CRP 552: Land Use Planning

Fall 2006

Mondays and Wednesdays, 8:40-9:55 AM, 101 West Sibley Hall

Optional lab session: Thursdays, 5:00-7:00 PM, 222 West Sibley Hall (GEDDeS Lab)

 

Professor Rolf Pendall / rjp17@cornell.edu / 201 W. Sibley Hall / 255-5561

TA: Dong Keun (“D.K.”) Yoon / dy38@cornell.edu

GTRS: Conor Semler / cms229@cornell.edu

Office hours: Pendall, Monday 1:00-3:00, Wednesday 2:30-4:00 and by appointment via e-mail

Yoon: Wednesday 2:00-4:00 at the Geddes lab and by appointment via e-mail

 

A land-use plan represents the values of the people who make it. It reflects the legal context in which they develop it. It is the product of technical analysis and expertise, filtered through and shaped by a political process. The objective of the course is for students to learn about those values and to clarify their own; to understand the variety of legal contexts in the U.S.; and to understand how plans are made by observing and making plans.

Course sequence

The sequence of CRP 552 reflects the several dimensions of land-use planning. The class is divided into four main parts: values, legal contexts, taking stock, and making plans.

 

Values

Here, we will engage with two driving values that planners face and often share: private property rights and sustainability. The United States Constitution, and many of state constitutions, assert that “private property [shall not be] taken [by government] for public use without compensation.”[1] Property owners react with anger and fervor when government interventions reduce their property values even modestly. The majority of respondents to a national survey agreed in the 1990s that “Landowners prevented from developing their property because of endangered species laws should be paid for any lost income by the public.”[2] And voters in every Oregon county—even the most liberal ones—supported a 2004 ballot initiative (Measure 37) that requires compensation for any land-use regulations (even those passed years ago) that reduce their property values.[3] Sustainability is understood broadly as the simultaneous attainment and enhancement of environmental quality, social equity, economic opportunity, and civic engagement both now in for the future. If this sounds difficult, think about how much more difficult (and potentially costly) it will be if attaining sustainability means we also have to pay for any reduction in private property owners’ expected land values.

 

Legal contexts

The second part of the course reviews the legal context within which land-use planning happens in general purpose local governments (cities, townships, and counties) in the United States. The quality, contents, scope, power, and even existence of a land-use plan are in large part governed by its legal context. The U.S. Constitution comes into play here too: the 10th Amendment (Reserved Powers) stipulates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[4] Since land use planning is one of those powers neither delegated to the United States nor prohibited by it to the states, there are well over 50 legal contexts for land-use planning in the United States: one for each state, plus the District of Columbia and other territories. Because of this variety, our study of legal context will be comparative even though it embraces only one nation. Traditional planning legislation, based on standard “enabling” acts promulgated in the 1920s and still in place in about half of U.S. states, places less emphasis on land-use plans than on zoning and subdivision regulations, leaving local governments broad latitude even about whether to adopt them or not, not to mention about their contents. Other states require plans—often elevating plans above regulations in the case of any legal dispute about priority—but still allow broad local discretion about contents and direction. And a handful of states have “growth management” laws that not only mandate planning but also establish processes to ensure that local plans are consistent with state goals.

 

In fact, the course still only covers part of land-use planning in the U.S. About 27 percent of the national land area, over 600 million acres in all, is under federal jurisdiction, with different planning processes in place for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, among other agencies. Finally, there are 562 federally recognized tribal governments with varying levels of power and commitment to do land-use planning.

 

Developing a plan: Taking stock and making the plan

The third and fourth parts of the course take up the bulk of the class time as well as most of the assignments. They cover the process of making plans, separating that into “taking stock” and “making the plan.” Taking stock means gathering and generating information that can be used in charting future plans for development, redevelopment, and conservation. This part reviews what planners need to know about population and economic analysis and forecasting, environmental analysis, and infrastructure; other courses in the CRP curriculum and in other departments provide opportunities to learn more about techniques to take stock. The fourth part of the course covers the use of this information to make a plan. It focuses first on a “land classification plan”: a broad-brush designation of areas for redevelopment, new development, future development, and conservation. Then it zeroes in on the specification of uses and conservation purposes in the “land use design.”

 

Some observers are perfectly happy if plans never come to fruition; they serve as touchstones for the community, policy statements by decision makers, and rhetorical devices. Other people, however, question the value of plans that never become reality. For these people, plan implementation measures are the key. This course doesn’t deal with implementation; that’s left for CRP 553, Land-use Regulation, which is taught in the spring semester most years.

