What does good urban planning look like for Halifax?

[someone123]

This is for some planning-related discussion to keep it separate from project updates.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Be careful with generalizations. I know (and know of) many lawyers and even a few judges in this area with so-called "hard science" (physics, chemistry, math, engineering) undergrad and even graduate degrees. It's much more common than generally understood by the public. And the NSUARB, the first-tier tribunal tasked with considering planning matters, actively solicits applications from people with that sort of technical expertise.

There's some "magic sauce" to this combination. The people who can, for example, complete a PhD in a hard science and then move on to succeed in law or politics tend to be strong as a group.

An elephant in the room that's somewhat hard to talk about is that university standards have slipped and a lot of this has come in the form of "softer" subjects associated with newer and more subjective skills. Yet there is a lot of credentialism, and a shotgun-like backlash against technocracy when different technical areas have wildly different track records (e.g. biomedical research gives us incredible vaccines while there's been a sad combo of repeated inaccurate modeling and pronouncements from some corners).

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

So the ideal planning system is a Jirga of elders who also happen to be mathematicians? “Afplanistan” - There’s a certain jingle to it

I think you are getting at a good point here which I agree with. I'm skeptical that there can be any assembly of experts who can tell us what to do to make our cities well planned (what does this even mean? everyone has different preferences), whether they are mathematicians or something else. I would not consider anybody who can apply some Grade 12 math skills a mathematician however.

I'm sure planners have a more realistic and grounded view of their profession but it is much messier in the political and public arena with people arguing that planning can solve many ills like poverty or poor health (and if you don't like their interventions you must want people to suffer). Some of our ills are self inflicted by the past generations of wisdom (in recent years many places have experienced a combination of added regulation and degredation of some quality of life factors). Given real world constraints of municipalities in Canada (the councillors have to be voted in, the provinces and federal government will do what they do, the global economy will be what it is, technology will progress how it does; nobody knows what will happen) it makes sense to keep minimalism and flexibility in mind when planning. I intend this point merely as some food for thought, not a grand theory of urban planning.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by someone123

An elephant in the room that's somewhat hard to talk about is that university standards have slipped and a lot of this has come in the form of "softer" subjects associated with newer and more subjective skills. Yet there is a lot of credentialism, and a shotgun-like backlash against technocracy when different technical areas have wildly different track records (e.g. biomedical research gives us incredible vaccines while there's been a sad combo of repeated inaccurate modeling and pronouncements from some corners).


I think you are getting at a good point here which I agree with. I'm skeptical that there can be any assembly of experts who can tell us what to do to make our cities well planned (what does this even mean? everyone has different preferences), whether they are mathematicians or something else. I would not consider anybody who can apply some Grade 12 math skills a mathematician however.

I'm sure planners have a more realistic and grounded view of their profession but it is much messier in the political and public arena with people arguing that planning can solve many ills like poverty or poor health (and if you don't like their interventions you must want people to suffer). Some of our ills are self inflicted by the past generations of wisdom (in recent years many places have experienced a combination of added regulation and degredation of some quality of life factors). Given real world constraints of municipalities in Canada (the councillors have to be voted in, the provinces and federal government will do what they do, the global economy will be what it is, technology will progress how it does; nobody knows what will happen) it makes sense to keep minimalism and flexibility in mind when planning. I intend this point merely as some food for thought, not a grand theory of urban planning.

Then we should be realistic about what planning is: a lowly form of public administration that borrows methods from other fields as needed. I say the problem with wishing planning was more Cartesian, that is objectively calculated from a distance, is that there isn’t some void to be filled by these skills. By the very polyvalent nature of the job many components are subjective, and can’t be “out calculated”. Your average planner can do basic stuff like multiple linear regression, carvalho and shift-share analyses, along with some proficiency in mapping software. If someone really thinks these methods are insufficient they are free to become a researcher and develop new formulas, which some successfully do.

Only a handful of policy planners within an entire department may actually need to apply these formulas. Most just look if a development or your expanded driveway and apply the applicable by-law. The by-laws can have objective and subjective justifications that can’t be switched for your convenience, at least until plans are reviewed, and even then your by-laws must conform to the official plan, which must itself conform to provincial policy. I would say this is where negative public interactions occur. A subjective element could be reducing conflict between neighbours. A common reason homeowners get smacked by by-law officers is expanding their driveway without a permit. It’s not about some war on the car, but is from objective calculations about impervious surfaces and storm water management.

