Page 1

PLANNING FOR U N C E R TA I N T Y

CAROLINA PLANNING JOURNAL Vol ume 43 / 20 18 1


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

2


CAROLINA PLANNING JOURNAL

3


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

The Carolina Planning Journal is the annual, student-run journal of the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE

© Copyright 2018, Carolina Planning Journal. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. PRINTING

A Better Image Durham, North Carolina ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for this publication was generously provided by the John A. Parker Endowment Fund, the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association, the Graduate and Professional Student Federation of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and by our subscribers. CAROLINA PLANNING JOURNAL

Department of City and Regional Planning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB #3140, New East Building Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3140 USA carolinaplanningjournal@gmail.com

www.carolinaangles.com

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

COVER PHOTOGRAPHER

Carly Hoffmann

Karla Jimenez-Magdalena

EDITORIAL BOARD

SPECIAL THANKS

Katy Lang Amanda Martin Katey Mote Margaret Keener Anna Patterson Olivia Corriere Adam Hasan Kathia Toledo Nora Schwaller

The Carolina Planning Journal would also like to thank the many people who have helped us all year long. These people and organizations include Ken Powers, Bonnie Estes, John Morck, and Ben Howell from the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association; our faculty advisor Danielle Spurlock; DCRP Chair Noreen McDonald; Mike Celeste and the entire team at A Better Image Printing; former Carolina Planning Journal editors Rachel Wexler and Julia Barnard; Planners’ Forum student leaders Stephanie Watkins-Cruz and Ellis Johnson II; Michelle Hoffner O’Connor, Manuel Hernandez, Toney Thompson, and the Appropriations Committee of the Graduate and Professional Student Federation; and, of course, all of our subscribers.

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Audrie Lathrop

4


The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill D e p art me nt of C ity + Reg ional Planning

PLANNING FOR U N C E R TA I N T Y

CAROLINA PLANNING JOURNAL

5


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

BAC K I S SU E T I TLE S

6

1975

V1

INAUGURAL ISSUE

1976

V2.1

AGING AND LAND POLICY

1976

V2.2

THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT

1977

V3.1

THE ENERGY BREAKDOWN

1977

V3.2

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

1978

V4.1

LAND USE POLICY

1978

V4.2

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1978

V5.1

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

1979

V5.2

NORTH CAROLINA'S ECONOMIC PREDICAMENT

1980

V6.1

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING

1980

V6.2

COASTAL

1981

V7.1

CASH, CONDOS, AND CRISIS

1981

V7.2

PLANNING IN THE EIGHTIES

1982

V8.1

RURAL PLANNING

1982

V8.2

PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES

1983

V9.1

NORTH CAROLINA'S SMALL CITIES

1983

V9.2

WATER RESOURCES

1984

V10.1

TENTH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE

1984

V10.2

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FOR URBAN ECONOMIES

1985

V11.1

AFTER THE STORM: PLANNING FOR DISASTER

1985

V11.2

ISSUES IN HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

1986

V12.1

DEVELOPMENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION

1986

V12.2

FROM PLANNING PRACTICE TO ACADEMIA

1987

V13

COST RECOVERY FEES

1988

V14.1

PLANNING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

1988

V14.2

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA

1989

V15.1

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

1989

V15.2

EMERGING PLANNING ISSUES

1990

V16.1

POLITICS & PLANNING

1990

V16.2

FIFTEENTH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE

1991

V17.1

REVIEWING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

1991

V17.2

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

1992

V18.1

ON THE WATERFRONT


WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA

1993

V18.2

UNIVERSITIES AND PLANNING

1993

V19.1

FEDERAL MANDATES

1994

V19.2

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

1995

V20.1

PLANNING IN NORTH CAROLINA CITIES

1995

V20.2

TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE

1995

V21.1

MAIN STREET PROGRAM

1996

V21.2

REGIONAL AND COUNTY-LEVEL PLANNING

1996

V22.1

NEW URBANISM

1997

V22.2

CONSERVATION-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

1998

V23.1

GROWTH AND THE TRIANGLE

1998

V23.2

REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS IN NORTH CAROLINA

1999

V24.1

SPECIAL ISSUE: WEISS URBAN LIVABILITY SYMPOSIUM

1999

V24.2

PLACE, TYPOLOGY AND DESIGN VALUES IN URBANISM

2000

V25.1

PLANNING OUR COAST

2000

V25.2

PRESERVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

2001

V26.1

RURAL HOUSING

2001

V26.2

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH STRATEGIES IN THE SOUTHEAST

2002

V27

REDEFINING LIVABILITY IN THE URBAN SOUTHEAST

2002

V28.1

MANUFACTURED HOUSING

2003

V28.2

SMART GROWTH AND RURAL AMERICA

2004

V29.1

FORGING AHEAD AND LAGGING BEHIND

2004

V29.2

ARE WE IN THE RIGHT LANE?

