• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

Planning: general šŸŒ‡ Jeff Speck's Planner’s Pledge

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
32,365
Points
79
28 Promises Jeff Speck Says All Planners Should Make to the Public

The Planner’s Pledge is as follows:

WHEREAS:

  • Car-dependent development is destructive to our health, our economy, our environment, and our social fabric.
  • Planning around the car is a self-fulfilling prophecy: traffic studies and parking minimums perpetuate and worsen the very car dependence that they hope to mitigate.
  • Land-use zoning, beyond its original purpose of separating housing from noxious uses, creates car dependence.
  • Most negative impacts of car-based planning will not be alleviated by electrification, especially the wasteful consumption patterns caused by decentralization.
  • Single-family zoning, invented to perpetuate racial segregation in the face of civil rights laws, is morally bankrupt and destructive to overcoming past injustices.
  • Income diversity within neighborhoods is a social good that developers will typically not allow for unless required to do so by local ordinance.
  • Affordable housing is not fully affordable if its residents cannot lead productive lives car-free.
  • Walkable, bikeable communities provide their inhabitants with a superior quality of life and must be acknowledged as an unmitigated good.
  • Achieving walkability depends on the creation of a physical framework in which walking is truly useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting.
  • The majority of the American built environment is car dependent. These places should be allowed to grow, but only in ways that lessen that dependency.
  • Homelessness is a condition that cities can address most affordably by first providing housing and only subsequently placing any demands upon the person housed.
  • Primary schooling is best provided in neighborhoods in which it can be reached on foot. The same is true of daycare, playgrounds, parks, pools, and other municipal amenities.
I PLEDGE THAT I WILL:

  • Encourage more housing in walkable areas.
  • Encourage the construction of schools that most students can reach on foot or bike.
  • Encourage the construction of small local parks and other amenities.
  • Mandate inclusionary zoning.
  • Allow accessory dwelling units everywhere.
  • Support Housing First policymaking to fight homelessness.
  • Work to eliminate all on-site parking requirements.
  • Require all apartment properties to decouple parking fees from rents.
  • Require all large employers to offer transit passes, bike subsidies, or simple cash payouts to employees who do not drive, of equal value to a parking space.
  • Work to locate dense development along frequent transit routes and vice versa.
  • Encourage the implementation of docked bikeshare programs.
  • Insist that all new streets and roads offer low-stress micromobility routes, either through protected lanes or mixing with truly low-speed traffic.
  • Encourage congestion pricing for crowded roadways.
  • Encourage the adoption of Vision Zero policies.
  • Engineer new roads with a design speed no higher than the desired driver speed.
  • Advocate for firefighting equipment that fits streets and not vice versa.
  • Replace traffic signals with all-way stop signs wherever feasible.
  • Work toward a goal of continuous tree canopy above all thoroughfares and parking lots.
  • Advocate against bike helmet laws as they suppress ridership and worsen safety.
I PLEDGE THAT I WILL NOT:

  • Encourage or assist in the consolidation of schools or parks into larger facilities.
  • Encourage or assist in the proliferation of rideshare services like Uber and Lyft in places with significant transit ridership.
  • Encourage or assist in the development of any autonomous driving technology (or any technology) that limits the freedom of pedestrians and cyclists.
  • Build or abet the building of any new highways or highway lanes.
  • Allow traffic studies to limit new development or mandate wider streets.
  • Build or abet the building of any new throughfare that does not safely welcome pedestrians and cyclists.
  • Locate any parking lot between a right-of-way edge and a front door.
  • Locate any parking structures directly against the sidewalk edge without another use at ground level.
  • Encourage the destruction of any substantial sidewalk-facing building facade more than 100 years old.
In signing this pledge, I understand that it is equally binding as the AICP code of ethics, and that any violation thereof is grounds for revocation of my AICP certification.

Thank you for your understanding as you consider this profound change to our way of serving the public. For professional planners, we ask for your understanding and compliance. For everyone else, we ask for your forgiveness.

The American Planning Association and American Institute of Certified Planners had nothing to do with this text. It is fiction, a mere proposal. But wouldn’t it be nice if it were real?
 