Course requirements

Everyone in the class is expected to

1. Attend every class session and participate in classes. Participation, including attendance, counts for 10 percent of the final grade, but any student missing more than 2 class sessions without a valid excuse (medical, family issues) will receive a failing grade for the class. I also expect everyone to be present and ready to begin class at 8:40. Students who repeatedly arrive late will be penalized by at least one grade above and beyond the 10 percent participation grade.

2. Prepare a series of four reaction papers on different days between August 30 and October 4 (inclusive). The papers should respond to the readings on those days; the syllabus contains a few questions to think about. The papers may respond to those questions or to other issues the readings raise for you, but all reaction papers should refer in some way to the assigned reading(s) for those dates. Reaction papers concerning a day’s readings are due at the beginning of that day’s class session, hard copies handed to the instructor (8:40 AM). Each paper should be double-spaced on one side of the paper, stapled, with between 1000 and 1250 words of text (not counting references, tables, title, and other supporting materials) and appropriate citations and references. Late reaction papers will not be accepted; please plan ahead so that you can finish all four by the beginning of class on October 4.

3. Select a track to follow for the final two course segments, September 25 to December 1. The course has two tracks that students may follow.

  1. Students who want to get the experience of developing a land-use plan of their own may opt for the class/lab track. Thursday nights from 5 to 7, students in the class/lab track will go through a series of exercises that will result in the creation of a plan for a hypothetical city. In the four lab sessions, students will receive an introduction to GIS using ArcGIS 9.1 software, the platform on which you will make the plan. After that, you will work in four-person teams to develop a plan through a series of four exercises. Because of the extra meeting time, students who opt for the class/lab track will receive four credits, with the extra one credit awarded by registering for CRP 659 section 39 (CID 111-847). Students in the class/lab track should purchase the Hypothetical City Workbook III at the Campus Store. There is also a copy on reserve in the Fine Arts Library that you may consult to consider whether you want to complete these four exercises.
  2. Students interested in learning about land-use plans without making one in the lab should take the class-only track for three credits. These students will prepare a series of four analyses of a land-use plan of their own choosing rather than creating a plan; more details will be forthcoming about the assignments over the course of the semester, but they will range from 2,250 to 2,500 words each (i.e., about 8-10 double-spaced pages). Students in the class/lab track are not required to do the evaluation papers.

If you think you might want to do the class/lab track but aren’t sure, start out in that track, especially if you don’t have any experience with GIS software (e.g., ArcGIS). You may add the lab until September 15; you may drop it as late as October 13, but keep in mind that there will be assignments due very soon after that for both the lab and non-lab tracks.

 

Assignments and due dates

Class/Lab track

  • 4 short papers on questions of your choice from August 30 to September 20: 5% each.
  • Hypocity Exercise 1, Supporting Exercise A (current conditions report, computer mapping of current conditions), due October 25, 10% of final grade.
  • Hypocity Exercise 2, Supporting Exercise B (policy framework plan, community visioning meeting), due November 13, 10% of final grade. Community visioning meeting to be held during class November 6, 10% of final grade.
  • Hypocity Exercise 3, Supporting Exercises D and E (Land Classification Plan), due November 27. 20% of final grade; 5% is presentation in class, 15% is the document.
  • Hypocity Exercise 4, Supporting Exercises F and G (Land Use Design), due December 13 at 5:00 PM. 20% of final grade. In this paper, you will include revised versions of all three previous Hypocity Exercises.
  • Participation is the final 10% of the grade. See class requirements for more on participation.

 

Class only track

  • 4 short papers on questions of your choice from August 30 to October 4: 5% each.
  • By September 13, identify a jurisdiction (city, county, or township) in one of the following states whose land-use plan (element) you wish to evaluate: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota (Twin Cities area only), Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington. If you want to do an international example, talk to me about it soon. E-mail me the name of your selected jurisdiction. Be sure to select a community whose plan has been updated since 1995, preferably more recently than that. If you need to get the plan by mail, make sure you can get it in plenty of time to write Evaluation Paper 1.
  • Evaluation paper 1: Current conditions in your selected comprehensive plan, due October 25. 10% of final grade.
  • Evaluation paper 2: Goals and policies in your selected comprehensive plan, due November 13. 15% of final grade.
  • Evaluation paper 3: Land-use classification and design in your selected comprehensive plan, due November 29. 25% of final grade.
  • Evaluation paper 4: Implementation measures in your selected comprehensive plan, due December 13 at 4:30 PM. 20% of final grade.
  • Participation is the final 10% of the grade. See “course requirements” section above for more on participation.