2005

V30.1

GREEN BUILDING, GREEN PLANNING

2005

V30.2

PATHS TO HEALTHY PLANS

2006

V31.1

THE CHANGING FACE OF PLANNING

2006

V31.2

PLANNING ACROSS THE COLOR LINE

2007

V32.1

TOWARDS THE NEXT 50 YEARS

2007

V32.2

EMERGING ISSUES IN HOUSING

2008

V33

RESILIENT CITIES

2009

V34

URBAN GREENING

2010

V35

TRANSPORTATION + ACCESSIBILITY

2011

V36

REGAINING RELEVANCY

2012

V37

PLANNING FOR EQUITY

2013

V38

COLLABORATIONS IN PLANNING

2014

V39

PLANNING FOR THE NEW ECONOMY

2015

V40

JUST CREATIVITY

2016

V41

R E ( ANY THING )

2017

V42 7


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

CON T E N T S 008 FROM THE EDITOR 010 NEWS & EDITORIAL BOARD

FE AT URE S 0 12 REDUCING UNCERTAINTY IN CLIMATE RESILIENCE PLANNING: HOW THE COMPONENTS OF VULNERABILITY AND RISK HELP INFORM THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS Matt Hutchins, Karin Rogers, James Fox, & Nina Flagler Hall

0 2 0 ART AND AFFORDABILITY IN EAST HARLEM: DEVELOPMENT, GENTRIFICATION, AND THE CASE OF ARTSPACE PS 109 Kevin Whang

0 2 8 CONNECTING THE DOTS IN NORTH CAROLINA’S CITIES: HOW THE CHARLOTTE AND TRIANGLE REGIONS ARE USING TRANSIT PLANNING TO CREATE PROSPEROUS AND RESILIENT FUTURES Nate Baker, AICP, Michelle E. Nance, AICP, & Jason Wager, AICP CEP

042 A CONVERSATION WITH PETER MOSKOWITZ: GENTRIFICATION AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN CITIES Sarah Shaughnessy

048 A NEW DIRECTION FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ken Bowers, AICP & Katherine Hebert

05 6 A FRAMEWORK FOR FLEXIBILITY: MANAGING UNCERTAINTY IN NATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Mia Candy

0 6 8 MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT PLANNING: A REVIEW OF LOCAL ORDINANCES FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND POLICIES IN THE TRIANGLE REGION OF NORTH CAROLINA Paul Black, AICP, GISP

078 PLANNING TO MAINTAIN THE VIABILITY OF THE LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE: BALANCING ECOLOGICAL AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY Traci Birch, PhD, AICP & Jeff Carney, AIA, AICP

0 88 EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES: SUPPORTING LOW-INCOME YOUTH THROUGH JOBS IN URBAN MANUFACTURING Julianne Stern & Nichola Lowe

8


BOOK REVIEWS 1 0 0 THE END OF LOYALTY: THE RISE AND FALL OF GOOD JOBS IN AMERICA Rick Wartzman | Book Review by Allison Forbes

10 2 THE COLOR OF LAW Richard Rothstein | Book Review by Stephanie Watkins-Cruz 1 04 EMERGENT STRATEGY: SHAPING CHANGE, CHANGING WORLDS adrienne maree brown | Book Review by Alyzza May

10 6 VANISHING NEW YORK Jeremiah Moss | Book Review by Colleen Durfee 10 8 LATINO CITY Erualdo R. González | Book Review by Jennifer Rangel

ST UDENT WORK 094 MASTER’S PROJECT TITLES

Class of 2017

130 YEAR-IN-REVIEW: AN UPDATE FROM NEW EAST 131 NC-APA CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT

VOLUME 44 CA LL F OR PA PERS

9


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

F RO M T H E E D I TO R

CARLY HOFFMANN is the Editor-in-Chief of the

CARLY HOFFMANN

Carolina Planning Journal and a second-year Master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, focusing on housing and community development. She is pursuing a career in affordable housing finance and development. Prior to UNC, she worked as a book editor for Amazon.com. Carly is a proud native of Cleveland, Ohio and graduated from Columbia University in 2010 with a degree in Urban Studies.

D E A R RE ADE RS, The theme for this year’s issue, “Planning for Uncertainty,” was inspired by the unexpected results of the 2016 presidential election, which raised countless questions about our values, how politics affect planning, and the future trajectory of our county. Authors in this volume grapple with these questions through their explorations of diverse topics that include anti-gentrification efforts, proactive transportation planning in the face of restricted funding, and creative workforce development programs for low-income high-school students. Importantly, this year’s authors also help us understand that, though we may feel as if this political moment is particularly extraordinary, planning for risk and uncertainty is and always has been a critical part of a planner’s work. This volume begins with an exploration of how standardized assessments can reduce uncertainty in the climate resilience planning process from Matt Hutchins, Karin Rogers, James Fox, and Nina Flagler Hall of UNC-Asheville’s National Environmental Modeling and Analysis Center. Offering further perspective on incorporating risk and uncertainty in resilience planning, Traci Birch, PhD, AICP and Jeff Carney, AIA, AICP present a range of creative planning methods for engaging planners and citizens in the coastal restoration discussion.

