What is the most important part of planning? I believe that with each day of work that I go through that being able to relate and communicate with the public is of the utmost importance. Misunderstandings can arise if a planners is not able to Cleary communicate with people. Beyond simple misunderstanding I believe that planners need to be able to deliver information that is sometime negative to landowners in a way that is understand, professional, and humanized. I all to often see planners who get into a regulatory frame of mind in every facet of there job. This mindset negatively effects communication.
The reason I am even talking about this is that these days most of my so called planning job is consumed in dealing with people. Worrying with making people happy or explaining the fall out when things are not in there favor. Some people are gracious while others are inherently difficult. It is usually easy to deliver good news , but a good planner is skilled at working with people when the news is not so good. I am talking about the citizen who has built with the set backs and must rectify the situation or the client who does get the wetlands impact permits they need.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Greenways and the environment
I have recently become fascinated with how the greenway movement interacts with the environment and vice versa. The greenway movement is near 20 years of age and is reaching its peak, not only are progressive urban communities constructing extensive greenways, but so are conservative rural small towns. I worked on the planning for a large portion of the Yadkin river greenway in Boone with a transportation engineer with NCDOT. When I think of greenways I think of green space, buffering and stream and providing permanent protection. When I got involved with this project I was shocked to find that the plan’s called for the removal of buffers or neatness and view consideration.
After further research I realized that in principle greenways are good, but there is a large body of literature that refutes there environmental benefits. Things like raising the path elevation to keep flood maintenance costs down and impervious surface lend themselves to huge environmental problems. I often argue that greenways have a free ticket to develop in the floodplain that no other type of development would be approved. Granted, greenways are probably the lesser of two evils. I think this all goes back to a childish romance with anything that sounds, smells, or tastes eco-friendly so it must be good.
After further research I realized that in principle greenways are good, but there is a large body of literature that refutes there environmental benefits. Things like raising the path elevation to keep flood maintenance costs down and impervious surface lend themselves to huge environmental problems. I often argue that greenways have a free ticket to develop in the floodplain that no other type of development would be approved. Granted, greenways are probably the lesser of two evils. I think this all goes back to a childish romance with anything that sounds, smells, or tastes eco-friendly so it must be good.
Greenways and the environment
I have recently become fascinated with how the greenway movement interacts with the environment and vice versa. The greenway movement is near 20 years of age and is reaching its peak, not only are progressive urban communities constructing extensive greenways, but so are conservative rural small towns. I worked on the planning for a large portion of the Yadkin river greenway in Boone with a transportation engineer with NCDOT. When I think of greenways I think of green space, buffering and stream and providing permanent protection. When I got involved with this project I was shocked to find that the plan’s called for the removal of buffers or neatness and view consideration.
After further research I realized that in principle greenways are good, but there is a large body of literature that refutes there environmental benefits. Things like raising the path elevation to keep flood maintenance costs down and impervious surface lend themselves to huge environmental problems. I often argue that greenways have a free ticket to develop in the floodplain that no other type of development would be approved. Granted, greenways are probably the lesser of two evils. I think this all goes back to a childish romance with anything that sounds, smells, or tastes eco-friendly so it must be good.
After further research I realized that in principle greenways are good, but there is a large body of literature that refutes there environmental benefits. Things like raising the path elevation to keep flood maintenance costs down and impervious surface lend themselves to huge environmental problems. I often argue that greenways have a free ticket to develop in the floodplain that no other type of development would be approved. Granted, greenways are probably the lesser of two evils. I think this all goes back to a childish romance with anything that sounds, smells, or tastes eco-friendly so it must be good.
Greenways and the environment
I have recently become fascinated with how the greenway movement interacts with the environment and vice versa. The greenway movement is near 20 years of age and is reaching its peak, not only are progressive urban communities constructing extensive greenways, but so are conservative rural small towns. I worked on the planning for a large portion of the Yadkin river greenway in Boone with a transportation engineer with NCDOT. When I think of greenways I think of green space, buffering and stream and providing permanent protection. When I got involved with this project I was shocked to find that the plan’s called for the removal of buffers or neatness and view consideration.
After further research I realized that in principle greenways are good, but there is a large body of literature that refutes there environmental benefits. Things like raising the path elevation to keep flood maintenance costs down and impervious surface lend themselves to huge environmental problems. I often argue that greenways have a free ticket to develop in the floodplain that no other type of development would be approved. Granted, greenways are probably the lesser of two evils. I think this all goes back to a childish romance with anything that sounds, smells, or tastes eco-friendly so it must be good.