 

Academic Integrity: Each student in this course is expected to abide by the Cornell University Code of Academic Integrity. Any work submitted by a student in this course for academic credit will be the student’s own work; HypoCity team assignments will be considered group work. Students doing plan evaluation may receive permission from the instructor to work with one other student on his or her evaluation. Please cite all work that you rely on to write your papers. Direct quotations of other work should be enclosed with quotation marks, with a citation afterward that contains the page number of the work where available. When you rely substantially on another person’s work without quoting from it directly, please use in-text citations at the end of an appropriate section. Failure to provide complete and proper citations may constitute plagiarism, which violates the Cornell Code of Academic Integrity. If detected, plagiarism may result in a failing grade for the course.

 

Required texts and readings

There is one required text for this course:

Berke, Philip R., David R. Godschalk, and Edward J. Kaiser with Daniel Rodriguez. 2006. Urban Land Use Planning, Fifth Edition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

 

There is also one text that is required for students in the class/lab track:

Esnard, Ann-Margaret, Philip R. Berke, David R. Godschalk, and Edward J. Kaiser. 2006. Hypothetical City Workbook III: Exercises and GIS Data to Accompany Urban Land Use Planning, Fifth Edition. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

 

Both of these texts are (or will soon be) available on two-hour course reserve in the Fine Arts Library. Other helpful books, plans, and other documents will be placed there soon as well; we’ll get a list of reserve materials to you shortly so you know what’s there.

 

Other required and recommended readings are available either directly on the Internet (marked as W on the syllabus) or through the Campus Gateway (marked as G on the syllabus). To get to the Gateway readings, search for the journal title in the library catalog and follow the links to the appropriate issue. All these documents are available in Acrobat format. Suggestion: Download the readings as early as possible so that you have them well in advance of the assigned date.

 

Instructional roles

There are three people involved in delivering CRP 552. Rolf Pendall is the professor. He is responsible for the structure of the course, for almost all the class sessions, and for evaluating work (grading). D.K. Yoon, a Ph.D. candidate in City and Regional Planning (MCP from UNC-Chapel Hill), is the designer of many of the lab sessions and the instructor for the lab component. Conor Semler, a second-year MRP student, will assist D.K. in answering students’ questions in the labs and will serve as a resource person for students on the plan-evaluation track. Please respect D.K.’s and Conor’s needs to complete their own educational programs by limiting your requests for their assistance to scheduled office hour times, lab times, and other times by arrangement.

 

Course outline with readings

August 28: Overview of the Course

Part 1: Values driving land-use planning

August 30: Private property rights

G      Jacobs, Harvey M. 1999. Fighting over Land: America’s Legacy…America’s Future? Journal of the American Planning Association 65 (2): 141-149.

W     KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. (04-108). Read the syllabus, Justice Stevens’s opinion, Justice Kennedy’s concurrence, Justice O’Connor’s dissent, and Justice Thomas’s dissent. Documents available from the syllabus page at http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html.

Some questions for the day

  • Jacobs asserts that contention over land will always be the rule and not the exception in the United States. Planners play many roles in this contention—as advocates for one or another side in a dispute, as neutral observers and informers, and as brokers of compromise. Describe a land dispute that you are familiar with, discuss the positions in the dispute, relate it to at least two of the roots of conflict that Jacobs identifies, and discuss what planning role you would be most comfortable taking.
  • Not all nations have as strong a tradition of private property rights as the United States. Describe the property ethic, law, customs, or traditions in another country with which you’re familiar; contrast it with the U.S. situation as Jacobs presents it and as you can infer from the Kelo case; and talk about whether you think land-use planning in that country would differ significantly from that in the U.S. as a result of the different land ethic.
  • The Kelo case and others like it, present uncomfortable issues for planners. Whose arguments do you find more resonant with your values? Are these also the most persuasive to you?
  • Can there be clear-cut rules on when and for what purposes government may regulate and even take possession of private property? What are the alternatives to clear-cut rules?

September 4: Sustainability and planning

G      Campbell, Scott. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (3): 296-312.

G      Jepson, Edward J. 2004. Human nature and sustainable development: A strategic challenge for planners. Journal of Planning Literature 19 (1): 3-15.

G      Thacher, David and Martin Rein. 2004. Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance 17 (4): 457-486.

