by Eduard Cabre Romans
After two years living in NYC and absorbing knowledge and practice from the American urban planning world I realize my views regarding the role of planners have substantially changed. There are plenty of things I have learned and incorporated to my perception of urban planning as a discipline, and I am sure they will prove to be extremely useful back in Europe. But, in some instances, my European views have rather strengthened. The American way of planning is dynamic, innovative and efficient, but it sometimes underestimates the struggles of low-income citizens to compete in the market and the undue power that big corporations and international agents play in the shaping of a city.
I can only start an account of the strengths and weaknesses of mainstream urban planning practice in America by talking about the work of Alain and Marie Agnes Bertaud. The Bertauds taught me a great deal about how cities are created and evolve over time. And more importantly, they successfully convinced me that an urban planner should not attempt to realize a vision through the design of a city, no matter the political, philosophical or economic foundations. Cities are ever-changing organisms that urban planners should try to understand through data collection, monitoring and analysis, as well as through direct observation and interaction with its citizens. Based on the understanding of real-life dynamics, the Bertauds would argue, planners should perform the following basic functions: 1) separate private and public space (preferably prior to settlement), 2) create a network of arterial roads and infrastructure, and 3) design regulations and implement policies to allow the market to operate, while anticipating their impact on mobility and housing affordability.
In a way, the Bertauds’ argument for less design and more market is predominant in American cities, much less so in European cities. In the US, land is abundant and accessible to developers, reason why housing remains affordable in many medium and large cities across the country. Despite being dependent on cars, mobility (defined as the time from home to work and back) is better in many American cities than in European cities. Many American cities have reformed their zoning codes to increase flexibility in land uses, and have used market forces to move forward various urban policies, including inclusionary housing, private investments in public infrastructure, urban renewal, etc.
In contrast, European urban planning policies usually attempt to counteract the market in order to achieve the “common good”. Since Europeans tend to see the market not as the representation of people’s preferences but rather as the result of corrupt, selfish practices of the few at the top, market forces are perceived as challenges rather than opportunities. As a result, zoning and land use regulations tend to pile up, creating very stringent conditions that limit the use of private property and end up increasing the cost of housing and business. In addition, the fact that most urban planners are trained as architects has put design and beautification as a major goal of urban planning across the continent.
Urban planners should be straight forward in their intentions and move away from pursuing policy goals that go beyond the well-functioning of the city. However, the Bertauds’ know I do not easily buy into the argument that the market will provide for everyone’s well-being and that the public sector should retrieve to merely set the framework for the market to perform. Despite the potential inefficiencies of many urban planning systems across Europe, cities in the old continent have successfully maintained a balanced approach between reducing regulatory barriers and using market forces to finance urban improvements, on the one hand; and keeping a strong public involvement in the market through the provision of affordable housing and regulations in urban design, building forms and land use, on the other. Although it is true that housing prices are increasing, most surely as a result of some of the above-mentioned regulations, it is precisely this balance which allows European cities to be attractive for visitors and business while being appealing and livable for their residents. The ability of government to curtail private property’s prerogatives in the pursue of the common good might be economically inefficient, but it has allowed for a more equal distribution of resources and a more sustainable urbanization process.
On the other side of the pond, American urban planning departments are hostage to private interests. The rules of the market and the primacy of private property rights allow wealthy individuals and businesses to dictate the future of cities regardless of the interests of less affluent citizens, who have very limited ways to influence the planning process. What in principle is an urban planning model that grants citizens a leading role through the market results in a twisted, money-generating process that disregards the needs and opinions of low- and middle-income citizens.
Some general rules and principles of urban planning can be seen as universal. The Bertauds are right in pointing out that urban planners should focus on understanding cities and creating the frameworks for them to thrive. Europeans need to cut back on regulations and look at the market not as a challenge but as a force that they can leverage to make change happen for the common good. Americans need to ensure that everyone, regardless of their wealth, can participate in the shaping of their city, even at the expense of eroding private property. Both sides of the Atlantic should move towards an urban planning practice that places citizens at the forefront of the planning process, not only through their role in the market but also through direct engagement and through the political process.