10


Our two articles that address transportation planning discuss how to further public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian planning efforts in a time of constrained resources. Nate Baker, AICP, Michelle E. Nance, AICP, and Jason Wagner, AICP, CEP survey how the Charlotte region and the Research Triangle area are planning for transit expansion so as to manage growth and position themselves for continuing vitality. Paul Black, AICP, GISP presents an inventory of how local governments in the Research Triangle area provide for thoroughfare protection, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking provisions, and related policies in spite of stagnant state and federal funding for transportation. On the fraught topics of gentrification and displacement, Kevin Whang examines the construction of an artist-specific affordable housing development in Manhattan’s Spanish Harlem neighborhood as a case study of gentrification dynamics in New York. DCRP Master’s student Sarah Shaughnessy interviews Peter Moskowitz, a journalist and author of the 2017 book How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood, whose thoughts on economic inequality provide a valuable counterpoint to the narrative of gentrification as a product of consumer and cultural choice. Among the contributions from alumni of DCRP, Julianne Stern, MCRP/MBA ‘15, and DCRP Professor Nichola Lowe detail the innovative workforce development strategies for low-income youth of Chicago’s Manufacturing Connect program. And Mia Candy, MCRP ‘16, explores technical assistance frameworks developed by Renaissance Planning and the EPA that support their work in planning for public health and sustainability in diverse communities. As always, this volume includes book reviews by current students, summaries of the Master’s projects selected by faculty as the best of the year, a list of all Master’s projects from 2017, and a year-in-review newsletter from the halls of New East. A special thank you to Karla Jimenez-Magdalena, a dual-degree student in City & Regional Planning and Public Health, who took the photograph featured on the cover. Her view of the Icelandic countryside has symbolic resonance as we move forward into an uncertain future. The authors in this volume illustrate the importance of persistence, resilience in the face of unexpected setbacks, and informed optimism. We hope this issue inspires you in your work. Enjoy! And thank you for reading, Carly

11


N EW S & E DI TO RI AL BOARD The following people are integral to the success of the Journal and its online platform, CarolinaAngles.com:

ANNA PATTERSON / Online Content Editor Anna is a first-year dual degree Master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning and the Department of Health Behavior. Her scholarly interests include health and the built environment, vulnerable populations, and community development. Prior to coming to UNC, Anna worked as a program officer for a health foundation in Alamance County, North Carolina. She likes American folk music, slalom water skiing, and hikes along the Haw River.

AMANDA MARTIN / Senior Advisor Amanda Martin, AICP, is a city planner and PhD student at UNC Chapel Hill. Originally from Boston, she has lived and worked in Washington, D.C., northern Nevada, New Orleans, and Providence, Rhode Island. Most recently, she was a Principal Planner with the State of Rhode Island’s Statewide Planning Program, where she managed social equity initiatives, climate change projects, and demographic analysis. Amanda’s doctoral research explores how regions or neighborhoods that receive major private or public investment can share that prosperity with low-income communities and communities of color. She is working on answering this question in the context of coastal communities’ recovery from major storms. Amanda holds a bachelor’s degree from Harvard College and a Master in City Planning from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

KATY LANG / Managing Editor of Online Content Katy is a Master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning. She spent seven years in the Washington, DC area and as a result, has a love-love relationship with DC’s Metro system and all things urban and transportation. She is passionate about pedestrian safety, equity, and rights to the city and the street. Prior to coming to UNC, Katy worked in change management. She likes long runs on Carrboro’s short bike trails and eating popcorn.

KATEY MOTE / Online Content Editor

OLIVIA CORRIERE / Online Content Editor Olivia Corriere is an undergraduate studying environmental sustainability, geography, and information systems. In Summer 2017, she interned with the Huron Waterloo Pathways Initiative in Michigan and studied abroad in Germany and the Netherlands to learn about renewable energy, efficient transportation, smart cities, urban agriculture, and city planning. In her free time, Olivia enjoys running through Carrboro, compiling music playlists, and cooking with friends and family.

ADAM HASAN / Online Content Editor Adam is a Junior undergraduate student studying Geography and City and Regional Planning. His research interests include understanding the actors involved in defining and redefining Global South urbanisms through social movements, governance systems, and media, as well as the history of spatial planning in post-colonial regions. Adam has previously worked with participatory informal settlement upgrading in South Africa, coastal resilience planning in Brooklyn, and was once ranked internationally as one of Simcity 4’s best city builders. In his free time he enjoys birdwatching, coffee roasting, and plays vice-skip on a local curling team.

KATHIA TOLEDO / Online Content Editor

from UNC in 2012 with a degree in Health Policy and Management.

Kathia Toledo is first-year Master’s student in City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. There, she is pursuing the Land Use and Environmental Planning Specialization. Kathia is particularly interested in the dynamic between varying urban landscapes, sustainability, and planning. She graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill with a Bachelors of Arts in Geography and Environmental Studies and a minor in Urban Planning. Her hobbies include creative endeavors like urban sketching and photography, biking on the American Tobacco Trail, and exploring new cities and towns.