After further research I realized that in principle greenways are good, but there is a large body of literature that refutes there environmental benefits. Things like raising the path elevation to keep flood maintenance costs down and impervious surface lend themselves to huge environmental problems. I often argue that greenways have a free ticket to develop in the floodplain that no other type of development would be approved. Granted, greenways are probably the lesser of two evils. I think this all goes back to a childish romance with anything that sounds, smells, or tastes eco-friendly so it must be good.
Monday, June 18, 2007
jack of all trades
It is more and more evident that being a jack of all trades is what planning is about. Today. I met with a regulator, changed a stream design on site, managed an employee working on site, collaborate with property owners, and ordered materials for the job site. Think about all the great people in there business. They seem to be able to juggle a number of different hats successfully, while claiming to be a master on none. I by no means claim to be a master of any subject or a great planner, but I believe great planners can balance multiple projects with different expectations and outcomes.
With the idea of multi-disciplinary planning I wonder why our undergrad program or graduate program does not allow for some more courses in biology, geology, and technology. One overwhelming need I see that our planners need from ASU is CAD experience. With the GIS and CAD experience the graduates would be a hot ticket hire. I do believe our program does a great job, and maybe there is little flexibility in the course requirements? I will save these final thoughts for another blog but just think of what could be done if you could use CAD and GIs interchangeably.
With the idea of multi-disciplinary planning I wonder why our undergrad program or graduate program does not allow for some more courses in biology, geology, and technology. One overwhelming need I see that our planners need from ASU is CAD experience. With the GIS and CAD experience the graduates would be a hot ticket hire. I do believe our program does a great job, and maybe there is little flexibility in the course requirements? I will save these final thoughts for another blog but just think of what could be done if you could use CAD and GIs interchangeably.
Riparian is the way to go
I have gone ahead in the reading and started to read about streams and streamside vegetation zones called riparian buffers. I am more convinced with each passing year of intensive field experience and site visits to literally hundreds of locations that stream side buffers may be the single most important element in streams functionally and ecological integrity.
Riparian zones serve a number of functions such as protection from harmful thermal pollution; they filter sediment, sequester nutrients, diffuse flood flows and provide a unique and rich corridor for wildlife. When I visit a lot of sites the 1st thing I notice is the lack of a riparian buffer residents cut down all the trees so they can have a view of the river or stream. As soon as they cut this vegetation erosion accelerates and they begin losing the property that is so precious to them. Many folks realize they are losing property and opt for stream bank hardening to solve there problems. Stream hardening is ultra expensive and often unsightly. In many case simple riparian vegetation establishment would do just as well. On Wednesday we will get an opportunity to see this 1st hand.
Riparian zones serve a number of functions such as protection from harmful thermal pollution; they filter sediment, sequester nutrients, diffuse flood flows and provide a unique and rich corridor for wildlife. When I visit a lot of sites the 1st thing I notice is the lack of a riparian buffer residents cut down all the trees so they can have a view of the river or stream. As soon as they cut this vegetation erosion accelerates and they begin losing the property that is so precious to them. Many folks realize they are losing property and opt for stream bank hardening to solve there problems. Stream hardening is ultra expensive and often unsightly. In many case simple riparian vegetation establishment would do just as well. On Wednesday we will get an opportunity to see this 1st hand.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
GIS
GIS has made planning better. It is as simple as that. Most planning offices have some type of gis capability. From offices that just use gis readers as quicker more efficient access to reference maps to offices that run the hold suite of ESRI products and employee analysts to crunch data and perform modeling and suitability studies. The use of the orthopohotography and roads and parcel overlays has given the planner a wider view of the landscape a geographic prospective that some planners may have not had.
One of my gripes about GIS in local planning jurisdictions is that the technicians are usually not housed in a planning office, but rather in a separate department, a tax office, or as an information systems office. Because I think the nature of GIS is Geographic at its core believe that each gis technician should have some fundamental training in geography and be placed in all the above mentioned offices. I also believe that using a county’s lone GIS tech as a cadastral mapper is a waste of the software and talent. Cadastral mapping is needed and important, but gis was not created for that.
One of my gripes about GIS in local planning jurisdictions is that the technicians are usually not housed in a planning office, but rather in a separate department, a tax office, or as an information systems office. Because I think the nature of GIS is Geographic at its core believe that each gis technician should have some fundamental training in geography and be placed in all the above mentioned offices. I also believe that using a county’s lone GIS tech as a cadastral mapper is a waste of the software and talent. Cadastral mapping is needed and important, but gis was not created for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)