Part of the problem is overestimating what planning is. I like your public health example. Sure, planning researchers can and do map out the different rates of whatever illness throughout the city for example. That is a modest and acceptable example. But the real problem is when objective health related-research is picked to back shaky conclusions like those presented in a book like Happy City (Cleveland’s inspiration). Sure the author cites some very credible research in neuroscience but he crafts a personal view that doesn’t account for many other issues. Take Richard Florida too, he develops and calculates all these complex indexes which were criticized for just measuring people’s level of education.

This isn’t some lazy exercise of idealism vs. realism. The point is that ideas must be understood as a whole, not structurally.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Your average planner can do basic stuff like multiple linear regression, carvalho and shift-share analyses, along with some proficiency in mapping software. If someone really thinks these methods are insufficient they are free to become a researcher and develop new formulas, which some successfully do.

I would be extremely dubious of the use of these tools in a planning context. It strikes me that they could be employed as window dressing to buttress a conclusion already predetermined, with selective data used as input to the model to get the desired outcome. From the outside looking in, who would know? It is mostly a subjective process of what is good versus what is bad.

Only a handful of policy planners within an entire department may actually need to apply these formulas. Most just look if a development or your expanded driveway and apply the applicable by-law. The by-laws can have objective and subjective justifications that can’t be switched for your convenience, at least until plans are reviewed, and even then your by-laws must conform to the official plan, which must itself conform to provincial policy. I would say this is where negative public interactions occur. A subjective element could be reducing conflict between neighbours. A common reason homeowners get smacked by by-law officers is expanding their driveway without a permit. It’s not about some war on the car, but is from objective calculations about impervious surfaces and storm water management.

This is fascinating, to learn that a big part of why we have planners is to regulate driveways. Why do we even need to? Does it matter that a driveway takes 15% of a lot instead of 10%? The impervious surfaces are captured by Halifax Water's eye in the sky ditch tax process so it is not like this is a deep secret. Why should the municipality require me to get their permission for this, any more than I would need their permission to plant flowers?

Part of the problem is overestimating what planning is. I like your public health example. Sure, planning researchers can and do map out the different rates of whatever illness throughout the city for example. That is a modest and acceptable example. But the real problem is when objective health related-research is picked to back shaky conclusions like those presented in a book like Happy City (Cleveland’s inspiration). Sure the author cites some very credible research in neuroscience but he crafts a personal view that doesn’t account for many other issues. Take Richard Florida too, he develops and calculates all these complex indexes which were criticized for just measuring people’s level of education.

This isn’t some lazy exercise of idealism vs. realism. The point is that ideas must be understood as a whole, not structurally.

Yet, the entire bike lane boondoggle that many cities including HRM have dove into over the last decade or so is exactly this. Vague promises of better health for citizens and favorable impacts on greenhouse gases, but with absolutely zero actual cause-and-effect data to back it up. We see the same thing all the time in other areas too. Planning in its current-day form cleaves to a new-age sort of urbanist idealism that is largely unsupported by actual facts, and certainly does not align with how many citizens want their cities to be structured.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I would be extremely dubious of the use of these tools in a planning context. It strikes me that they could be employed as window dressing to buttress a conclusion already predetermined, with selective data used as input to the model to get the desired outcome. From the outside looking in, who would know? It is mostly a subjective process of what is good versus what is bad.

I would agree on a tangent. These technical tools, no matter how simple or advanced are of use but can only say so much. Otherwise we would be imposing a particular form of rationality on other subjects. Furthermore, anybody could learn them within a short period if the courses that instructed them were publicly available. They can definitely make selective use of data, take the example of Sudbury’s new Casino: a team of planning consultants offered a number of weights for a formula that determined the ideal location. Council was free to choose their priority which has its own set of weights, and the firm would calculate the ideal location based on that priority.

We could say the problem is the same, but the solutions are multiple: 1) We can deconstruct and expose the power relations guiding these technical abilities. & 2) We can counter a planner’s analysis with a more rigorous independent analysis, similar to how Development Options HFX hired a body to calculate carbon emissions.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This is fascinating, to learn that a big part of why we have planners is to regulate driveways. Why do we even need to? Does it matter that a driveway takes 15% of a lot instead of 10%? The impervious surfaces are captured by Halifax Water's eye in the sky ditch tax process so it is not like this is a deep secret. Why should the municipality require me to get their permission for this, any more than I would need their permission to plant flowers?