MARGARET KEENER / Online Content Editor and Incoming

NORA SCHWALLER / Online Content Editor and Incoming

Katey is a dual-degree Master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning and the Department of Health Policy and Management at the University of North Carolina. She is interested in the intersection of urban planning and public health, particularly the ways health and planning policies can impact our social determinants of health. Katey worked as the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Planning Coordinator at the Baltimore City Health Department before returning to North Carolina for graduate school in 2015; she graduated

CPJ Editor-in-Chief Margaret Keener is a first-year Master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, focusing on land use and environmental planning. Prior to UNC, Margaret worked as a graphic designer for a global city network. Outside of class, Margaret enjoys listening to podcasts while running, playing outdoor team sports, and exploring new places on foot. 12

Managing Editor of Online Content Nora Schwaller is a first-year PhD student in the Department of City and Regional Planning, where she focuses on disaster recovery. Prior to UNC, she worked for an architecture firm in San Francisco. Outside of class, Nora enjoys long bike rides and short walks, delicious food with good people, and casually perusing information on the design history of contemporary video games and systems.


AMANDA MARTIN

MARGARET KEENER

KATEY MOTE

OLIVIA CORRIERE

ANNA PATTERSON

KATHIA TOLEDO

ADAM HASAN

NORA SCHWALLER

KATY LANG 13


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

R E DUCI N G UNCE RTAINTY IN C LIMAT E R E SI LI E N CE P LAN N I NG: H o w t h e Co m p o n e n t s o f Vu l n e ra b i l i t y a n d R i s k H e l p I n f o r m t h e A s s e s s m e n t Pro c e s s MATT HUTCHINS Matt Hutchins is a Research Scientist and Environmental Change Project Lead with UNC Asheville’s NEMAC. Hutchins works with federal partners, local and state governments, and

communities to support them in making informed decisions on issues related to the impacts from climate change and extreme weather, wildfire, and other environmental threats. KARIN ROGERS Karin Rogers is Director of Operations and a Research Scientist at NEMAC. She works with

NEMAC’s federal, local, and state partners to effectively deliver and communicate their

science for more informed decision making. She has focused on various technology transfer methodologies, including group facilitation and training, scientific graphic design, and statistical applications used in decision support. JAMES FOX James (Jim) Fox is NEMAC’s Director. In that position, he serves as the team leader and principal investigator for several major collaborations, including partnerships with the

U.S. Forest Service, NOAA, and state, county, municipal, and regional governments in the Southeastern United States. NINA FLAGLER HALL Nina Hall is NEMAC’s Lead Science Editor and a Research Scientist. As such, she is responsible for overall editorial management and for synthesizing and coordinating the content of

scientific and technical decision-making tools and visualizations produced by NEMAC. She

also oversees the development and implementation of NEMAC’s digital storytelling products.

ABSTR ACT Communities are increasingly engaging in climate resilience planning to better address threats such as flooding, sea level rise, wildfires, and other events. Assessments are widely conducted, and accepted, as a critical part of this planning process. Planners and practitioners, however, employ a myriad of different approaches when conducting these assessments, and there are few standards or guiding principles detailing what an assessment should provide or—and perhaps more importantly—how an assessment can be used in these 14


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

planning processes. The lack of standardization in assessment results in increased uncertainty for the entire planning process. This article draws upon work that UNC Asheville’s National Environmental Modeling and Analysis Center (NEMAC) is undertaking with communities throughout the Southeastern United States to highlight the role assessments have in resilience planning. We focus on the notion that an assessment should not be viewed as an end to itself, but should rather empower a community by reducing uncertainty in the planning process.

that their “normal” day-to-day life is changing, and that they don’t have the resources to fully quantify and understand the increasingly-complex set of stressors that impact their municipal systems. In order to deal with this complexity, and to become better prepared for impacts related to these climate and weather-related events, communities are beginning to address climate resilience within their planning processes.

Communities across the United States are dealing with impacts from more frequent extreme weather events and climate-related threats. Since 1980, there have been more than 200 billion-dollar weather and climate-related disaster events in the United States, with the total cost of just these events exceeding $1.2 trillion (NOAA NCEI 2017). The Southeast experiences more of these events than most other regions in the U.S., particularly droughts and heat waves, winter storms, tropical storms, flooding, and severe local storms (NOAA NCEI 2017; Smith 2017). These events—which also include sea level rise and wildfire, among others—are threats to communities because they impact people and their livelihoods, damage infrastructure, and disrupt the ability to deliver basic services. The scientific consensus shows that the frequency of extreme weather events that contribute to these threats is increasing, and they are expected to become even more frequent and severe in the future (Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe 2014; USGCRP 2017).

