everyone In LA and Homeless Initiative are groups attempting to educate and provide ways to help fight this issue.

Looking at the varying planning styles comes different approaches towards the issue of tackling homelessness in LA. The advocate would be someone fighting with the homeless as a group for resources and aid. Groups like this are very popular and already exist in the area. Groups like Everyone in LA and The Action Plan all support homeless people and getting people, mainly in middle class, to take action. They provide ways in which they can get involved or even what they are doing to help, just to educate the public. Public education could help with the issue, even just a little bit, because a lot of people avoid the issue or because it doesn’t involve them or they don’t know they just don’t care. Small steps like this could really make a difference in the quality of the homeless persons life or at least give them hope that someone is in their corner.

The radical would section off part of the city for the homeless or would lower all living costs to help living conditions for homeless and all others in LA. Places like Seattle, Washington have sectioned off land ordinances for peaceful homeless living where no police or public harm is of concern for them. Council Bill 118794 allowed for tents in public parks. Something like this could take place in LA from a radical perspective. The radical could also aspire to lower all living costs in the area. In our next topic we discuss this a little bit, but living in California is very hard. Taxes are high and land values and property values are almost so unaffordable by the average person that most people rent or live in what appears to be lower income areas. So in their eyes lower living costs could really fix the whole problem. However both of these solutions take many aspects of life to change in this city. And changes like this are very hard to vote into practice and agree upon and therefore are very unlikely to ever happen.

References

Ansell, Phil. “The Plan.” Homeless Initiative, 5 Feb. 2019, homeless.lacounty.gov/the-action-plan/.

Cowan, Jill. “Homeless Populations Are Surging in Los Angeles. Here’s Why.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 June 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/us/los-angeles-homeless-population.html.

Everyone In. “The Plan.” Everyone In, United Way of Greater Los Angeles, 2 Jan. 2019, everyoneinla.org/the-plan/.

MyNorthwest Staff. “Timeline: Understanding Seattle’s Homeless Issues.” MyNorthwest.com, 20 May 2019, mynorthwest.com/1030524/timeline-seattle-homeless/.

New York Data Bases. “Population of US Cities.” Democratandchronicle.com, 22 Mar. 2016, rochester.nydatabases.com/database/population-us-cities

Planning Problem 2: Housing Prices in Los Angeles

Housing prices have skyrocketed in the past years due to the supply and demand. Lots of people move to California each year in search of better jobs or new opportunities. The average cost of US housing per family household is $226,800. In Los Angeles the average price for a house is $600,000 almost triple of the average US household cost. For that price in LA you can get a 3-5 bed house with 2-3 baths with about 1,000 sq ft. However, they aren’t usually updated with modern appliances or interior design. Now for that price in Columbus you can get a 3-4 bed with 4-5 baths however, you’ll get anywhere from 2,000-5,000 sq ft. One of the reasons that housing in LA is so expensive is because they haven’t built enough houses for the amount of people that are moving there. The cost of labor and materials are much more expensive in LA due to California’s topography. Therefore, limited land plus high demand equals higher pricing rates on housing.

Looking at the issue from the perspective of an entrepreneur they would look at it as a way to address the concerning issues within the community. They may look at different ways to lower the cost of materials with not necessarily lowering the cost of physical labor. If they can find ways to strategically place neighborhoods that are safe and affordable then more people would move into them. They would have to find a way to work with the demand of housing while also keeping in mind to lower the cost. However, they need to look at it from a consumer standpoint. The average US household income is $63,179. That income isn’t enough to afford a house that costs $600,000. To address the issue they would need to find sites and materials that are more affordable. They will also need a finance specialist and contractor to work together to solve this issue. The con to this plan would be that they might be losing money, which no investor or businessman wants to do.

Another perspective would be to look at it through the style of advocate. This would help for people who are middle or lower middle class to have access to affordable housing in nice areas, and have bigger houses. They would advocate to have more developments built and to lower the cost of housing in those areas. They could also fix up homes that are abandoned or in bad condition. A con to this would be that there could also be a person advocating for the developers and businesses who might not want to invest time and money into pre existing houses that are run down. If they don’t produce the expected outcome then they would be wasting their money when they could have invested it into houses or other projects that they know would’ve made them money. Another con is that with the limited land there could be competition to build housing catered towards the wealthier people because they have developers and businesses willing to spend more money, and the city will always go with the higher bidder.