To prevent local infrastructure from overflowing and flooding the street would be my first answer. A flower garden is going absorb water. People who pave over much of their side or rear yard tend to turn their neighbour’s yard into a swampy mess.

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Yet, the entire bike lane boondoggle that many cities including HRM have dove into over the last decade or so is exactly this. Vague promises of better health for citizens and favorable impacts on greenhouse gases, but with absolutely zero actual cause-and-effect data to back it up. We see the same thing all the time in other areas too. Planning in its current-day form cleaves to a new-age sort of urbanist idealism that is largely unsupported by actual facts, and certainly does not align with how many citizens want their cities to be structured.

This is a good example of what I mean. Yes, cycling will reduce greenhouse gases and improve health, there is cause-and-effect data to back that up. However, even having that data is not enough to convince everyone it’s a good idea, or to at least explain why there’s so much “bikelash”. Those questions are political or sociological. This in turn goes back to my point against Antigonish, that it is in fact good for less technical fields such as sociology, but even better the common person, to invest their thought into planing topics since the questions are rarely ever purely technical.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Planning in its current-day form cleaves to a new-age sort of urbanist idealism that is largely unsupported by actual facts, and certainly does not align with how many citizens want their cities to be structured.

[Good Baklava]

It must also be noted that “the freedom to get there how I want” is a very ideological argument that has merit on both ends of the table. Purge any trace of idealism and an entire line of reasoning against urbanism gets closed. Without idealism you could not say cars = freedom. New urbanism is supported by facts, but nothing is ever “just the facts” since we know new urbanism is not just backed by ideals but a series of myths as well. These myths must be countered with both facts and ideals. Even poets have a place to say something, Gaston Bachelard wrote a great meditation on how poetry and its imagery shape the spaces around us.

This is an argument as old as time, or at least as far back as Heraclitus. People have tried time and time again to eliminate any form of idealism in order to make things “more scientific”, but in throwing away the mystified shell the rational kernel gets thrown out too.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I would suggest that idealism in itself isn't wrong. Idealisms in some form or another can help to set the goals by which things are accomplished. It's how we dream of making things better than they are... even though they often have unrealistic or negative aspects that are naturally part of any ideal view.

IMHO, the problem is that one small group's idealism is taken as the only valid one, almost to the point of being a religion - whereby anybody who doesn't 'believe' just hasn't 'seen the light', and therefore are wrong. With that mindset, planners can push cities in a direction that appeases their form of idealism while potentially going against the wants and needs of the majority of citizens, because "we know what's good for you, even if you don't".

Paradoxically, often planning decisions and philosophies of the past are scorned as being paternalistic - while the current group performs in the same fashion, using their positions of power to shove 'one size fits all' planning dogma down the throats of everybody who chooses to live in a non-rural area.

This isn't to say they are wrong all the time, but it is to say that the profession in general appears to be somewhat myopic, while touting themselves as being just the opposite.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I would suggest that idealism in itself isn't wrong. Idealisms in some form or another can help to set the goals by which things are accomplished. It's how we dream of making things better than they are... even though they often have unrealistic or negative aspects that are naturally part of any ideal view.

IMHO, the problem is that one small group's idealism is taken as the only valid one, almost to the point of being a religion - whereby anybody who doesn't 'believe' just hasn't 'seen the light', and therefore are wrong. With that mindset, planners can push cities in a direction that appeases their form of idealism while potentially going against the wants and needs of the majority of citizens, because "we know what's good for you, even if you don't".

Paradoxically, often planning decisions and philosophies of the past are scorned as being paternalistic - while the current group performs in the same fashion, using their positions of power to shove 'one size fits all' planning dogma down the throats of everybody who chooses to live in a non-rural area.

This isn't to say they are wrong all the time, but it is to say that the profession in general appears to be somewhat myopic, while touting themselves as being just the opposite.

Fair enough. I don’t think most planners realize how their powers are used and abused, particularly by developers and investors.

On the topic of a planner’s “philosophy”, the problem is a severe lack of philosophy regarding modern urban issues. I get irked when political ideologies and their dogmas get called philosophy. Planners don’t follow any philosophy, only formalisms. There were philosophers from different backgrounds who dabbled into cities such as Bachelard, Barthes, Lefebvre, Debord & Decerteau, but their theories are at least 50 years old and have not been sufficiently expanded upon in face of very real problems and emerging problems that many here pretend don’t exist (not you). More often than not their theories get reduced for planning purposes. That’s why I think the next big critiques of planning are going to come from poets and philosophers, who go beyond past theories and carry on the next chapter of that conversation.