Some questions for the day

  • From a personal standpoint, if you had to pin down your core values on the sustainability matrix, do you come down green, growing, or just?
  • Do you think the expansionist and ecological viewpoints can be reconciled?
  • In what kinds of places would you expect to see balancing, cycling, firewalls, or casuistry as the principal response to value conflict over sustainability in planning?

September 6: What makes a land-use plan good, and/or sustainable?

B      Urban Land Use Planning, Chapters 1-3, pages 1-83.

G      Berke, Philip R. and Maria Manta Conroy. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (1): 21-33.

Some questions for the day

  • In Urban Land Use Planning, Berke et al. state: “In the land use game, planners are not only players, they are also game managers” (page 6; see also the discussion starting at page 27). Discuss concrete ways in which planning institutions can be designed so that planners can retain credibility while being both “interested parties” (i.e., players) and managers.
  • Critique the “sustainability prism.” Does the addition of a “livability” vertex (value) improve on the “three e’s” that Campbell discusses? Does it deserve to be coequal with economy, environment, and equity?
  • Contrast the plan evaluation criteria in Urban Land Use Planning (pages 78-82) with those in Berke and Conroy’s article. What are some key differences? Which framework for evaluation do you find more persuasive? If you were working for a city to evaluate its own plan, which do you think you would be more likely to use, and why?
  • Given your own, and the class’s, answers to the questions on August 30, to what extent do you expect the most sustainable of these plans to become reality? Which parts are more likely to be lost in the implementation phases? How much does that matter?

September 11: Physical visions of sustainability: Containment and New Urbanism

W     Pendall, Rolf, William Fulton, and Jonathan Martin. 2002. Holding the Line: Urban Containment in the United States. Brookings Institution Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy. On-line: http://www.brookings.org/es/urban/publications/pendallfultoncontainment.pdf

G      Duany, Andrés and Emily Talen. 2002. “Transect planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 68(3): 245-266.

G      Jabareen, Yosef Rafeq. 2006. “Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models and Concepts.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(1): 38-52.

Some questions for the day

  • What are the likely disadvantages of containment? Of the Transect idea? How might these problems be mitigated?
  • What do you see as the relationship between urban containment and New Urbanism? Are they competing paradigms, complementary, some of both?
  • Do Duany and Talen present a vision that is sustainable, by Campbell’s expansive definition?
  • What is it about the definition of containment in Jabareen’s article that makes it score so low in sustainability in comparison with the other urban forms? Do you think he reaches a viable conclusion? Why?

Note: By now you should have at least two of the four optional discussion papers done.

Part 2: Legal frameworks for land-use planning and policy

September 13: Traditional land-use planning in the United States

W     Meck, Stuart, FAICP. 2002. Growing SmartSM Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. Chapter 7. Download from APA website at http://www.planning.org/guidebook/pdf/guidebook/chapter7.pdf. Suggested readings for today’s class:

·                  “Why should local governments plan,” pages 7-5 through 7-18;

·                  “Organizational structure,” pages 7-30 through 7-31; also skim the enabling-act language from page 7-31 to 7-43, paying special attention to the commentary text (denoted with diamonds at the beginning).

Some questions for the day

  • Traditional models for land-use planning in the United States tend to be voluntary in many respects. Outline some of the principal features of this voluntarism (i.e., the optional nature of land-use planning) based on the standard enabling acts of the 1920s. What are some of the strongest advantages of “enabled” over “mandatory” planning?
  • The standard enabling acts established a model that insulates land-use planning from the electorate, principally by creating the appointed planning commission. What are the best arguments you can think of for doing this? Are these rationales strong enough to overcome any objections you have to the “insulated” model?

September 18: State and regional growth management

G      Bollens, Scott A. 1992. State Growth Management: Intergovernmental Frameworks and Policy Objectives. Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (4): 454-466.

G      Howe, Deborah, Carl Abbott, and Sy Adler. 2004. What’s on the Horizon for Oregon Planners? Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (4): 391-397.

Some questions for the day

·        Which do you think is harder to manage: Type I growth or Type II growth?

·        Oregon’s conjoint/planning growth management system is currently in limbo because of Measure 37, a strong property-rights initiative approved by voters in fall 2004. If you were going to design a state growth management system, what would you do to make it less susceptible to such backlash? Do Howe, Abbott, and Adler provide any helpful clues?