Resilience is defined as the capacity of a community, business, or natural system to prevent, withstand, respond to, and recover from a disruption (Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe 2014; IPCC 2014). Climate resilience planning considers ways that communities can prepare for climate-related impacts to protect people and community assets while still delivering key services. Many research groups, agencies, and other organizations have provided tools and frameworks for climate resilience planning, yet many of these lack clarity in their concepts and vary in methodology—which often keep them from being widely used (Uittenbroek, Janssen-Jansen, and Runhaar 2013). One of the common aspects among the many approaches is to include some type of assessment in the planning process (e.g., an exposure, vulnerability, or risk assessment). However, there are few standards or guiding principles detailing what kind of assessment should be undertaken, what it should provide, or—and perhaps most importantly— how an assessment can be used in the climate resilience planning processes (Bierbaum et al. 2013; Preston, Westaway, and Yuen 2011).

Simultaneously, many communities are experiencing increasing growth, development, and socioeconomic changes that challenge their ability to deliver key services. Given these changes, many communities feel

This lack of standardization in assessments used to support resilience planning can make it difficult for communities to begin their planning efforts, as it introduces two types of uncertainty:

INTRODUCTION

15


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

1.

Uncertainty in how to consider the threats and changing realities that a community may face. This makes it difficult for communities to determine why they need to build resilience.

2.

Uncertainty in the planning process itself, due to varying approaches and types of results. The lack of comparable approaches also makes the sharing and learning of best practices for building resilience more difficult (Bierbaum et al. 2013). Addressing both types of uncertainty is critical. Communities are continually faced with limited resources, yet they need to be able to incorporate resilience into their planning processes. They are doing so under conditions of deep uncertainty, which prompts a dynamic adaptation pathways approach—the ability to adaptively plan for threats to meet changing conditions (Haasnoot et al. 2013).

One resource that can help address uncertainty and foster an adaptation pathway is the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit (CRT), a federal interagency website that provides science tools and information for communities across the nation as they look to build climate resilience (U.S. Federal Government 2014). UNC Asheville’s National Environmental Modeling and Analysis Center (NEMAC) collaborated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Program Office to develop the CRT, and is also working directly with several communities in North Carolina and throughout the Southeast as they undertake resilience planning efforts. This article will pull from these experiences and describe NEMAC’s application of the assessment framework based on the CRT’s “Steps to Resilience” (Figure 1). It will also highlight the role that assessments have in resilience planning, why they are important, and how a standardized assessment approach can help communities address uncertainties—and adopt an adaptive pathway approach—in the resilience planning process.

ROLE OF AN ASSESSMENT IN RESILIENCE PL ANNING The assessment phase of a resilience planning effort helps communities understand how they are affected by climate threats and, perhaps more importantly, helps to inform the strategies that communities should consider to build resilience. Ultimately, the success of ment should be measured by its ability to:

1.

Provide an understanding of how a community could be affected by threats they face, and

2.

Guide the development and prioritization of strategies that build resilience.

FIGURE 1 - The Steps to Resilience framework for climate resilience

planning offered by the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit.

16


categories of community assets that may be evaluated in more detail could include properties, utilities and public services, people and public health, transportation, and water.

NEMAC has worked with communities to capture their understanding of these asset-threat relationships, and how they are interconnected, through a conceptual model exercise (Fox et al. 2017). This consideration at the beginning of the assessment phase helps to address uncertainty about which threats a community should consider and which threats it may not face, and also provides a way to acknowledge the changing climate and non-climate stressors.

We have also found that a resilience assessment is most useful when it considers concepts of vulnerability and risk. While both of these concepts have become ubiquitous vernacular in the fields of social and environmental sciences and in emergency management, they do have fairly specific meanings (and are sometimes used interchangeably) in the context of resilience planning.

Once a community’s threats and assets have been identified, they are carried forward into the assessment. Based on NEMAC’s recent work, we have found the assessment phase to be most beneficial for communities when it comes from a value-based perspective and, where possible and appropriate, is data-informed and quantified. A value-based perspective considers community-specific assets that are identified through input from that community regarding the types of assets or values (i.e., people, infrastructure, and services) that should be included in the assessment, as well as input on how they are represented (Kenney 1996). A few general

Regardless of how assets are represented, using spatial or nonspatial data makes it possible to measure and facilitate a quantified understanding of how a community could be affected by threats. It is important to note, however, that a lack of data does not necessarily exclude an asset from being considered in an assessment.

COMPONENTS OF A RESILIENCE ASSESSMENT

The following will briefly describe the components of a vulnerability and risk assessment for resilience planning, focusing on the significance of these components and how they each contribute to the understanding of community resilience. EXPOSURE: Which community assets are in harm’s way?

Exposure is defined as the presence of assets in harm’s way (IPCC 2014). Once threats and assets have been identified, the assessment turns to the initial concept of exposure.

17

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

As we’ve mentioned previously, one of the initial steps in the CRT’s Steps to Resilience is for a community to consider past experiences and existing institutional knowledge of how their assets have been or could be affected by climate threats (Fox et al. 2017). Additional resources and examples from other communities can also be useful in identifying other threats. For example, communities could consult the Climate Explorer tool developed by the CRT team, the CRT itself, and or NOAA’s Storm Events Database.1 This consideration allows the participants to begin thinking about the relationship between climate and non-climate stressors, threats, and assets that could be affected.


