Urban Planning for failed architects?

[garethMann]

I have been considering pursuing a career in Urban Planning for some time now. What I like about it is the combination of designing public spaces (Landscape Architecture) and organizing cities and communities (Social Policy/Community Development).

However when I have mentioned my interest in Urban planning to some people they have said to me:

"Isn't that for Architecture students who didn't make the grade?"

Has anyone else heard of this stigma associated with the field of Urban Planning before? How true do you think it is?

I have some experience already working for local government and have heard a lot of moaning there from people who are not satisfied with their work and constantly complaining that they should have done something else with their lives, even in the planning department itself.

The last thing I would want is to join a field that is full of depressed people that wish they had done something else but lacked the competence.

Any opinions/discussion on this topic would be greatly appreciated, especially from people who have already worked as Planners.

 

[dandy_warhol]

I have been considering pursuing a career in Urban Planning for some time now. What I like about it is the combination of designing public spaces (Landscape Architecture) and organizing cities and communities (Social Policy/Community Development).

However when I have mentioned my interest in Urban planning to some people they have said to me:

"Isn't that for Architecture students who didn't make the grade?"

Has anyone else heard of this stigma associated with the field of Urban Planning before? How true do you think it is?

I have some experience already working for local government and have heard a lot of moaning there from people who are not satisfied with their work and constantly complaining that they should have done something else with their lives, even in the planning department itself.

The last thing I would want is to join a field that is full of depressed people that wish they had done something else but lacked the competence.

Any opinions/discussion on this topic would be greatly appreciated, especially from people who have already worked as Planners.

from my experience in an Urban Planning grad program there were a bunch of people who had undergrad degrees in Architecture or Landscape Architecture but who were so disillusioned decided to go with Planning instead. they tended to think that the Architects were slight egomaniacs.

 

[BKM]

Architects would think that,

After all: they ARE the GODS of the professional world (as their huge salaries and immense influence in the real world suggests).

Seriously, very few planners are "failed architects" or frustrated architectural students. Some would argue that one of the biggest flaws of modern urban planning is the lack of design experience/skills. Of course, given what passes for architectural "training" in today's Cult Compounds (a.k.a. architectural schools), that lack of serious training may be a benefit.

Seriously:

Most, planners are intensely interested in architecture and the built environment, of course. But, many of us have training in fields like geography, political science, public administration, or even law and business. Architecture remains a good training route for going into the planning field, as it does (should?) provide that important tie to the built world that colored maps may not provide.

 

[Hink]

Although I think that Architects have a delusional view of themselves, most realize that they are not any better than planners.

At Ball State, everyone goes through all three programs to find out what they like and what they don't like. Most people find then that Architecture is or isn't for them. Like myself, I do not like the idea of sitting in a room and drawing a building that will never be built. But some do.

I think that to each their own. But architects know their place in the universe, as do planners.

Once you get into Grad school, no one even cares anymore. So that makes life easier....

 

[Dan]

However when I have mentioned my interest in Urban planning to some people they have said to me:

"Isn't that for Architecture students who didn't make the grade?"

Has anyone else heard of this stigma associated with the field of Urban Planning before? How true do you think it is?.

It's the other way around, according to the writers of Seinfeld.

"Isn't an architect just an art school dropout with a tilting desk and a big ruler?"

 

[jaws]

Every architect today is a failed architect. They have divorced themselves from the root of their profession, providing good buildings for people to live with. Only those who can bury everything they were taught in architecture school and learn on their own can become successful.

 

[RSW]

I suppose in some senses I fit this description, though I hope I am not in truth a failure. I did graduate from architecture school and am a few months away from licensure, but I am at times quite disenchanted with the profession. This dissatisfaction has motivated me to return to school part-time for a planning degree, with a hope some day to redirect my career toward more perspicuous ends.

For certain my experience within architecture confirms that many architects believe themselves to be more important than they are. Often they look down on planners, landscape architects, clients, and almost everyone else. Of course this isn't always true and I have met some stellar people in the profession (though these aren't the types likely to gain recognition within the field).

My own values at the moment with respect to the built environment are perhaps somewhere in the middle of these two professions which I suppose shouldn't be surprising. Neither "side" has the complete or correct answer, nor can either profession be viewed as homogenous.

In any case I wouldn't let this question even bother you. Even if some category of person might view an urban planner as someone who could not cut it in architecture school (and seemingly this castigation would mainly only be coming from architects themselves), I would simply dismiss this naive perspective and carry on with the work you feel strongly about.

RSW

 

[Dan]

Another thought: as far as the frustration that some planners feel, it's because, once in the real world, we realize that our power is limited, and that we run across significant barriers when it comes to actually making a difference in the way our cities and towns are shaped. Mainly, it's market forces and politics; have a look at some of the threads in the Zoning and Land Use subforums to get a sense of what planners face in their day-to-day work.

Planners may also feel frustrated because the majority of people we deal with on a day-today basis -- commercial property owners, developers and lawyers -- make far more money than we do. When I was doing development review, though, I seldom took for granted that the lone voice of a young planner making $40,000 could make or break a multi-million dollar development.

Architects don't make a lot, either, but it is a profession that seems to have more prestige than planning. However, many architects I know express the same frustration as planners; the fantastic buildings they design in studio aren't what clients want in the real world. While planners are diappointed at the sight of yet another loop-and-lollypop subdivision, architects sigh at the multi-gabled tract homes with windowless side walls that are constructed on those cul-de-sacs. The difference though, is that planners are blamed for the sad state of todays's suburbs, while the architects churning out plans for generic big box stores aren't.