References

Chiland, Elijah. “LA Home Prices Smash All-Time Record-Again.” Curbed LA, Curbed LA, 28 Aug. 2019, la.curbed.com/2019/8/28/20837299/los-angeles-home-price-record-july-2019.

Khouri, Andrew. “Southern California Home Prices Are Flat in May as Sales Fall.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 26 June 2019, www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-southern-california-home-prices-20190626-story.html.

Levin, Matt. “5 Reasons California’s Housing Costs Are So High.” KQED, 4 May 2018, www.kqed.org/news/11666284/5-reasons-californias-housing-costs-are-so-high.

Plan OH Blog 4

October 1, 2019 at 9:29pmOctober 1, 2019 by mackey.215

Problem 1

Planners are faced with an expansive problem along many coastal cities of the United States today, affecting everyone from homeowners to government officials: flooding. Among the noticeable impacts that climate change has had on the environment is higher water levels from melting icebergs and stronger storms. This deadly combination is forcing cities to rethink the way that buildings and transportation systems are designed. After Superstorm Sandy, New York City was out of power and its infrastructure was severely damaged. In the past ten years, significant changes have been made to building guidelines and flood walls surrounding the city. New Orleans is currently experiencing a similar problem due to its proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and low elevation. Cities such as New Orleans and New York City could all learn from each other, borrowing ideas that have worked and retrofitting them to unique problems.

The Greater New Orleans Urban Water Plan was created after water systems could not keep up with the influx of rain from hurricanes that repeatedly hit the area (GNO). According to GNO, the drainage systems in place in New Orleans are old and the technology fails to keep up with the amount of water that storms bring to the city. When the systems do pump water out, the dry soil shrinks like a sponge and the entire landmass lowers in a process called subsidence (GNO). In essence, shortly after each storm moves through the area the whole city of New Orleans sinks lower in the ground, making it more susceptible to the next storm. The data analysis group RAND Corporation accuses the Army Corps of Engineers of not accounting for future increases in water and the number of storms caused by climate change. They also claim that the City of New Orleans is not providing enough incentives for developers to change their building practices or for residents to move out of affected areas. Without financial aid, low income residents living in the most vulnerable areas of New Orleans do not have the means to escape rising water.

Columbia University’s State of the Planet blog analyzed what cities are doing in response to climate change. In New York City, broad changes have been made to include more land in flood zones, called Special Coastal Risk Districts (Cho). The city also created a group called NPCC, or New York City Panel on Climate Change, that documents past weather patterns and predicts future water levels. One of the proposed plans following Superstorm Sandy was the Big U, which is a waterfront park running along the southern tip of New York City that absorbs water and acts as a flood wall (Cho). Subways have also been utilized to take on extra water in order to prevent the flooding of streets and buildings (Cho). Some parts of the subway would remain open to serve the need of public transportation, so subway grates have been elevated a few foot above the sidewalk (Cho). New Orleans might not have the same topography of New York City, but the city may be able to adopt some similar measures to prevent total destruction in the event of another hurricane.

One planning style that might be helpful to address flooding in New Orleans would be the neutral public servant. The planner would have to collaborate between government, because federal and state funds would be used, and the residents living in New Orleans, because their lives are being directly affected. One solution to flooding that might appeal to both sides would be more parks along the coast to hold water, much like the Big U. Residents would have more green space to enjoy and the government would not have to build new buildings, just plant grass after old buildings are torn down. However, the planner would not be able to insert an opinion on the consensus, being completely neutral. Public meetings would need to be held to bring both sides of the issue together. It is sometimes difficult to motivate people to come to planning meetings, but I think with an issue that is so pressing and noticeable people are more likely to care and have a stake in the outcome. So many people are affected by flooding that more groups might have to be brought to the table by the planner as well, such as local businesses and commercial developers. Collaboration is key to come up with a feasible and affective solution to the problems caused by climate change.