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

This step is important because it narrows the scope of the planning. Assets that are not exposed to a threat are not vulnerable or at risk. Depending on the threat, scale, and data used to represent both threats and assets in the assessment, this exposure analysis may be fairly detailed (i.e., properties exposed to flooding) or more generalized (i.e., populations exposed to extreme heat). Regardless, this exposure information highlights some of the impacts a community may have to a given threat. Understanding levels of exposure also helps to begin framing the community’s primary threats and potentially affected assets. While this level of the assessment does not yet provide details on how some assets in harm’s way may be more affected by a threat than others, it does provide a basic understanding of if the asset is in harm’s way. VULNERABILITY: How susceptible are community assets?

Vulnerability is often defined as an asset’s susceptibility to a threat due to social and physical factors and is determined by considering two elements: sensitivity and adaptive capacity (IPCC 2014; Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011; Cutter et al. 2008). Sensitivity considers the degree to which an asset is affected by a threat. Factors used to determine levels of sensitivity for a specific asset are often based on the asset’s innate characteristics or level of service it provides (Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011). Assets with characteristics that make them more affected are more sensitive. Similarly, assets that provide more critical levels of service are more sensitive due to the level of impact that would occur if they were affected. Adaptive capacity considers how an asset is able to cope with an impact or threat event. An asset with higher adaptive capacity is able to withstand an impact with minimal disruption or cost. Measures of adaptive capacity include physical elements, conditions, or designs in place that help an asset absorb an impact and continue to function. Socioeconomic factors also contribute to a community’s ability to cope with loss from an event.

18

Together, these concepts of sensitivity and adaptive capacity inform vulnerability. Again, the vulnerability of an asset is the function of an asset’s sensitivity to a threat and is offset by its adaptive capacity. Therefore, assets with high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity are the most vulnerable. Assets with low sensitivity and high adaptive capacity are the least vulnerable. Understanding these components of vulnerability is significant for planning purposes because they reveal some of the root causes of why and how communities experience loss when a threat occurs. For example, a community may be vulnerable due to a high reliance on critical assets in flood-prone areas that are interrupted when flooding occurs, and are therefore costly to repair. The assessment can inform whether the drivers of vulnerability are due to sensitivity, adaptive capacity, or both—which is useful to understand when communities explore strategies to reduce vulnerability. RISK: How likely is it that assets could be affected? What would

be the consequence? While vulnerability describes susceptibility if a threat were to occur, it does not consider how likely it is that the threat will occur, or what the consequence would be if it did. Risk is defined by both the probability and the negative outcome or consequence of a threat occurring (IPCC 2014). Considering the probabilities of threat events allows a community to know what assets are most likely to be affected and what impacts are most likely to occur. For example, an asset in the 100-year floodplain has a higher probability of flooding than one in the 500year floodplain. Also, some threats may have a greater chance of occurring in some physical locations than others. Consequence considers a negative outcome of the asset being affected, which may be related to losses a communities may experience (such as commerce and tourism), jobs and employment, or property values and potential loss of tax base. Therefore, the highest-risk assets are those facing the highest probability of a threat event with the highest consequence.


EXPOSURE

VULNERABILITY

SENSITIVITY

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

RISK

PROBABILITY

PROBABILITY

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

ASSESSMENT COMPONENT

SIGNIFICANCE FOR PLANNING

• Determines which assets are in harm’s way of each threat • Identifies the primary threats to assess in more detail for vulnerability and risk

• Determines degree to which exposed assets are affected by each threat • Identifies critical assets and services that would lead to greater potential impacts • For people and human health, considers sensitive populations that are more affected

• Determines assets’ ability to cope with potential impacts • Identifies policies in place that help assets absorb impacts with minimal cost or disruption • Considerss where socioeconomically vulnerable populations may have less capacity to cope

• Determines the current likelihood that assets may be affected by each threat • Provides the ability to consider how future change may increase risk

• Considers negative outcomes resulting from each threat

TABLE 1 - A summary of each resilience assessment component and its significance or contributions to resilience planning.

USING AN ASSESSMENT TO UNDERSTAND VULNER ABILIT Y AND RISK, AND TO DEVELOP RESILIENCE STR ATEGIES Vulnerability and risk are distinct concepts that should be considered when building resilience. However, it is important to reiterate that while a vulnerability and risk assessment can provide a better understanding about the threats within a community, its ultimate goal is to inform the development of strategies that build resilience.

FIGURE 2 - An example summary of exposure, vulnerability, and risk from an assessment of

commercial properties and flooding. Image credit: UNC Asheville’s NEMAC.

19


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

A framework using both of these components (see, for example, Figure 2) provides planners with the ability to consider and prioritize according to different levels of risk tolerance or aversion. It also allows them to consider the assets they want to target for building resilience. For example, a community has the option to consider building resilience in (a) all assets that have a moderate to high level of vulnerability and risk; (b) all assets that are highly vulnerable; and/or (c) only the assets with the highest vulnerability and highest risk (Figure 3). It also reveals the potential for high impact/low probability events.