The stress and frustration level is pobably much lower than for other professions. I think that planners tend to feel it more, though, because so many go into the profession as idealists. It's as if the weight of the world is upon us, and the sight of subdivisions sprawling to the horizon is just another sign of our failure.

 

[BIH80]

Failed architects? Maybe urban design, not planning as a whole. ;-)

 

[WBH]

Most, planners are intensely interested in architecture and the built environment, of course. But, many of us have training in fields like geography, political science, public administration, or even law and business.

BKM, can you elaborate on the ways youv'e seen legal training applied in the planning field. I'm in law school now (1st year) and am interested in what opportunities are out there in the planning world for a J.D.? Thanks!

 

[momerath]

I wouldn't say they are 'failed' architects at all. I spent two pretty nasty years in architecture school at Rice, all the while having the feeling that something was horribly wrong the profession, the attitude, and the people--yet I loved studying buildings and their relationships to life. It took me a year to figure out that the planning field embraced all of what I felt was right and good, and I finally found something I could be comfortable with. Maybe planners who were trained as architects are really people who saw the light.

 

[vtboy99]

Another thought: as far as the frustration that some planners feel, it's because, once in the real world, we realize that our power is limited, and that we run across significant barriers when it comes to actually making a difference in the way our cities and towns are shaped. Mainly, it's market forces and politics; have a look at some of the threads in the Zoning and Land Use subforums to get a sense of what planners face in their day-to-day work.

Planners may also feel frustrated because the majority of people we deal with on a day-today basis -- commercial property owners, developers and lawyers -- make far more money than we do. When I was doing development review, though, I seldom took for granted that the lone voice of a young planner making $40,000 could make or break a multi-million dollar development.

Architects don't make a lot, either, but it is a profession that seems to have more prestige than planning. However, many architects I know express the same frustration as planners; the fantastic buildings they design in studio aren't what clients want in the real world. While planners are diappointed at the sight of yet another loop-and-lollypop subdivision, architects sigh at the multi-gabled tract homes with windowless side walls that are constructed on those cul-de-sacs. The difference though, is that planners are blamed for the sad state of todays's suburbs, while the architects churning out plans for generic big box stores aren't.

The stress and frustration level is pobably much lower than for other professions. I think that planners tend to feel it more, though, because so many go into the profession as idealists. It's as if the weight of the world is upon us, and the sight of subdivisions sprawling to the horizon is just another sign of our failure.

Ok, let's turn this statement completely around. How about Architecture or Landscape Architecture graduate education for failed Urban Planners? Quite honestly the "planning for failed architects" question has been played out time and again by disillusioned designers looking to design the entire city versus being relgated to a single building.

Instead, what about those of us urban planners who "only" have an undergraduate education in the humanities (Geography) and a graduate degree in planning? Are we to look up to or pursue a path taken by fellow professionals who have studied Architecture as an undergrad and planning during grad school to hopefully foster the amount of professional prestige and monetary compensation in which we hope to receive in the private sector?

I am considering pursuing an additional graduate degree in either landscape architecture, architecture, or urban design at UC Berkeley and feel that that may give me the edge I need to rise above the other professional planners in the private sector.

In other words, does it really take a combination of planning AND design education to become broad enough to be recognized in the professional world? I feel as if I will NEVER be considered for a upper management position (principal or partner) in a combination planning/design firm without a graduate design degree and possible licensure (AIA/ASLA). I am afraid being an AICP with only a Master of City Planning degree and no accredited design education will lead me to a glass ceiling in terms of professional opportunities and pay increases unless I want to work for the public sector (WHICH I AM NOT INTERESTED IN).

 

[cch]

Where I went to school we had alot of pre-landscape architecture students who never got the go to proceed to the non-pre stage, who changed their major to planning. But if you are thinking planning because you want to design public spaces you better try to get a job in the private sector. I enjoy what I do, but I am disappoitned by how governments always put out requests for proposals whenever they are ready to do anything creative or design-oriented.

 

[CosmicMojo]

Most, planners are intensely interested in architecture and the built environment, of course. But, many of us have training in fields like geography, political science, public administration, or even law and business.

That's my experience: most planners I know came from grography, public administration, I don't know any who were trained as architects (although, of course, it does happen).

I agree, if you want to design, a degree in LA or Arch. will help imensfully.

 

[bdaleray]

In other words, does it really take a combination of planning AND design education to become broad enough to be recognized in the professional world? I feel as if I will NEVER be considered for a upper management position (principal or partner) in a combination planning/design firm without a graduate design degree and possible licensure (AIA/ASLA). I am afraid being an AICP with only a Master of City Planning degree and no accredited design education will lead me to a glass ceiling in terms of professional opportunities and pay increases unless I want to work for the public sector (WHICH I AM NOT INTERESTED IN).

vtboy -

I can see that for a planner, having a complimentary degree in design *would* make things easier on the surface. However, from my experience, the credentials are only good for getting in the door. After that, it's the results that get you advancement. Most places couldn't care less what your degree is in, if you can do the work.

To make upper management in most of the firms I'm familiar with, you'd need to be able to show that you understand the broader picture, or are enough of a threat that if you leave you could take work with you.

If you want to advance in that type of environment, broaden your experiences. Start working with the design. Ask to lead a different type of team. I know of LA's that lead civil engineering design teams - if you can swing the work, I can see planners leading design teams.

Now, if you need additional education to be comfortable in different roles, then by all means take it. Still, I think the degree is only good as wallpaper, or to get in the door. You could get just as much from a class here & there, and probably get your company to pay for it.

YMMV