Another planning style that might be very effective in ending the destruction caused by flooding might be brought up by a radical planner. The most effective solution would be to move the entire city to a higher elevation. This would ensure that hurricanes would not hurt any more people and daily business could go on. One method of beginning this transformation could be expanding flood zones along the coast, which would hinder new development there like it has in New York City. A more radical idea would be to build a subway system under New Orleans so that water would be safely rerouted safely. When the drainage system is not being used, it might also alleviate some congestion and provide support for the soft ground. It might seem crazy to install an underground transportation system at such a low elevation, but it is these types of ideas that a radical planner proposes. The planner would have to gather enough support to gain the attention of government, which may be difficult considering the plan is to uproot people from their homes. However, if the situation is dire enough, those residents may be willing to go to great lengths to protect their families. These plans would also be long term because land would have to be acquired or infrastructure would be completely overhauled. If the water level is going to rise as much as the prediction, no technology that is put in place in New Orleans may be enough to stop it.

Cho, Renee. “How New York City is Preparing for Climate Change.” State of the Planet, Earth Institute, Columbia University, 26 April 2019, https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/04/26/new-york-city-preparing-climate-change/.
GNO. “The Greater New Orleans Water Plan.” GNO Inc, 2018, https://gnoinc.org/initiatives/the-greater-new-orleans-water-plan/.
RAND. “Reducing Future Flood Damage in New Orleans Through Home Elevation and Land Use Changes.” RAND Corporation, 2019, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9612/index1.html.

Problem 2

One prevalent problem that goes fairly overlooked is the homelessness in Birmingham, Alabama. Not only is it a prevalent problem, but it’s a growing one. There are some that believe that surrounding cities are “sending homeless to Birmingham.” There are a few public parks around the city, and different notable witnesses have reported seeing people, particularly homeless people, being dropped off at these parks. It’s also been noted that a large portion of the homeless population is “chronically homeless,” meaning they’ve been homeless for over a year or more than three times in the last three years. Some of this homeless population stays in shelters, emergency and transitional, but nearly half don’t have that opportunity.

The first style of planning that I believe would work to help solve this problem is advocacy planning. One event, Project Homeless Connect held at the Boutwell Auditorium, brings various agencies together to provide basic socioeconomic necessities (issuing photo identifications, preparing tax returns, providing medical exams, etc.) to the homeless has been implemented since April 2008. Since this, the homeless population has been decreasing. The Boutwell Auditorium, which is joined to the Birmingham Museum of Art, “opens as a warming station on nights when the temperature is forecast to drop below freezing.” It’s been talked about to expand the museum into the Boutwell Auditorium. I believe it’d be in the best interest of the city, if they really want to decrease the homeless population, or possibly fix the problem of homelessness in their city, would be to take the funding that has been or will be set aside for this expansion and to pour it into transforming the auditorium into a homeless shelter, or even a form of permanent residence. Some of it could be housing while other portions can be set aside to producing more events such as Project Homeless Connect more than once a year. The city can also reach out to the numerous agencies that come together and work out funding issues and find other organizations that are volunteer based. I imagine the biggest pushback of this will be the funding aspect along with the museum wanting to use the space. However, with the event and agencies tied to it, it wouldn’t be hard to implement these new ideas and strategies as they are just an extension of what’s already being done.

The second style of planning that I believe could be effective is the consensus builder style. This style could be used in a very similar manner to advocacy planning, only this way, we also work with the art museum to find a way to make this space cohesive between some form of housing and museum. The auditorium also “home to the Birmingham Power basketball team,” and it would be fairly easy to advocate the transformation of the space considering they were already planning on doing it anyway. We could incorporate an art exhibit that epitomizes the basketball team while also having a court that the residents could use in order to stay in shape, both mentally and physically. The difficulties of this plan are creating/arranging a space that’s cohesive between residence, an art museum, and a basketball team, and getting everyone on board. Nevertheless, having the different people from all of these areas will generate creative ideas.

– https://www.wbrc.com/story/35027039/mayor-says-other-cities-are-sending-homeless-to-birmingham/
– https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Homelessness_in_Birmingham
– https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Boutwell_Auditorium
– https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-statistics/al/

Blog Post 4

October 1, 2019 at 6:59pmOctober 7, 2019 by workman.1297

Planning Problem 1: Bike Danger in NYC
2-3 Supporting Articles:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43jqvd/new-york-citys-war-on-bikes-is-dangerous-for-workers-and-the-environment
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/22/new-york-city-cars-bicycles-de-blasio/

Summary of articles: Biking in New York City is dangerous. In the past two years alone, there have been at least 20 cyclist deaths. Most streets in New York City do not have many bike lanes, and the ones that do often are unprotected. Many bikers feel like they are taking a risk every time they commute. This is a major problem, considering many people use bikes to serve their livelihood, whether it is getting to work or delivering food and goods. The ways in which the bike lanes are designed allows cars to drive into them, creating a hazard for bikers. Someone merging into the bike lane or even opening their door could result in a serious injury. New York City streets are often considered chaotic, making it ridiculous that there are not more measures in place to protect commuters.