FIGURE 3 - These example matrices illustrate how a community, using the results of an assessment, can

consider building resilience according to varying levels of vulnerability and risk tolerance. The matrices show the combined vulnerability and risk for commercial properties; the numbers represent the number of properties with the corresponding levels of vulnerability and risk. Image credit: UNC Asheville’s NEMAC.

The decision of which resilience-building option to consider is up to the community and may depend on the level of risk aversion, availability of resources, and other factors. Another value this assessment framework provides is the ability to evaluate scenarios about future trends and changing conditions related to increasing risk. For example, knowing that heavy precipitation events may increase and that future growth and development are expected in certain areas means that communities can better identify those areas that may experience a higher probability of flooding—which has implications for future planning strategies and options. The results of an assessment should show that some assets are more vulnerable than others. By the end of the assessment, a community should also be able to identify specific areas with higher risk or vulnerability as potential areas in which to build resilience.

20

The ultimate goal of resilience planning is to have a set of strategies with actionable options that build resilience for the most vulnerable and at-risk assets. To be actionable, an option should have the potential to reduce vulnerability and risk. Some of the strategies that reduce vulnerability and risk include:

1.

reducing exposure (removing assets from harm’s way),

2.

increasing adaptive capacity (increasing the asset’s ability to cope with impacts),

3.

reducing or mitigating increased risk from future change (dealing with the influence from non-climate stressors, such as growth and development), or

4.

supporting response and recovery (recognizing the unavoidable impacts and need for response efforts).


We have found that communities face two major types of uncertainty when dealing with resilience: (1) they are not sure of the threats and changing realities they face; and (2) they do not have a standard process to follow that ensures that they are addressing all of the issues in building resilience. To address these uncertainties, we have found that communities respond well to using a standardized process based on a quantified assessment. Using this process and the resulting assessment, they can then develop options to address the most vulnerable and at-risk assets, and prioritize those options based on data and fact—not conjecture. The ability to plan for threats and changing conditions that communities face has been referred to as a “dynamic adaptation pathways” approach. When under conditions of “deep uncertainty,” Haasnoot and colleagues recommend that practitioners “develop a plan that allows for dynamic adaptation over time to meet changing circumstances” (2013). Developing a quantifiable assessment using a standardized process as described herein allows communities to update assessment components, such as vulnerability and risk, into the future. Thus, a community can continue to modify planning options and strategies through different “adaptation pathways” that ultimately provide the community with the path for the best current investment and an ability to deal with future uncertainties.

END NOTES 1. These tools can be accessed from https://toolkit.climate.gov/climateexplorer2/, https://toolkit.climate.gov/, and https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ stormevents/, respectively.

WORKS CITED Bierbaum, Rosina, Joel B. Smith, Arthur Lee, Maria Blair, Lynne Carter, F. Stuart Chapin III, Paul Fleming, Susan Ruffo, Missy Stults, Shannon McNeeley, Emily Wasley, and Laura Verduzco. “A Comprehensive Review of Climate Adaptation in the United States: More than Before, but Less than Needed.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18, no. 3 (March 2013): 361–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9423-1. Cutter, Susan L., Lindsey Barnes, Melissa Berry, Christopher Burton, Elijah Evans, Eric Tate, and Jennifer Webb. “A Place-Based Model for Understanding Community Resilience to Natural Disasters.” Global Environmental Change 18, no. 4 (October 2008): 598–606. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013

Fox, James, Matt Hutchins, Nina Hall, and Karin Rogers. “From Hazard Mitigation to Community Sustainability: Resilience Planning in Asheville, North Carolina.” Carolina Planning Journal 42 (2017): 76–85. Glick, Patty, Bruce A. Stein, and Naomi A. Edelson, eds. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation (2011). http://www. habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/scanning_the_conservation_horizon.pdf. Haasnoot, Marjolijn, Jan H. Kwakkel, Warren E. Walker, and Judith ter Maat. “Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways: A Method for Crafting Robust Decisions for a Deeply Uncertain World.” Global Environmental Change 23, no. 2 (2013): 485–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2012.12.006. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, (2014). http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_ en.pdf. Keeney, Ralph L. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, eds. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global Change Research Program, (2014). doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). “U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview.” NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). Accessed 29 November 2017. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/. Preston, Benjamin L., Richard M. Westaway, and Emma J. Yuen. “Climate Adaptation Planning in Practice: An Evaluation of Adaptation Plans from Three Developed Nations.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 16, no. 4 (April 2011): 407–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11027-010-9270-x. Smith, Adam B. “2016: A historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in U.S.” NOAA Climate.gov. Last modified 9 January 2017. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2016historic-year-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate-disasters-us. Uittenbroek, Caroline J., Leonie B. Janssen-Jansen, and Hens A. C. Runhaar. “Mainstreaming Climate Adaptation into Urban Planning: Overcoming Barriers, Seizing Opportunities and Evaluating the Results in Two Dutch Case Studies.” Regional Environmental Change 13, no. 2 (April 2013): 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0348-8. U.S. Federal Government. U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. (2014). http:// toolkit.climate.gov. U.S. Global Change Research Program. “Indicators.” GlobalChange.gov. Accessed 29 November 2017. http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/ indicators.