At least take comfort in the fact that if modern urbanism’s problems persist, it will be self-defeating.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

IMHO, the problem is that one small group's idealism is taken as the only valid one, almost to the point of being a religion - whereby anybody who doesn't 'believe' just hasn't 'seen the light', and therefore are wrong. With that mindset, planners can push cities in a direction that appeases their form of idealism while potentially going against the wants and needs of the majority of citizens, because "we know what's good for you, even if you don't".

Paradoxically, often planning decisions and philosophies of the past are scorned as being paternalistic - while the current group performs in the same fashion, using their positions of power to shove 'one size fits all' planning dogma down the throats of everybody who chooses to live in a non-rural area.

This isn't to say they are wrong all the time, but it is to say that the profession in general appears to be somewhat myopic, while touting themselves as being just the opposite.

What you have just described is virtually identical to manner in which the political "progressives" (oh how I hate the way that word has been co-opted; we are talking the left wing here) behave when their positions are challenged. Despite how asinine or cringe-worthy many such positions may be, if you deign to criticize them you immediately get attacked and denigrated. The mindset is that theirs is the one and only true way forward, and anyone who disagrees is a philistine or neanderthal. The smug attitude is remarkable.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

What you have just described is virtually identical to manner in which the political "progressives" (oh how I hate the way that word has been co-opted; we are talking the left wing here) behave when their positions are challenged. Despite how asinine or cringe-worthy many such positions may be, if you deign to criticize them you immediately get attacked and denigrated. The mindset is that theirs is the one and only true way forward, and anyone who disagrees is a philistine or neanderthal. The smug attitude is remarkable.

“Without Mao Zedong thought, there would be no new urbanism”

- Me apparently…

I joke

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

“Without Mao Zedong thought, there would be no new urbanism”

- Me apparently…

I joke

Well, the term "Commie blocks" exists for a reason. Lots of common threads shared with the new urbanism.

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

“Without Mao Zedong thought, there would be no new urbanism”

- Me apparently…

I joke

What are your thoughts on the recent WFH trend due to pandemic-related shutdowns? It seems like the new urbanism push would cater towards micro-urbanism rather than the contemporary metropolitan urbanism we see worldwide.

Nova Scotia has tremendous potential to make micro-urbanism work but would it stop inflationary housing prices? I'd welcome living in a town like Truro or Kentville (or Antigonish!) if there was a nudge towards better utility infrastructure, mainly high speed internet. The town up here really improved recently with the main street being as strong as ever, lots of micro-breweries popping up everywhere to accommodate the local, student, and tourist population, bookstores are making a comeback, it's pretty promising. To make that work though there needs to be a coordinated effort from municipal government, planners, community etc to avoid creating a massive housing and rental shortage. A few "come from aways" moved onto my parents street and the locals are getting worried

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

This is why Centre Plan is so, so, so, so, so, so, SO important. People on here get hung up on it not reflecting their exact vision for Halifax, but miss the fact that at the end of the day it's finally getting to the heart of everything that's been wrong with planning in HRM. Centre Plan fundamentally restructures planning from an organizational point-of-view and frees up resources. If HRM can keep the momentum and bring a similar approach to the rest of the region, they may actually have a chance of reversing the death spiral and instead be in a position to update documents proactively, thus keeping the need for administration down, thus having more resources to plan proactively.

The Centre Plan is certainly better than nothing. I guess my original gripe about it is that it does serve a better purpose for the Peninsula and Dartmouth (within the Circ) but this area of HRM is only a portion of the sum of its parts. To ignore the rest of the region to me still seems incredibly short-sighted. I cost millions and took, what, a decade to put it all together and it still fails to deliver beyond contemporary urbanist outlook on city planning.

Originally Posted by someone123

Around here I see a kind of unholy alliance between NIMBYs and the reaction to postwar planning that slants the debate too heavily against new road development. I would not want to go back to the 60's when cities were bulldozing huge areas for brownfield highways but sometimes new roads are needed. My basic reasoning is that modal shares will only get so extreme and so as a city grows, some additional road capacity will be needed. A city that's 80% suburban is not going to pleasantly go from 90% car travel to 45% as it doubles in size. 70-80% modal share is aggressive and this requires more capacity.