Planning perspective 1:The reason that rational planning could be a possible planning solution is due to the fact that this is a problem that can be identified through facts in which rational solutions could be put in place to solve. This type of planning would be used in order to achieve the desired goal- in this case- put in measures in order to make the NYC streets safer for cyclists. The measures would be implemented using planning knowledge in order to implement different technologies and methods in order to reduce cyclist injuries. If there was a large push to efficiently implement new technologies or expand existing technologies (guarded bike lanes), New York City would quickly become a much safer location to cycle. Rational planning is sometimes a good idea due to the fact that new ideas and technologies could be implemented quickly. The problem that can occur with rational planning is that often the ideas and views of others can be ignored. Planners do not always take into account the voices of a community. When it comes to solving problems the solutions can often be oversimplified.

Planning perspective 2: The cyclist in New York City by far represents the minority of travelers in the city. Most accidents that happen usually don’t go reported and the police do little to help. So the cyclist in NYC needs an advocate that will help make bike lanes safer. The only thing that guards bike lanes is painted lines on the street that motorists can easily driver over and into the bike lane. An advocate planner would put the minoritized group first when planning for the city. The planner would put in place barriers that protect the cyclist in NYC from serious injuries. An advocate can also help in forcing the police to enforce the laws that are too often broken when it comes to how bike lanes are misused. Advocacy does have some shortcomings too, such as it might not be as effective as rational planning, most of the time people only think what is best for the majority, not the minority. Another drawback might be that people would not want their tax money to go to building barriers that they would not even use. The cyclists in NYC do need an advocate so that their voices can be heard loud and clear about having a safer bike lane.

Planning Problem 2: Homelessness in Los Angeles
2-3 Supporting Articles:
Homeless Crisis in Los Angeles: Too Many Tents, Too Few Beds
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/08/homeless-crisis-los-angeles-county-seeks-help-toilets-rats-trash/1390562001/

Homelessness in Los Angeles is a huge problem known throughout the world. People crowd the streets with tents due to high housing costs throughout LA. These conditions are not sanitary or safe for any human, and this is so prominent and saturated within some areas of Los Angeles. With levels of homelessness on the rise, there must be solutions proposed and attempted to make lives at least somewhat safer and more sanitary for every man, woman, and child who face these terrible conditions.

Proposing a solution that will solve all problems within the LA area is not realistic; however, with planning, problems can be addressed and conditions can begin and continue to improve. Radical and Insurgency planning would be beneficial to work towards solving this problem because it would focus on the whole transformation of the people of the area, as well as their conditions. It would empower citizens to rise up and work towards a social transformation. There is a clear knowledge of the problem in LA, so this planning perspective may educate the homeless and provide opportunities to learn on how to progress through it. This type of planning may run into problems because it relies heavily on the population its seeking to change conditions for. Radical and Insurgency planning also could be problematic for the planner because it would be their job to rally support against oppression- which could be the government in some cases.

Advocacy planning aims to improve the lives of the community they are planning for. This planning puts emphasis on the lives of minorities and the poor which is needed for the homeless demographic in LA. Advocacy planners would involve themselves in learning about the community and ways to help people personally and especially as a whole. This benefits people by giving them someone with the agenda to help them and solely advocate for the community. A planner who advocates for the homeless people of LA may advocate for their continued education, improving sanitary conditions, and access to a wider variety of healthy foods. Advocacy planning would have some shortcomings. With an only focus on what a small community wants and needs, the planners may neglect a wider range of people or neglect the idea that there is a limitation in terms of other peoples’ support and funding.

September 27, 2019 at 6:06pm by anilonis.2

Problem 1: Gentrification in D.C.

Gentrification is a large issue when it comes to urban planning. As cities improve, the cost of living goes up. This causes the displacement of many people that can not afford their homes anymore. In Washington D.C, the United States capital, the gentrification rate is the highest in the country. The gentrification of neighborhoods surrounding the capital has caused 20,000 African-Americans to be without a home. Over 40 percent of the neighborhoods experienced heavy displacement in a twenty year period.