28 Promises Jeff Speck Says All Planners Should Make to the Public
So Jeff doesn't live in the real world or has to deal with many budgets to fund all these scattered parks and great ideas.
 
Yeah, agreed, that kind of "open letter" is specious at best. His "open letter" is tantamount to systemic change in the United States. While I don't disagree with that urge, the practicality of it all, right now, is a fever dream. Instead of issuing an open letter to the APA, why not make the appeal to state legislators and to Pete? Or buddy-up with AOC and Bernie?
If I worked in a major metro area, I could see getting behind most of what's in here. I work in a small-mid size city in a rural area. Walkable schools would include lots of one room school houses or the tearing down of existing neighborhoods to move a majority of our residents into more dense areas that would allow walkable schools. We've seen big changes in the last 10 years in how our neighborhoods have started to integrate racially, but walkable schools would still push us back to having white, black, and now Hispanic dominated schools instead of integrated systems.
 
I wish schools were considered better here, but we just throw them the extra land in the corner. The park thing kills me. He wants little parks everywhere. Around here we let the developer do that. They're called amenities when you sell a neighborhood and it's all maintained by the HOA so the city budget isn't stretched thinner than it already is. Plus there are so many just stupid things like fire equipment should fit the road. I like my fire equipment to fit the job it needs to do and if that means a truck large enough to carry all possible response equipment so be it. Plus the no bike helmet laws? If your state says that safety then that's what it is. If we're going to get rid of bike helmet laws let's just get rid of motorcycle helmet laws. Just goes to a I hate cars kind of world and all cities must be like NYC. They couldn't possibly have their own unique problems.
 
90% good in the urban context, but a few misses:

Mandate inclusionary zoning.
IZ doesn't exactly have a wide therapeutic window before it becomes anti-supply, and can be a BIG barrier to fine-grained development when applied inappropriately. I'd much rather see mixed-income development handled through mixed-income social housing (which doesn't necessarily have to be government built! Mission-oriented housing entities can also get into the game of building/managing internally cross-subsidized social housing, and this is one place where I see good supply-side reform being severely underrated by leftoids that assume that socialism must come from the top down) than through IZ, but I can understand why large cities have IZ at the moment given the anti-subsidized-supply forces in this country.

Work to locate dense development along frequent transit routes and vice versa.
The problem with this is that many of the arterials that play host to high-capacity transit at the moment are pretty much car sewers/stroads, and are not conducive to dense, pedestrian-oriented, residential-heavy development at the moment. Focusing on a whole-of-catchment approach for dense development near transit lets you have development that is at once dense and tranquil, spared from car noise and exhaust by being tucked in behind the arterial's commercial strip.

Replace traffic signals with all-way stop signs wherever feasible.
Using all-way stop control for traffic calming is a practice strongly discouraged by the MUTCD itself, and for good reason in this case. I'd much rather see modern roundabouts deployed whenever possible due to the deflection they provide -- you can't simply outright ignore a roundabout without risking your vehicle in the process.

That said, I do want to leave with one positive note, and that's he at least gets why Housing First is a thing -- if nothing else, one should be intuitively able to figure out that it's far easier to follow up on someone when they have an address that their care providers can find/reach them at! (I can only imagine how hard it'd be to check up on a patient to make sure that they're taking their meds if you have to go hopping from camp to camp on tips from other homeless folks just to find them at all!)
 
I have a low degree of respect for Jeff, mainly because he describes problems and makes aspirational statements, but has no understanding of how to actually implement anything, budgeting, municipal operations, etc. His 28 rules click-bait is just another example. I actually don't think he understands walkability as much as he projects as his image. Maybe this comes from me sitting in a couple of his talks and just coming away unimpressed.
 
Overall I think that there is a lot to aspire to with this, but as many of you have said, there are real world limitations to implementing this. More so, there are things that can get really tricky. For example, Mandated Inclusionary Zoning in the classic tense is illegal here.
Not allowed in my state either.

I looked up Jeff's background. He comes from that Duaney group so off course he's brainwashed into communities like Seaside. You know what seaside is missing? Jobs. Where do those people work. Oh yeah, they commute in their cars to another city. They also forget that large factories are not always compatible with housing in dense areas. Hence the need for a well planned road system, but I guess it's okay as long as that all happens in another community.
 