September 20: Smart Growth

G      Ye, Lin, Sumedha Mandpe, and Peter B. Meyer. 2005. What Is ‘Smart Growth?’—Really? Journal of Planning Literature 19 (3), 301-315.

W     Burchell, Robert W., David Listokin, and Catherine C. Galley. 2000. Smart Growth: More Than a Ghost of Urban Policy Past, Less Than a Bold New Horizon. Housing Policy Debate 11 (4): 821-879.

Some questions for the day

·        Smart growth is often thought of as a response to sprawl. How do you (personally) define sprawl? Analyze the definitions and principles of smart growth as enumerated by Ye et al. for at least two of the 10 national organizations they studied. Describe one whose definition of smart growth would solve sprawl as you define it (and describe why it would). Then describe one whose definition wouldn’t solve sprawl as you define it (and discuss why not).

·        Based on Ye et al. and Burchell and Galley, does it appear to you that smart growth extends the tendency toward centralized state mandates and government control or reduces it, in comparison with growth management? Cite examples to prove your case and offer an opinion about why this trend has occurred.

 Part 3: Taking stock

September 25: Participation in Comprehensive Planning; State of the Community Report

B      Urban Land Use Planning Chapter 9

G      Lowry, Kem, Peter Adler, and Neal Milner. 1997. Participating the Public: Group Process, Politics, and Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16 (3): 177-187.

G      Brody, Samuel D., David R. Godschalk, and Raymond J. Burby. 2003. Mandating Citizen Participation in Plan Making: Six Strategic Planning Choices. Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (3): 245-264.

Some questions for the day

·        TBA

September 27: Planning support systems

B      Urban Land Use Planning Chapter 4

G      Waddell, Paul. 2002. UrbanSim: Modeling Urban Development for Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (3): 297-314.

G      Talen, Emily. 2000. Bottom Up GIS: A New Tool for Individual and Group Expression in Participatory Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(3): 279-294.

W     Review the “Introduction to CommunityViz” video (3-5 minutes) and any others you’re interested in at http://communityviz.placematters.org/.

W     Regional Drinking Water Protection, Laramie, Wyoming. CommunityViz case study, available: http://www.communityviz.com/downloads/resource%20library/case%20studies/Laramie,%20WY.pdf

W     Alternative Futures, Lyons, Colorado. CommunityViz case study, available: http://www.communityviz.com/downloads/resource%20library/case%20studies/Lyons,%20CO.pdf

Some questions for the day

·        The readings for today present a range of views on the use of GIS to support land-use planning and decision-making. Waddell’s UrbanSim contrasts fairly sharply with CommunityViz and the BUGIS idea that Talen presents. What are some of the main differences, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

·        Do you feel personally pessimistic or optimistic about the use of GIS and databases for real-time support of participatory planning? Why? What do you think are some of the key steps that planners have to take to ensure that the technology works for them? When would you argue most strongly that participatory planning shouldn’t be “plugged in”?

October 2: Environmental Systems 1

B      Urban Land Use Planning 6

Some questions for the day

·        TBA

October 4: Environmental Systems 2
(Katrina case study; George Frantz guest presentation)

W     Burby, Raymond J. with others. 1999. Unleashing the Power of Planning to Create Disaster-Resistant Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association 65 (3): 247-258.

W     Olshansky, Robert B. 2001. Land Use Planning for Seismic Safety: The Los Angeles County Experience, 1971-1994. Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (2): 173-185.

W     Olshansky, Robert B. 2006. Planning After Hurricane Katrina. Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (2): 147-153.

Some questions for the day

·        TBA

October 9: No class, fall break

October 11: Population and living area: Taking stock

B      Urban Land Use Planning 5, 7

W     Campoli, Julie and Alex S. MacLean. 2001. Visualizing Density A: Lower Density catalog Images: 0.5-10.5 units/acre. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Available: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/pub-detail.asp?id=666 (note: you will need to establish a free user profile before you are permitted to download this document, which is very large—best to do it from a high-speed Internet connection).

W     Campoli, Julie and Alex S. MacLean. 2001. Visualizing Density B: Higher Density catalog Images: 9.1-134.5 units/acre. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Available: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/pub-detail.asp?id=667

Note: Before this class, please look carefully at the photos in the two Campoli/MacLean publications. I will hand out or e-mail an optional but recommended exercise to allow you to compute block and neighborhood density for your own selected areas.

October 16: The local and regional economy: Taking stock

B      Urban Land Use Planning 5 (review)

W     Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 2002. Metropolitan Washington Regional Activity Centers: A Tool for Linking Land Use and Transportation Planning. Available: http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/Blta20031126183601.pdf.

