Midterm Exam For URBS 300: Spring 2015 ✓ Solved

Midterm Exam f or URBS 300 : Spring 2015 Before you begin,

Answer all three questions. Each answer must be double spaced in 12-point font. The entire exam should not exceed seven pages. Additionally, each answer may not exceed three pages in length. Please add page numbers to your document. You may use your books, readings, lecture notes, and notes to assist you in answering questions. You can use outside books and web resources; however, an A answer will come primarily from the materials for this class. You should cite the source of your information by placing the author's name in parentheses following the sentence/paragraph in which you make the reference. If you are referencing material outside of this course, you should provide a full reference at the end of the exam question. References will not be counted in the number of pages.

Paper For Above Instructions

Comprehensive Plans and Analysis

To enhance the Burbank General Plan evaluation tool devised by Berke and Godschalk (2009), one crucial additional question I propose is: “How does this plan incorporate sustainability and resilience strategies against climate change impacts?” This question aligns closely with existing checklist inquiries that examine environmental integrity and community needs but fills a significant gap in assessing long-term viability of urban plans in the face of growing climate challenges. The emphasis on sustainability has become paramount, as municipalities face increasing pressure to adapt to unpredictable environmental changes. It is imperative for comprehensive plans to integrate resilience strategies to ensure they remain relevant and functional amid these ongoing developments (Berke & Godschalk, 2009; Newman, 2016).

This addition is needed because urban planners must prioritize adaptability within their frameworks, ensuring communities can resist and recover from environmental shocks. Investigating sustainability initiatives within the General Plan also provides insights into decision-making processes and policy implications that affect social equity, economic viability, and the ecological footprint of future projects. Incorporating such dimensions would facilitate an integrated approach to urban planning while aligning with contemporary societal values toward sustainability.

Utopian Models

Historically, three classical utopian models have significantly shaped urban planning: Thomas More's "Utopia," Ebenezer Howard's "Garden City," and Le Corbusier's "Radiant City." More's "Utopia" proposes a society characterized by communal living and shared resources, where private property is largely abolished to eliminate social inequality. Howard's "Garden City" envisions self-sufficient urban spaces that blend residential areas with nature, providing a balance of green space and urban infrastructure. Lastly, Le Corbusier's "Radiant City" embodies a modernist vision that emphasizes functionalism and geometric city layouts based on efficiency and order (Hall, 2002; Sennett, 1990).

Among these models, the "Garden City" presents the most promising framework for modern planners. Its foundational principles of integrating natural environments within urban spaces resonate with today’s demands for sustainability, well-being, and quality of life. With increasing urbanization and environmental concerns, the Garden City concept offers viable solutions that promote public health through green infrastructure while ensuring economic productivity (Howard, 1898; Talen, 1998). By fostering a balance between urban density and accessibility to nature, planners can create more livable cities that respond effectively to contemporary challenges while benefitting residents.

Planning Theories

In the context of urban planning, four salient theories were outlined in our coursework: rational planning, incrementalism, advocacy planning, and communicative planning. Each theory presents distinct strengths and weaknesses. Rational planning is often lauded for its structured approach that relies on data and systematic analysis; however, its rigidity can overlook community specificities and nuanced local input. Incrementalism allows for flexibility and responsiveness to change, yet it can lead to a piecemeal approach that lacks coherence over time, consequently hampering comprehensive urban development (Lindblom, 1959).

Advocacy planning effectively gives a voice to marginalized communities, enhancing social equity in decision-making; nonetheless, it can sometimes result in conflicts between differing stakeholder interests, complicating consensus-building. Communicative planning emphasizes participatory processes and stakeholder engagement, fostering collaboration; however, its applicability may be limited by power dynamics that can undermine the engagement of underrepresented groups (Forester, 1989; Healey, 1997).

After careful consideration of these theories, I believe I would most effectively implement communicative planning in my future career as an urban planner. Given the increasing diversity and complexity of urban environments, fostering genuine dialogue among stakeholders is fundamental to crafting inclusive and sustainable urban policies. Communicative planning cultivates partnerships and actionable insights that are vital for addressing diverse community needs. By prioritizing collaboration and transparent processes, I aim to contribute to the development of cities that are responsive and equitable for all residents.

References

• Berke, P. R., & Godschalk, D. R. (2009). Community Planning: An Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan. Island Press.
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Conflict: Negotiation and Mediation Strategies in Local Land Use Regulation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(3), 329-341.
• Hall, P. (2002). Urban and Regional Planning. Routledge.
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. UBC Press.
• Howard, E. (1898). To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. Swan Sonnenschein.
• Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
• Newman, P. (2016). Sustainability and Resilience: Integrating Global Concepts in Urban Planning. Urban Studies, 53(3), 577-586.
• Sennett, R. (1990). The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities. Knopf.
• Talen, E. (1998). Design Recognition: The Effects of Form-Based Codes on Urban Architecture. Journal of Urban Design, 3(2), 159-182.
• Urban Land Institute. (2017). Building for a Resilient Future: Sustainable Cities. Urban Land Publications.