UP 540 - Assignments (2011)

UP540 Planning Theory (home)
Fall 2011
Prof. Campbell

Assignments

last updated: November 21, 2011

Students are expected to complete all the required readings before the scheduled class time, actively participate in class discussions and presentations, write three short essay assignments, attend and critique a planning board meeting, and write a final exam. Evaluation of your work will be based on substantive content, the logic of your argument, and writing quality. (some tips on writing) Late assignments will result in point reductions.

Assignment	date due	suggested page length	percent of grade
Short Essay One	Sep 29	5 pages	20%
Short Essay Two	Nov 1	5 pages	20%
Short Essay Three	Dec 1	5 pages	20%
Critique of a Planning Board Meeting	Dec 9	4 - 5 pages	15%
In-class Exam -- (see study guide)	Dec. 13	---	25%

Format and Style Guidelines (READ CAREFULLY):

Please use a single staple in the upper left-hand corner. You do NOT need a cover page. Do NOT staple like a bound book, and do NOT include a plastic cover. (Those formalities simply make it harder to read your essays.)
Write concise, analytical answers.
IMPORTANT: Use complete and correct citations. Refer to all readings used (including course readings and materials found on the Internet). Incorporate the ideas from multiple sources (rather than basing your essay on just one text). You are encouraged to also incorporate ideas from the recommended readings and/or outside sources.
The essays are NOT a place to simply create purely descriptive summaries of the readings. Instead, use your essay as a place to demonstrate knowledge of the readings, to address critical debates in planning theory, to explore connections between various ideas in planning (e.g., between Garden Cities and New Urbanism), and to work out your own theory of planning.
You may strongly agree with the class readings, vehemently object, be ambivalent, or not be moved either way. In any case, be thoughtful, reflective, critical and nuanced in your essay answers. One function of planning theory is to challenge assumptions, conventional wisdom and accepted stereotypes.
You are encouraged to discuss the readings with other students. However, each student is expected to submit his/her own individual, original responses.
Regarding page lengths (4 - 5 pages, double-spaced, not counting the bibliography / page of citations). Please use an easily readable font style (e.g., Times) and font size (e.g., 12 point), with adequate margins (e.g., 1 inch on all sides, or 1 inch top/bottom and 1.25 inches on the sides).
additional writing advice

Three Short Essays

Throughout the semester students will write several essays in response to questions tied to the course readings.

Essay One (due Sep 29)

Answer ONE of the questions below. Read the instructions above about format and style. Please use at least three of the assigned readings to support your argument. (Feel free to refer to other sources as well.) Page length: 5 pages (not counting the bibliography).

Cities and solutions: Bettencourt and West confidently asserted that the nature and logic of cities can be readily understood, perhaps even "solved". Others (such as Webb and Rittel), see cities as complex phenomena that elude easy explanation and solutions. In your essay, compare these two perspectives (with reference to the above authors and perhaps other class readings as well). Differentiate between those aspects of cities that you judge are easily modeled/predicted/explained and those aspects that are unpredictable, unsolvable, and/or mysterious. What are the implications of this debate for understanding the contributions and constraints of urban planning?
To fix or to start anew? The various authors we have read so far have proposed a wide variety of visions for the city. Some have outlined incremental reforms of existing cities, while others have proposed fundamentally new alternatives. Using several examples from class readings, discuss plans that engage both sides of this debate: rehabilitation versus new start. Explain why each author chose the reformist or the radical path and how that choice was tied to their critique of existing cities.
The relevance of garden cities: Some contemporary environmentalists and community planners have apparently found a model for future cities in a century-old plan: Ebenezer Howard's 1898 proposal for Garden Cities. Discuss which of Howard's ideas are still relevant for today's post-industrial sprawling society. Can planners still learn anything from Garden Cities? You may find it useful to distinguish between the social, physical, political and/or economic aspects of his proposals.

Essay Two (due Nov 1 - revised date)

Moses & Jacobs: Planners have often used the Robert Moses/Jane Jacobs dichotomy to juxtapose the dangers of over concentrated power and ambition with the benefits of decentralized, preservation-minded activism and everyday urbanism. And yet in the past few years Robert Moses has been experiencing something of a rehabilitation, with renewed respect for his impact on New York City’s urban development. In addition, some authors have begun to reassess Jane Jacobs' legacy and relevance as well. In your essay, outline both the earlier and the contemporary themes of the Moses/Jacobs debate. (For example, where is power held in each of the two schemas?) If we are indeed witnessing a revisionist history of Jacobs and Moses, does this shift suggest a larger re-evaluation of the role of power, large projects and top-down authority in urban development?

Public Space: The claim: Traditional public spaces are being threatened due to privatization and/or securement (through restricted access, physical barriers, etc.). The loss of common public spaces leads directly to the decline of a shared public interest, and thus to the decline of civil society. The counter-claim: The threat to public spaces is exaggerated, and there is no direct link between public space, public interest and civil society. In addition, social critics who decry the loss of a shared public space get their urban history wrong: they inaccurately glorify and romanticize a lost era of great public spaces (that never quite existed). The real work of a democratic civil society takes place in social, political and economic institutions, not in physical public spaces. Citing class readings (and other sources if relevant), develop a rigorous, analytical argument in response to these opposing assertions.

