Well said.
^^ Can you be more specific with what you feel are the specific issues that serve to subvert urban planning in St. Louis? Also, list suggestions for improvement. I've heard complaints that the sheer number of city aldermen serves to slow progress but I'm unsure.
- 390
Doug wrote:Vancouver, a City of around 570k, is experiencing rapid growth because of PLANNING decisions. It is a model of how planning can change everything. ....
While planning may have a lot to do with it, Vancourver has fab fab fab weather and fab beautiful geography and that's a huge draw.
But of course canadians know everything about planning, guess that's why Jane whats-er-name moved there to expire.
I want to know: who is one the inside tract inside the city's planning dept for Stanley's job?
ecoabsence wrote:bsever wrote:Can we start the "Recruit Rob Powers" campaign?
Do you not like Rob?
Point well taken and I rescind the whole idea. I knew not what I was saying.
I suggest that instead of one new planner, the City should hire a committee of planners. Say, around eleven or so? To ensure professionalism and efficiency (as well as sound design and plan adherence), these planning committee members could be appointees of the aldermen. So, ok, one for each alderman: 26 planners. I think such a planning department would fit in well with city hall and I can foresee nothing but success and progress ahead.
What?
28 planners appointed from the Aldermen would be even worse. You would have each planner arguing for what each Alderperson wanted.
Deliberative Planning provides some ideas.
Any change would have to come from Aldermen and the Mayor. But first they would need to acknowledge there is a problem which they don't. They say they represent the will of the people thus there is no problem with the system. This is a political culture issue. Ours is traditionalistic and conservative: the system works!
One thing I know for sure is that urbanists and preservationists need to be organized into an actual effective lobbying organization. If this existed then perhaps Stanley wouldn't have gone. Urban design, planning, and preservation isn't on the agenda because no group speaks for those issues. A planner can't do this alone because an advocate without an actual political base is simply someone looking to be unemployed. An elected official has no reason to push for such issues if an interest group isn't advocating. A Mayor might say he is a preservationist when elections near, however when it comes down to actual decisions like the Century Building, Blairmont, etc., the truth is different. This is because politically there was a greater incentive for demolition. This is due to a political environment absent of a viable preservation lobby coupled with many opposing interests.
Why alienate developers, thus your political base? This is machine politics. You could be replaced! In a room of sycophants there is always someone waiting to take orders.
Deliberative Planning provides some ideas.
Any change would have to come from Aldermen and the Mayor. But first they would need to acknowledge there is a problem which they don't. They say they represent the will of the people thus there is no problem with the system. This is a political culture issue. Ours is traditionalistic and conservative: the system works!
One thing I know for sure is that urbanists and preservationists need to be organized into an actual effective lobbying organization. If this existed then perhaps Stanley wouldn't have gone. Urban design, planning, and preservation isn't on the agenda because no group speaks for those issues. A planner can't do this alone because an advocate without an actual political base is simply someone looking to be unemployed. An elected official has no reason to push for such issues if an interest group isn't advocating. A Mayor might say he is a preservationist when elections near, however when it comes down to actual decisions like the Century Building, Blairmont, etc., the truth is different. This is because politically there was a greater incentive for demolition. This is due to a political environment absent of a viable preservation lobby coupled with many opposing interests.
Why alienate developers, thus your political base? This is machine politics. You could be replaced! In a room of sycophants there is always someone waiting to take orders.
- 390
Doug wrote:26 planners appointed from the Aldermen would be even worse. ....
ummm doug, I think he knows that. His suggestion is tongue in cheeck.
But let's make those 26 planners canadian and THEN we've got a go.
who is rob powers?
MattnSTL wrote:bsever wrote:So, ok, one for each alderman: 26 planners.
26?
28.
I read that article in the RFT on him a few years back and keep hearing about his sexy resume in this thread.
Can we collectively come up with 5 projects he left his mark on? What was his work like in St. Louis?
Can we collectively come up with 5 projects he left his mark on? What was his work like in St. Louis?
- 85
A patronizing windbag to outsiders. A relentless butt-kisser to those in power.
Can't say I'll miss him particularly.
Can't say I'll miss him particularly.
Luftmensch wrote:A patronizing windbag to outsiders. A relentless butt-kisser to those in power.
Can't say I'll miss him particularly.
Not that I don't agree, but that is not my point. The question should be why can't we keep talent here, and why does the department of planning and urban design have so little power?
- 11K
^ Well, he did stay here for a number of years. It's not as if his tenure was shorter than can be expected just about anywhere. He has no power because a) what power he does have is limited to the City of St. Louis and b) the mayor is a politically weak position and can only bestow so much power on others.