October 18: Projections and Forecasts: Population, Housing, and Economy

B      Urban Land Use Planning 5 (review)

October 23: Food systems and Agricultural Lands

G      Campbell, Marcia Caton. 2004. “Building a Common Table: The Role for Planning in Community Food Systems.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 23 (4): 341-355.

G      Kelsey, T.W. and G. Vaserstein. 2000. “Farming and Non Farming Neighbors: Conflict, Coexistence, and Communication.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55(4), 462-466.

G      Sharp, J.S. and M.B. Smith. 2003. “Social capital and farming at the rural-urban interface: the importance of nonfarmer and farmer relations.” Agricultural Systems 76: 913-927.

W     Riggle, James D. and Jonathan Tolman. 1999. “Open Space Preservation: Land Development Not a Threat to America’s Farmland.” Original in National Association of Homebuilders’ Land Development magazine, Winter 1999, available: http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=630&genericContentID=17232.

October 25: Infrastructure

B      Urban Land Use Planning 8

!       Assignments due: Hypocity 1 OR evaluation 1

Part 4: Making plans

October 30: The planning process

B      Urban Land Use Planning Part III overview + Chapter 10

November 1: Policy framework plans—Goals, Objectives, Policies, Actions

B      Urban Land Use Planning Chapter 11

November 6: Visioning in action: In-class exercise

November 8: Land classification plans 1: Planning employment centers

B      Urban Land Use Planning 12

November 13: Land classification 2: Planning residential areas

B      Urban Land Use Planning 13

!       Assignments due: Hypocity 2 OR evaluation 2

November 15: Small area plans: Special case study, Cornell University Comprehensive Master Plan, presentation by Mina Amundsen, University Planner

Readings TBA

November 20: Small Area Plans

B      Urban Land Use Planning 14

November 22: Implementing plans: Regulation and investment

B      Urban Land Use Planning 15

November 27: Presentations: Plan evaluations

!       Assignments due: Hypocity 3 OR evaluation 3

November 29: Presentations: Land Classification Plans / Class evaluation

December 13, 4:30 PM

!       Assignments due: Hypocity 4 OR evaluation 4

 

Lab schedule, CRP 552, Land Use Planning

Fall 2006

All labs held Thursdays, 5PM-7PM in Geddes Lab, 222 W. Sibley

 

Introduction to ArcGIS sessions

August 31: Introduction to ArcGIS (1)

September 7: Introduction to ArcGIS (2)

September 14: Introduction to ArcGIS (3)

September 21: Introduction to ArcGIS (4)

 

Hypocity exercises

September 28: Hypocity exercise 1. Creating a “State of the Community” Report,

- Supporting Exercise A. Computer Mapping of Existing Conditions

October 5: Work on Hypocity Exercise 1

October 12: Work on Hypocity Exercise 1

October 19: Work on Hypocity Exercise 1

Hypocity 1 Assignments due: October 25

 

October 26: Hypocity Exercise 2. Creating a Direction-setting Framework,

- Supporting Exercise B. Conducting a Community Visioning Meeting

November 2: Work on Hypocity Exercise 2

Hypocity 2 Assignments due: November 13

 

GIS day: November 8

November 9: Hypocity Exercise 3. Creating an Areawide Land Policy Plan,

- Supporting Exercise D. Land Suitability Analysis

- Supporting Exercise E. Computerized Land Policy District Classification

November 16: Work on Hypocity Exercise 3

Hypocity 3 Assignments due: November 27

 

November 30: Hypocity Exercise 4. Creating a Communitywide Land Use Design,

- Supporting Exercise F. Computerized Land Use Design

- Supporting Exercise G. Land supply and Demand Acreage by Generalized Land Use Categories

December 7 (optional reading-week lab date): Work on Hypocity exercise 4

Hypocity 4 Assignments due: December 13

 

 


[1] … “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”; see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/ for full text of the 5th Amendment.

[2] Brian Czech and Paul R. Krausman, “Public Opinion on Endangered Species Conservation and Policy” (Society & Natural Resources 12, 1999), 473.

[3] See text at http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/irr/2004/036text.pdf. “The measure does not apply to commonly and historically recognized public nuisances, public health and safety regulations, regulations required to comply with federal law, and regulations restricting or prohibiting the use of a property for the purpose of selling pornography or performing nude dancing” (explanatory statement, see http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/m37_es.pdf).