i wasn't talking about ED per se', but about the planning process in general.
It didn't hurt that the planners were building highways to aid their flight.
no it didn't at al. but neither did federally supported redlining and the (mostly for whites only) GI bill. and since those highways went through black neighborhoods it also made the whole process of 'cleaning up the city' that much easier.
>most left leaning planners also readily admit that the profession is
> >a handmaiden of capital and that land use decisions are often the
> >product of powerful forces. if anything, a moderately effective
> >planning regime will help restrain some of those forces even as it
> >facilitates them.
i think the best recent example of this is what happened at the trinity plaza in SF. a developer (ironically, the godfather of SF rent-control) wanted to tear down a one time hotel now ~380 unit apartment building to build a shiny new 1400 unit building. the old building is covered by rent control but the new one won't be. SF's paltry 10% inclusionary affordable housing requirement means that we're looking at a net loss of 240 affordable units. residents organize, elected supervisors listen, and planners work with those elected officials to force changes to the project that [i think this is how it breaks down] (a) keep 380 units covered under rent control; (2) include 140 'affordble units' as per the inclusionary ordinance; (3) allow a density bonus that up the total count to something like 1600 total units.
the whole 'accountable development' movement in CA (san diego, LA, san jose, santa rosa) is also a good example of how planners can facilitate development and the profits that accrue to developers while not only restraining the worst effects but getting pretty damn good benefits for the locals. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060228/b7a77438/attachment.htm>