The "two solitudes" of qualitative humanities style disciplines and quantitative science/math/engineering disciplines is quite old. Sometimes things went off the rails from having engineers do planning too. Notoriously traffic engineers would design whole neighbourhoods based on optimizing narrow parameters that didn't really capture what is needed to make an area desirable to be in. For an example of this look at early Cogswell Interchange redevelopment studies.

One thing I notice lately is that there are some very abstract and general bachelor's degrees. For example if you graduated high school you can go right into a degree of community design at Dalhousie. Is this really a good area of study for a 19 year old? And are people coming out with master's degrees in planning when they just did 2 similar degrees? It doesn't look like they need much math or science either. This seems like a recipe for groupthink.

You'd think a healthy balance between the two would be the most beneficial but the pendulum swung completely in the other direction.

I wish planning programs were far more specialized but I have a feeling the schools themselves wouldn't do that as they seem to be 'competing' against each other for students and their money. I wish Dalhousie was better at incorporating outside credits and diploma programs into their system. For example, if you studied at COGS all your academic credits are not valid for transfer, yet at COGS you would legitimately learn the equivalent of 4 years worth of geography credits/knowledge from a university in 4 months with class sizes as small as 3-5 people per instructor. When I worked an internship out here 10 years ago one of the engineers in our adjacent office had recently graduated from civil engineering at Dal and applied for a Masters in Planning and was denied. The admin told him he was short (I think?) 2 arts classes required for the masters and instead of him simply taking those 2 classes over a summer they told him his only option was to come back and take an entirely new 4-year arts undergrad to qualify. So yeah, he gave up on that and just stuck with civil engineering instead. It seems incredibly regressive and money-grabbing.

Originally Posted by Good Baklava

Planners clearly do not have the tools to understand the human condition, yet…

Those choosing to understand the human condition are blamed for inserting themselves into planning…

Sociologists and philosophers have had their talons dug into planning topics at least since the days of Engels and later Simmel. The torch was carried through the modern era with Lefebvre and Castells arguing over the role of the city. This is nothing new.

The problem is not qualitative vs quantitative; a purely quantitative approach becomes a ruse of concept since modifying quantities in turn modifies qualities. Technocrats can and do use quantitative data to fit their predetermined conclusion. We of course need this technical ability, but let’s not pretend it exists independently of other abilities. The real problem is dogmatism, no matter what field you hail from. Planners, scientists and philosophers all need to consistently verify and re-evaluate their hypotheses.

Backgrounds in sociology and the like do contribute positively to urban planning policy, don't get me wrong. However, there seems like too big of an emphasis on it from an academic level rather than simply taking 2-3 courses as part of your degree rather than being guided into taking a full undergrad in it to qualify for a masters program.

Sociological perspectives help but design on its own can incorporate it without having to hire a whole team of soc-minded planners at 60k-80k to remind you of it. Height/scale/setbacks designed by an urban designer already covers those corrections. I dunno, I guess I've been too cynical lately in my posts so sorry for coming across as dismissive.

Originally Posted by someone123

It is not that math or science cure groupthink but if you do 2 very different fields you'll get 2 different kinds of groupthink which brings some clarity. If you enter a field when you are more mature you also tend to have more of your own opinions.

And there's something to mastery of a narrow practical/applicable technical skill plus the humility that comes from realizing that it doesn't actually work that well in real life situations. It is not good to focus only on very abstract concepts, building castles in the sky.

Multi-disciplinary can only be a plus, IMO.

Originally Posted by someone123

They are useful tools and people who don't have them don't tend to appreciate their worth (e.g. understanding basic modeling used for planning purposes). Usually the math courses are viewed as gatekeeping but there is nothing really that hard about linear algebra, and calculus is taught in grade 12. If we can't teach a bunch of it to 20 year olds in university or worse still people doing a planning master's degree we don't have a very good education system.

From my experience calculus, stats, and urban economics were required so that was positive. There were very little to no geomatics or other technical supplementary work that should have complimented the theory taught. And as for the theory, anything I was taught about planning was stuff I already knew on my own, or you could learn from renting 4-5 books from the library instead of spending 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars on. Everything is about accreditation now which I think discourages more people from contributing to certain fields - like my example above of the engineer I met who was incredibly bright and had a better perspective on planning and design than the planners themselves. Even planning tech positions are harder to fall into if you strictly have a geomatics background, nah you need a CIP certified degree to make $20/hr and do all the technical work for planners who make $50/hr and can't do that work on their own.

