cityplanner.ca
Discussing big picture urban/city planning and design issues.
Jul 09, 2009
Working as a planner can be difficult sometimes. You put your heart and soul into a report, a proposal, or other solid research, and at the end of the day, the decision is not yours to make.
A great many planners report to more senior planners who report to a variety of directors and/or managers. Many municipal planners make recommendations which can be ignored by other civic departments. Planners may produce reports and designs for their clients which are never acted upon or built.
Political motivations or pressure from business interests and well-organized lobby groups can completely sway decisions, for better or for worse, and the media may not pick up your story, irrespective of what your qualified recommendations may be and what they may have reported in the past...
Recently, I conducted a critical analysis of 45 main arguments which had been raised for/against keeping the Edmonton City Centre Airport open, to determine what was best for the city and its citizens. 3 were a draw, but 42 ultimately favoured keeping it open. (See my July 2nd entry.)
I provided this information to every City Councillor, to every member of the media I could find that covered the story in the past year, to stakeholders and interest groups including the Alberta Enterprise Group, to bloggers that had written about the issue, and to the administrators of the "Save the Edmonton Municipal Airport" Facebook group with over 1,000 members.
My analysis summarized all of the issues of this highly contentious "debate" in one place. My analysis also brought into the discussion a number of points which had not yet been considered in the media, such as the continually increasing value of the airport lands which could be leveraged against as a physical asset.
But no one picked up the research. No one picked up the story. Not locally, regionally, or nationally. In fact, reporters and television hosts continued to state that nothing conclusive had been developed by "either side" (for or against keeping the ECCA open) which indicated conclusively which decision was best. Journalists and bloggers continued to write stories and entries without any analysis and merely restating the same arguments they had been stating for months.
And in the end, Edmonton City Council voted 10-3 yesterday to close the airport, in phases.
But don't journalists and members have a duty to communicate this sort of information to the public? Why keep people guessing? Why not provide people with all of the information, all of the arguments in one place, and let people decide for themselves?
The majority of people who wrote letters to the editor around the airport "debate" over the past year disputed one side or the other (for or against) on the basis of only one or two reasons, and subsequently favoured the other side (against or for) on the basis of another one or two reasons. [For example, Billy Joe figured the airport should close because the land was underutilized and $75 million/year could be obtained in property taxes, and he didn't accept the validity of the argument to keep the airport open for historical reasons. Or Sally Ann figured the airport should stay open because it would be needed in the future and would contribute to Edmonton becoming a world-class city, and didn't accept the validity of the argument that developing housing on the lands would actually reduce traffic or protect against that much urban sprawl.]
I'm sure that many of these writers would have appreciated an opportunity to weigh all of the pros against all of the cons in this matter. After all, it can be much easier to make a decision when you have all of the data in front of you at the same time.
What I found most odd was that the research wasn't even communicated widely by groups which claimed to be trying to "save" the airport. Why? It would have made their case stronger. Maybe they weren't trying to save the airport after all, and if that were the case, then why?
If an engineer stamps a document and says a concrete barrier has to be a particular width for the public interest, it is built to that width. But if a planner makes sound recommendations in the public interest, they may be debated, challenged, or ignored.
In our North American cities, planners advise, but other people make the big decisions. Which may be part of the reason why many of our auto-centric, sprawling, cookie-cutter neighbourhoods look they way they do.
A great many planners report to more senior planners who report to a variety of directors and/or managers. Many municipal planners make recommendations which can be ignored by other civic departments. Planners may produce reports and designs for their clients which are never acted upon or built.
Political motivations or pressure from business interests and well-organized lobby groups can completely sway decisions, for better or for worse, and the media may not pick up your story, irrespective of what your qualified recommendations may be and what they may have reported in the past...
Recently, I conducted a critical analysis of 45 main arguments which had been raised for/against keeping the Edmonton City Centre Airport open, to determine what was best for the city and its citizens. 3 were a draw, but 42 ultimately favoured keeping it open. (See my July 2nd entry.)
I provided this information to every City Councillor, to every member of the media I could find that covered the story in the past year, to stakeholders and interest groups including the Alberta Enterprise Group, to bloggers that had written about the issue, and to the administrators of the "Save the Edmonton Municipal Airport" Facebook group with over 1,000 members.
My analysis summarized all of the issues of this highly contentious "debate" in one place. My analysis also brought into the discussion a number of points which had not yet been considered in the media, such as the continually increasing value of the airport lands which could be leveraged against as a physical asset.
But no one picked up the research. No one picked up the story. Not locally, regionally, or nationally. In fact, reporters and television hosts continued to state that nothing conclusive had been developed by "either side" (for or against keeping the ECCA open) which indicated conclusively which decision was best. Journalists and bloggers continued to write stories and entries without any analysis and merely restating the same arguments they had been stating for months.
And in the end, Edmonton City Council voted 10-3 yesterday to close the airport, in phases.
But don't journalists and members have a duty to communicate this sort of information to the public? Why keep people guessing? Why not provide people with all of the information, all of the arguments in one place, and let people decide for themselves?
The majority of people who wrote letters to the editor around the airport "debate" over the past year disputed one side or the other (for or against) on the basis of only one or two reasons, and subsequently favoured the other side (against or for) on the basis of another one or two reasons. [For example, Billy Joe figured the airport should close because the land was underutilized and $75 million/year could be obtained in property taxes, and he didn't accept the validity of the argument to keep the airport open for historical reasons. Or Sally Ann figured the airport should stay open because it would be needed in the future and would contribute to Edmonton becoming a world-class city, and didn't accept the validity of the argument that developing housing on the lands would actually reduce traffic or protect against that much urban sprawl.]
I'm sure that many of these writers would have appreciated an opportunity to weigh all of the pros against all of the cons in this matter. After all, it can be much easier to make a decision when you have all of the data in front of you at the same time.
What I found most odd was that the research wasn't even communicated widely by groups which claimed to be trying to "save" the airport. Why? It would have made their case stronger. Maybe they weren't trying to save the airport after all, and if that were the case, then why?
If an engineer stamps a document and says a concrete barrier has to be a particular width for the public interest, it is built to that width. But if a planner makes sound recommendations in the public interest, they may be debated, challenged, or ignored.
In our North American cities, planners advise, but other people make the big decisions. Which may be part of the reason why many of our auto-centric, sprawling, cookie-cutter neighbourhoods look they way they do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Myron Belej, MCIP, AICP at myron@cityplanner.ca to:
- invite Myron to speak at a conference or event
- feature a version of this article in another publication
- inquire about Myron's consulting or coaching services
- request more information
Learn more about 'How to Hire Myron'.
Contact Myron Belej, MCIP, AICP at myron@cityplanner.ca to:
- invite Myron to speak at a conference or event
- feature a version of this article in another publication
- inquire about Myron's consulting or coaching services
- request more information
Learn more about 'How to Hire Myron'.