If I worked in a major metro area, I could see getting behind most of what's in here. I work in a small-mid size city in a rural area. Walkable schools would include lots of one room school houses or the tearing down of existing neighborhoods to move a majority of our residents into more dense areas that would allow walkable schools. We've seen big changes in the last 10 years in how our neighborhoods have started to integrate racially, but walkable schools would still push us back to having white, black, and now Hispanic dominated schools instead of integrated systems.
I agree. I am generally in support of the idea of neighborhood schools because I'm rather involved with Safe Routes to Schools work in my community, and kids need all the assistance they can to remain physically active. It's harder to do that when the school's on the periphery of town, off the busy county highway. But if you have neighborhood schools, you run the risk of de facto school segregation unless you're engaged in busing.

Only idea I can think of that would defeat the above de facto would be co-locating magnet schools in the neighborhood schools or offering open district enrollment. Former would be an interesting approach to allow for different schools to specialize in different Arts/STEM/Other areas.
 
Not allowed in my state either.

I looked up Jeff's background. He comes from that Duaney group so off course he's brainwashed into communities like Seaside. You know what seaside is missing? Jobs. Where do those people work. Oh yeah, they commute in their cars to another city. They also forget that large factories are not always compatible with housing in dense areas. Hence the need for a well planned road system, but I guess it's okay as long as that all happens in another community.
I agree... the person that I think "gets it" better with much more practicality is Ilana Preuss. Slightly different topic area, but walkability-adjacent and supportive of redevelopment.
 
I can't completely bash Seaside. It's a nice place and you can walk to restaurants and maybe to get groceries. We tend to call these master planned communities in my area. We also do this kind of walkable community in our uptown area. You can walk to anything you need and a quick hop on the light rail gets you to everything else. It's amazing and we even have roads. Some of them major arterials with 6 lanes. It's just our metro understands some people like to live out in the suburbs, away from things. Some people like to drive their cars. Plus we have a legislature that is doing everything it can to destroy public transit. I also understand you don't sell books without throwing out some crazy ideas to get people talking.
 
Maybe I'm biased from experience working in municipal gov before, but why not instead redirect these pledges and standards towards Planning Commissioners as a way to give more credibility to the community? Speck's approach seems to follow the misconception that people with planning titles in municipal gov. actually have the authority to do things like "require all large employers to offer transit passes, bike subsidies, or simple cash payouts to employees who do not drive, of equal value to a parking space." I'm not trying to belittle planning, but anyone who was worked in the trenches at a typical government agency has to chuckle a bit at the thought that they can simply decide to implement such a mandate on large employers.
 
I have a low degree of respect for Jeff, mainly because he describes problems and makes aspirational statements, but has no understanding of how to actually implement anything, budgeting, municipal operations, etc. His 28 rules click-bait is just another example. I actually don't think he understands walkability as much as he projects as his image. Maybe this comes from me sitting in a couple of his talks and just coming away unimpressed.
Yeah, he actually visited my community and we went over some site plans and stuff- his suggestions in general were good but in many cases what he thought was a missed opportunity or a lack of vision was a utility corridor or other constraint the municipality had no control over. I think sometimes guys like Jeff see the whole "system" of ownership, physical environment and municipal regulation as one big monolith when we know and experience a far different reality.
 
Yeah, he actually visited my community and we went over some site plans and stuff- his suggestions in general were good but in many cases what he thought was a missed opportunity or a lack of vision was a utility corridor or other constraint the municipality had no control over. I think sometimes guys like Jeff see the whole "system" of ownership, physical environment and municipal regulation as one big monolith when we know and experience a far different reality.
This is why as a consultant now, I seek to hire people that have worked in the public sector at least a few years. They understand complexity.

Jeff reminds me of residents that used to complain that a certain corner wasn't being developed and blamed the city as a convenient scapegoat. They were always surprised when I pulled out my folder about the property, featuring its status not only as having been an illegal landfill, but that it had significant documented site contamination, multiple enforcement liens and an absentee owner that failed to understand the liability impact that had to his sales expectations.
 
Back
Top