Meh.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Sociological perspectives help but design on its own can incorporate it without having to hire a whole team of soc-minded planners at 60k-80k to remind you of it. Height/scale/setbacks designed by an urban designer already covers those corrections. I dunno, I guess I've been too cynical lately in my posts so sorry for coming across as dismissive.

Ah. I was thinking more on the side of urban geography than design. I can’t speak about dal from my experience elsewhere but the arts requirement seems a bit draconian. By that standard I would probably be denied entry for a dal master’s. I find that there’s a complete over-simplification of planning theory in planning theory class too, that anyone absolutely can learn from a few books, and probably in more detail if they chose the right books.

Sounds like we’ve followed similar courses, just out of curiosity what theories did or does dal teach? I’ve heard from a former dal master’s student about how their program is mindlessly pro-development. My school offers 4 specializations btw, sounds like dal doesn’t do that at all.

[Keith P.]

I suppose there can be good planning in HRM. But mostly we get this sort of idiocy. It's like they are trying to cause accidents. Scroll to 17:40 for the awful reality:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1945996867544/

Edit: A direct link: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1946017859869

This is lacking the green poles sprouting up out of the pavement so I look for those to be added to the bag o' tricks here to accompany the curb bump-outs, beep-beep klaxons, and green paint on the asphalt. Surely that will make it better! One can only wonder how much all this cost. Of course this is the same govt that just approved $100 million to tear down the Cogswell interchange, so clearly, money is no object.

I wonder what it will take to get Ms. Witherbee relieved of her duties and move on to a more suitable career where she can do less harm. A Subway sandwich artist might be a more appropriate career path.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I suppose there can be good planning in HRM. But mostly we get this sort of idiocy. It's like they are trying to cause accidents. Scroll to 17:40 for the awful reality:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1945996867544/

I was hoping that was actually parody, but then I remembered how lame Colleen Jones's sense of humor is.

Good grief.

[someone123]

I think NS has a lot of potential for smaller towns to become more popular, particularly if they have good highway access, post-secondary, and medical care. The prime areas for this are the clusters of towns ~1 hour from Halifax but others could do well too.

The pile-on in a few of the largest cities is an underappreciated angle to the housing affordability issue although it does get some attention. I think it is tied to broader questions of economic vibrancy. In the successful countries there are businesses growing all over; the US and Germany used to be strongly in this camp. Then at the other end you have a country like Russia where you pretty much have to be in the capital and politically connected to be well off, and most of the country is treated like a resource colony. None of this is earth-shattering news but it's rare to get a holistic picture; you tend to have the geopolitics and macroeconomics people talking in airy generalizations and then people who want cheap housing built now by whoever looks closest to the problem.

[OldDartmouthMark]

IMHO, good urban planning should involve some work to prevent situations like this:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ople-1.6177376

Although I believe there isn't a complete solution in our current iteration of society (and there will probably always be those who are left out, either by choice or by circumstance), we have to be better than this.

[Good Baklava]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

IMHO, good urban planning should involve some work to prevent situations like this:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ople-1.6177376

Although I believe there isn't a complete solution in our current iteration of society (and there will probably always be those who are left out, either by choice or by circumstance), we have to be better than this.

Honestly yes. Touting “Vibrancy” is a cruel joke in the face of this issue.

While it’s obviously not just a planning issue, planners did play a role in creating this mess and therefore have the ability but most importantly the responsibility to assist in fixing it. Planners helped create this mess by influencing areas ripe for investment through public provision, without accounting for who was displaced or made to seem out of place. When planners talk about how retrofitting a park with all the latest urban design features will benefit everyone, they/we really mean everyone who doesn’t live there. “How many people will go homeless along this new light rail line?” is a question ignored by municipalities.

How could planners help? Or at least not be as bad? One would be to gather better data on these effects, or to at least devote a section of the economic analysis on the predicted negative effects. Two would involve waiving fees and prioritizing approvals for non-profit supportive housing, which are run by cash strapped organizations. Non profit-housing helps but expecting non-profits to solve the housing crisis is like expecting philanthropy to solve poverty. Non-profits have a shaky record when it comes to sustaining themselves and avoiding being sold off to developers, especially if they have to balance repayments to creditors and the needs of residents.

Of course, I’m really starting to seem out of place here when criticizing the negative side-effects of urban development on a site that’s about fetishizing it, not that I can always stop myself from fetishizing such projects either.