Suburbia: The online OED (2011) defines a "suburb" as "the country lying immediately outside a town or city; more particularly, those residential parts belonging to a town or city that lie immediately outside and adjacent to its walls or boundaries." The identity of suburbs has thus been historically dependent on its relationship to the central city. However, many writers (such as Robert Fishman) have observed a historic transformation of city-suburb relations since the era of the "classic suburb;" our historical conception of suburbs may be increasingly antiquated and inaccurate. The majority of Americans now live in suburbs, and the range and variation of suburbs are so vast that the term "suburb" itself may be too simple and crude to encompass all the permutations. In addition, many of these suburbs are largely disconnected to the central city. The Detroit - Southeast Michigan region is but one example of this transformation. And new forms of suburbia are emerging in other places in the world (e.g., China, India, South America, etc.) – often representing fascinating and unexpected hybrids of urban & suburban forms. If we now live in a "suburban nation," discuss how planners need to rethink and update their understanding of the "suburb": e.g., its function, nomenclature, relationship to the central city, variation of forms, and its merits and dangers as a human settlement pattern. Where appropriate, discuss the veracity of various new suburban typologies articulated in the readings.

Are we still Modernists? Writers such as Peter Hall, Leonie Sandercock and James Scott have strongly criticized Modernism as a source of numerous ills in cities and in urban planning. In your essay, select several class writings and analyze the anti-modernist arguments. What specifically about modernism elicits such objections? Discuss whether these attacks on modernism are valid, wrong and/or misplaced. Be sure to define terms and disaggregate the concept of "modernism" where appropriate.

Essay Three (due Thursday, Dec 1)

Styles of planning: Is the central goal of planners to use their professional knowledge to write "plans" or to facilitate public discussions and negotiations among divergent social interests? Advocates of communicative-action (or collaborative) planning (e.g., Healey, Innes, Forester, etc.) have emphasized the shortcomings of past planning models. However, subsequent authors (e.g., Pennington, Flyvbjerg, Richardson, Fainstein) have pointed to the weaknesses of the communicative-action model. In your essay, analyze both the strengths and weaknesses of the communicative-action model of planning. Under what circumstances might the approach be more or less effective? Finally, how might the communicative-action model be modified to address these apparent shortcomings?

Pro- and Contra Planning: Arguments for and against public-sector urban planning often reflect divergent assumptions and beliefs about various aspects of society: economics (i.e., markets, work, consumption); individual vs. social rights and freedoms; social responsibility and obligation to others; rationality; social equality and justice; the role of private property; the role of government; the ability to predict and alter the future; etc. In your essay, select several aspects. For each, discuss how supporters and opponents of planning link this characteristic of society to their stance on planning.

Planning & Diversity: The planning profession faces a puzzling paradox: the discipline ostensibly places high priority on socio-spatial justice (i.e., on promoting racial and ethnic equality in communities and workplaces). However, the discipline has a surprisingly low percentage of planners from underrepresented minority groups (especially in the private sector). Drawing from historical through current examples from the readings, to what extent are racial/ethnic equality and diversity incorporated into the ideas, plans, and practices of urban planners? Explore the implications of what it means for planners not always to be members of the public or segments of the public they claim to represent. (If useful, define and differentiate themes such as "equity," "equality" and "diversity.")

Do planners talk about gender and sexuality? Planners happily debate the merits of sustainability, suburbs, garden cities, Robert Moses vs. Jane Jacobs, even modernism. But discussions about gender roles and sexual politics can be rare and/or awkward. Examine the ways in which issues of gender and sexuality have been incorporated (or neglected) in planning theory. To what extent are issues of gender and sex integrated into the standard canon of planning theory, treated as a standalone topic, or ignored altogether?

Analysis and Critique of a Planning or Zoning Board Meeting (due Friday Dec 9) -- deadline extended due to cancelled local planning commission meetings.

suggested length: 4-5 pages [you may turn in this assignment anytime during the semester before the due date]

You are to attend a meeting of a planning agency and write up an analysis of the session. You may choose a planning board or commission, a zoning board, an historic preservation board, a transportation commission, or any similar public meeting dealing primarily with city, county or regional planning issues.

The locale is up you: you could choose Ann Arbor, Detroit, Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor Township, Pittsfield, Toledo, Ypsilanti, or any other place of interest. You may find it helpful to attend the meeting with several other students.

Your paper should include the following:

cursory background information date and place of meeting; the type of planning agency; the community's size, location and social-economic profile and how these factors might shape planning issues;
the meeting's format, including structure of agenda and length of meeting; the board's composition (e.g., affiliation if known, gender, race); profile of audience, etc.
a summary of the issues covered (You need not give a run-down of all 17 agenda items down to a variance approval for a two-car garage. Instead, provide a brief overview on the types of issues, with a bit more discussion on the few most interesting topics.)
MOST IMPORTANTLY: an analysis and critique of the meeting's process. For example: How effective was the meeting? How "democratic" did the process appear? How much citizen participation was involved? How did the board respond to the public? What was the role of the staff planners in the meeting? Did it appear that decisions were actually being made at the meeting, or that the real decisions had already been made behind closed doors? How did the board deal with controversy? What was the language used in the meeting: planner's jargon, or layperson's English? Did you see any ideas from planning theory (e.g., comprehensive vs. incremental planning, equity and advocacy planning, communicative-based action vs. technocratic planning) reflected in the proceedings? If the meeting was remarkably boring, what might be the reason? and so forth. (This is the core section of the assignment, and should be the main focus of your writing efforts.)