In regards to the Rob Powers stuff, there must be more to Urban Planning than preservation of the built environment.
I'd assume the role of Urban Planner is much more of an art than anything. It's one thing to understand good planning, it's yet another to be proficient in the political aspects of the position. You may have great ideas, but unless you lay the groundwork for decisionmakers to support your planning guidance, you're likely not to accomplish much.
Blaming poor urban planning on a bunch of aldermen is just an excuse. An urban planner can be a leader or a lackey. It's up to them.
I'd assume the role of Urban Planner is much more of an art than anything. It's one thing to understand good planning, it's yet another to be proficient in the political aspects of the position. You may have great ideas, but unless you lay the groundwork for decisionmakers to support your planning guidance, you're likely not to accomplish much.
Blaming poor urban planning on a bunch of aldermen is just an excuse. An urban planner can be a leader or a lackey. It's up to them.
the role of Urban Planner is much more of an art than anything
Actually, Rollin's job is -- and his successor's will be -- to run the City's planning and urban design department. That adds leadership, dept. budgeting, HR duties, and -- yes -- navigating in a political environment to being a planner.
- 479
publiceye wrote:the role of Urban Planner is much more of an art than anything
Actually, Rollin's job is -- and his successor's will be -- to run the City's planning and urban design department. That adds leadership, dept. budgeting, HR duties, and -- yes -- navigating in a political environment to being a planner.
Good point. Rollin Stanley was not the "City Planner" but the Director of the Planning and Urban Design Agency. That job is administrative.
As Doug points out, advocacy and vision have to come from the rest of us. The Director of the Planning and Urban Design Agency is not a dictator, but someone who implements ideas that come about through our flawed process. Those of us who want that person to make good decisions should articulate our ideas and influence the political system. Really, an alderman has more ability to make a difference in terms of preservation and urban design. Rollin can't be blamed for not using power that he never had.
- 11K
Yes. I've begun experiencing this in my neighborhood. We all need to get out there and serve on neighborhood committies and get more involved (in a productive way). The truth (as I've found it) is that many of the city decision-makers just don't think "urban". I've mentioned some very simple and presumably inexpensive ways to improve the neighborhood and have been surprised to see a lightbulb go off in someone's head who I thought would have already been thinking about this stuff. Some have been very receptive and though I understand that my vision for 10' sidewalks on both sides of the Taylor Avenue I-64 overpass may not be "feasible" given available funds, at least the idea of better pedestrian amenities is out there . . .
^"Neighborhood committees" are a possible route, however the best idea would be an actual independent organization not dependent on aldermen for funding. Lobbying requires ones hands to not be tied. Such an organization should receive no funding from the City in any way and should be solely reliant upon members through fund raising. This makes it less vulnerable to capture.
- 11K
Doug wrote:^"Neighborhood committees" are a possible route, however the best idea would be an actual independent organization not dependent on aldermen for funding. Lobbying requires ones hands to not be tied. Such an organization should receive no funding from the City in any way and should be solely reliant upon members through fund raising. This makes it less vulnerable to capture.
That's fine, but one could also say that being outside an organization leaves you trying to steer it without a hand on the wheel. Perhaps we'll have some of each and we can all work together.
Would this organization accept funds from a real estate developer?Doug wrote:^"Neighborhood committees" are a possible route, however the best idea would be an actual independent organization not dependent on aldermen for funding. Lobbying requires ones hands to not be tied. Such an organization should receive no funding from the City in any way and should be solely reliant upon members through fund raising. This makes it less vulnerable to capture.
Hard to say. If the developer was something like Millennium Restoration Group then perhaps.
GelatinousEndive wrote:Doug wrote:Vancouver, a City of around 570k, is experiencing rapid growth because of PLANNING decisions. It is a model of how planning can change everything. ....
While planning may have a lot to do with it, Vancourver has fab fab fab weather and fab beautiful geography and that's a huge draw.
But of course canadians know everything about planning, guess that's why Jane whats-er-name moved there to expire.
I want to know: who is one the inside tract inside the city's planning dept for Stanley's job?
Silly head -- Jane Jacobs moved to Toronto back in '68 because she opposed the Vietnam War, and her sons were draft-age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs#Canadian_Life
Anyway, I hope Rollin and Ann do well in D.C.
I wonder if they'll choose to live in The District itself, which shares much in common with STL City, but magnified by its even more bizarre governmental structure.
At least our police department and city budget aren't controlled by Congress!
"Give me density or give me death."
Rollin Stanley
08/09/06
http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/fiyc/08_09_06.htm
Rollin was in the asset column in my book.
Rollin Stanley
08/09/06
http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/fiyc/08_09_06.htm
Rollin was in the asset column in my book.