The advocate style of planning would be best to speak for the people who are being displaced. A planner can use their place in the government to speak for the people who cannot. For example, the planner can stress revitalization versus gentrification. Revitalization would fix the neighborhood for the existing residents while also improving the quality of their life. This approach would not raise the cost of living as much as gentrification would. An advocate planner would look out for the people who are living in the areas that are being improved as opposed to looking at what’s the best was to improve the area. The disadvantages of this approach would be that the advocate planner may not have that much power to cause change. There could be people that are looking at the advantages of raising the cost of living in the city.

The consensus style of planning would also work to change the issue of gentrification. The consensus planner can use information from not only the people who would get displaced, but also from the town to make changes to the city. In this way, the planner could make as many people happy as possible. For example, they could improve cosmetic issues in the town, but not add major stores or eateries to attract new people. This would improve the quality of the town for both the city and the people, without increasing the cost and displacing so many people. The disadvantages of this approach is the planner not being able to get all the information they need to make decisions. The people of the town could not respond to their surveys and the town could not want to listen to the needs of its people.

Problem 2: Traffic Congestion in New York City

Traffic Congestion is not only a major hindrance on the everyday commute in larger cities, but can result in structural damage and loss of life. Wasting time on the road during a commute can be a huge inconvenience to people who drive into the city from New Jersey and New York state. According to Curbed, New York is the third most congested city in the world and the second worst in the United States in terms of traffic. New York drivers spend 13 percent of their time, which is about 118 hours per year, sitting in congestion on the 4.7 mile stretch. This traffic is a major issue in New York City which causes many people to skip the drive and walk instead.

Using the neutral public servant planning style, change and action would be better implemented due to the lack of community interference. While a neutral public servant planner wouldn’t necessarily tell the community what it needs to do, using their knowledge of the city plan and transportation system, they could create an effective plan that would benefit all. Having too many opinions in play when it comes to the traffic congestion would potentially muddy the situation. Politicians and city officials might prefer street alignment that benefits economic flow rather than commute ease for the everyman. This approach would give a solution that would be best for everyone instead of favor one party over another. A neutral public servant planner would recommend widening streets to accommodate bike lanes or possibly implement policy that would allow turning on red lights instead of only green (where applicable). This style of planning would approach the issue in the generally helpful manner, suggesting ideas that are useful for the everyday and really solve the heart of the issue.

One could also use the entrepreneurial approach to planning the traffic in New York City. This planner could manage block grants to improve the streets. For example, they could use the money to widen the streets to get rid of the consistent one-way streets around New York City. The entrepreneurial planner can use their skills and market a new approach to streets to the city government officials. This planner would be efficient at getting their ideas across as well as negotiating with the officials. As New York City is one of the most powerful cities in the world, it would take a lot of convincing for the planners to do this. These issues would interest the entrepreneurial planners due to the effect this project would have on the economic development of the city. With better traffic, more people would enjoy going to the city and would not be afraid to hit the traffic. The cons of this approach would be that they would not be as connected to the people of the city as other planning approaches would be. An entrepreneurial planner is more invested in the business side of planning as opposed to the people side and would potentially miss key details of planning for the people.

References

Baca, Alex, and Nick Finio. “Gentrification Is Beneficial on Average, Studies Say. That Doesn’t Mean It’s Not Painful for Some.” Greater Greater Washington, 6 Aug. 2019, https://ggwash.org/view/73267/on-average-gentrification-helps-people-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-not-painful-for-some.

Cohen, Shawn, et al. “The Real Reason for New York City’s Traffic Nightmare.” New York Post, New York Post, 3 Dec. 2016, nypost.com/2016/12/02/new-york-citys-traffic-is-intentionally-horrible/.

Paz, Christian. “DC Experiencing High ‘Intensity’ Gentrification, Study Says.” NBC4 Washington, NBC4 Washington, 21 Mar. 2019, https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/The-District-Has-Experienced-the-Most-Intense-Gentrification-in-the-Country-Study-Says-507431441.html.

Walker, Ameena. “New York Drivers Spent an Average of 91 Hours in Traffic Last Year.” Curbed NY, Curbed NY, 6 Feb. 2018, ny.curbed.com/2018/2/6/16979696/new-york-city-traffic-congestion-second-worst.