I'd love to see the effort with a focus on driving more doing as a measure of success. To me, it seems like so many of these efforts (local urbanist/Strong Towns chapters) result in a lot of talking together (which is nice), but not a lot of doing together (which is not so nice). How could you help more people build beautiful spaces and places together vs talking about it?
I especially love the idea of a boarding school academy for citybuilders. Perhaps the College of the Building Arts can add a high school program to pilot.
Wow! Excellent article. Coming from Cascadia, (Vancouver, B.C.) and never been to the south, there's a lot of southernisms I don't know. I love the idea of teaching all that's part of urban planning though, from drainpipe locating, to landscaping, to the impact of color and how to use it in design. Imagine if there was one team overseeing the color choices on building exteriors in a downtown core. I'm one of those who has dabbled in all that's related to houses. It's what I know, what I love, and what I do; house plans. I've taken interior design, carpentry and architectural design. Now I want urban planning, strictly as it relates to housing developments though. Perhaps that becomes a program in itself. Planning for a downtown is completely different than a quiet subdivision in the woods. "Marry new urbanism with yimbyism" sounds like a bit of fun. I have some research to do as I hadn't heard of Sightline. I'll be following this along.
Many good ideas here, this is so needed. Namely a genuine regionalism ("marinated in the culture, politics, and geography unique to the ---") and moving planning out of social engineering (Marxist or other -isms, to me).
I'm unsure by your stating how planners should focus on the public realm and infrastructure, not dictate what the private sector does ... land use is a part of planning.
As to the south map you're using, state level works from a legal governance standpoint. But having spent time and lived in Texas and Oklahoma, parts of those states don't share "culture, politics, and geography" with much of the south - El Paso to the Rio Grande Valley of south Texas in an extreme example. Even the 16+ million people living along the I-35 / 44 corridors from San Antonio to Dallas, Okla City, and Tulsa - still different enough. Houston to the east and north, though, fits your similar culture etc.
Yeah, localization is key. The refocusing on the public realm is a big deal to me. Currently, too many planners are obsessed with micro-managing private development (something they have no training in or practical skill in), which lowers the quantity and quality of housing. We are also seeing public infrastructure fail because these responsibilities have been ignored as a consequence of tinkering with private development.
Looks like that's just planning school. In practice, where I am, that only teaches kids to talk. What we lack are kids who know how to do.
LESS THEORY, MORE PRACTICE.
I am of the belief that you earn the right to enter theory rooms only AFTER you have perfected the practice. In the south, we do the inverse. Those running the discourse typically have no tacit knowledge of housing and have never designed, built, or managed a project in their lives.
I'd love to see the effort with a focus on driving more doing as a measure of success. To me, it seems like so many of these efforts (local urbanist/Strong Towns chapters) result in a lot of talking together (which is nice), but not a lot of doing together (which is not so nice). How could you help more people build beautiful spaces and places together vs talking about it?
Exactly. Less talk more do.
Bring back shop class.
Teach kids how to draw.
Teach leadership.
Stop teaching theory exclusively.
Stop telling kids they are elite and will get to tell others to do what they want.
I especially love the idea of a boarding school academy for citybuilders. Perhaps the College of the Building Arts can add a high school program to pilot.
The College of the Building Arts should start a statewide high school academy for citybuilders.
And they should ask the State of South Carolina to underwrite it!
Wow! Excellent article. Coming from Cascadia, (Vancouver, B.C.) and never been to the south, there's a lot of southernisms I don't know. I love the idea of teaching all that's part of urban planning though, from drainpipe locating, to landscaping, to the impact of color and how to use it in design. Imagine if there was one team overseeing the color choices on building exteriors in a downtown core. I'm one of those who has dabbled in all that's related to houses. It's what I know, what I love, and what I do; house plans. I've taken interior design, carpentry and architectural design. Now I want urban planning, strictly as it relates to housing developments though. Perhaps that becomes a program in itself. Planning for a downtown is completely different than a quiet subdivision in the woods. "Marry new urbanism with yimbyism" sounds like a bit of fun. I have some research to do as I hadn't heard of Sightline. I'll be following this along.
Welcome to the party, Margaret!
Many good ideas here, this is so needed. Namely a genuine regionalism ("marinated in the culture, politics, and geography unique to the ---") and moving planning out of social engineering (Marxist or other -isms, to me).
I'm unsure by your stating how planners should focus on the public realm and infrastructure, not dictate what the private sector does ... land use is a part of planning.
As to the south map you're using, state level works from a legal governance standpoint. But having spent time and lived in Texas and Oklahoma, parts of those states don't share "culture, politics, and geography" with much of the south - El Paso to the Rio Grande Valley of south Texas in an extreme example. Even the 16+ million people living along the I-35 / 44 corridors from San Antonio to Dallas, Okla City, and Tulsa - still different enough. Houston to the east and north, though, fits your similar culture etc.
Yeah, localization is key. The refocusing on the public realm is a big deal to me. Currently, too many planners are obsessed with micro-managing private development (something they have no training in or practical skill in), which lowers the quantity and quality of housing. We are also seeing public infrastructure fail because these responsibilities have been ignored as a consequence of tinkering with private development.
Check this out for the schools portion, Routledge is printing something almost exactly what you're looking for
https://www.routledge.com/Planning-with-Young-People-A-Practical-Guide-to-Youth-Inclusive-Urban-Planning-in-Schools/PintoTaylor/p/book/9781032376837
Looks like that's just planning school. In practice, where I am, that only teaches kids to talk. What we lack are kids who know how to do.
LESS THEORY, MORE PRACTICE.
I am of the belief that you earn the right to enter theory rooms only AFTER you have perfected the practice. In the south, we do the inverse. Those running the discourse typically have no tacit knowledge of housing and have never designed, built, or managed a project in their lives.