21

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

CONCLUSION


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

A RT AN D AFFO RDABI LITY IN EA ST HA RLEM: Development, Gentrification, and the Case of Artspace PS 109

KEVIN WHANG Born in Seoul, Jun Ha (Kevin) Whang is an independent scholar of urban studies, the history of American cities, and U.S. race relations. He is currently conducting a study of affordable housing in East Harlem area. Whang is also active in Harlem Youth Court, a restorative justice program run by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office.

ABSTR ACT This paper will examine the construction of an artist-specific affordable housing development in the Spanish Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan in order to identify and discuss several cultural parameters of gentrification. This study’s goal is not to argue that the development in question, named Artspace PS 109, straightforwardly increases or decreases the rate of gentrification in Spanish Harlem, but rather to study dynamics present in the construction of Artspace PS 109 as a case study considered against the broader landscape of gentrification in New York, particularly with respect to the impact of artist communities on housing supply. In the end, what Artspace PS 109 most valuably offers us is a reference point for a comparative analysis of affordable housing strategies currently being pursued within municipal government. Our study of Artspace PS 109 has allowed us to examine a microcosm of the city’s response and evaluate its overall strategy accordingly.

As New York City weathers a swelling “affordability crisis” marked by a rapid transformation in land development and culture, spectators, journalists, and New Yorkers alike have all turned to a similar phraseology to communicate both their triumphs and anxieties. This paper will examine the construction of an artist-specific affordable housing development in the Spanish Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan in order to identify and discuss various trends 22


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 1 - Artspace PS 109 in East Harlem. Photo Credit: Kevin Whang

affiliated with gentrification, as well as to illuminate certain components of the debate surrounding the dire housing need prompted by gentrification. Our goal will not be to argue that this development, named Artspace PS 109, completed in late 2014 with ninety units (Meier 2016), either “increases” or “decreases” the “amount” of gentrification in the neighborhood, nor that it exists purely as a center from which gentrification emanates. Gentrification as a concept lacks precise definition and gentrification as a process lacks centralized coordination. Thus, it would be fruitless to attempt to read gentrification in solitary, isolated objects. Our analysis will instead attempt to identify certain rhythms or dynamics present in the construction of Artspace PS 109 in an attempt to relate it to the broader landscape of gentrification in New York, and more particularly, housing issues in the neighborhood of Spanish Harlem.

The Spanish Harlem neighborhood lies directly north of Manhattan’s glamorous Upper East Side, inhabiting the blocks between Ninety-Sixth Street and 125th Street on the land east of Fifth Avenue. Originally an Italian immigrant neighborhood, this area of the city began to be known as Spanish Harlem, or El Barrio, through the mid-twentieth century due to an influx of Puerto Rican immigrants settling in the area (Dwyer 2009). During the 1960s and 1970s, the area saw two concurrent trends that would go on to define much of the land use in Spanish Harlem today. In the hopes of collecting insurance money on their properties, landlords who found themselves in financial woe began burning their own buildings down in Spanish Harlem, displacing the residents who lived in these properties (Dwyer 2009). This phenomenon occurred during the famed “urban renewal” period of New York City. As such, the 23


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

government simultaneously embarked on the construction of many of the “tower-in-the-park” style public housing projects in Spanish Harlem, which still dominate the neighborhood today. Residents who had been burned out of their homes were moved into these public developments. In order to gain land for construction, the city cleared whole blocks. This process left many forgotten vacant lots that were never utilized by the city and that are still vacant today (Dwyer 2009). As it stands now, Spanish Harlem exists as primarily a renter’s community—roughly only 8 percent of the privately-owned residences in the neighborhood are owner-occupied (Calmes 2016). Further, over half of the residents of Spanish Harlem are rent-burdened, a term used to describe an individual who pays more than thirty percent of their income towards rent (Calmes 2016). Many of the storefronts and restaurants in Spanish Harlem are geared towards the needs of the predominantly Hispanic population—of which Puerto Ricans are a large share, in addition to a growing population of people of Mexican origin (Schulz 2015). The neighborhood is accessible by the 6 subway line, which runs down Lexington Avenue. The more eastward sections of the neighborhood are only bus accessible, however. Pinning down exactly what signifies that a neighborhood is gentrifying is incredibly nebulous beyond a few solid markers. Generally speaking, gentrification in Spanish Harlem has been indicated by a rise in housing costs, interest in the neighborhood by luxury developers, and a shift in the public perception of the neighborhood. In the period between 1990 and 2000, rents in East Harlem increased by 4.6 percent. However, in the time from 2000 to roughly 2010-2014, rents increased by 34.2 percent (Austensen et al. 20). This trend can be attributed to an influx of upwardly mobile residents in search of affordable living in Manhattan, as many of the neighborhoods around Spanish Harlem became prohibitively expensive during this time period (Higgins 2016). These residents bring more capital into the area, which tempts landlords to raise their rent—a trend long-affiliated with gentrification. Likewise, sale prices for homes in the neighborhood have nearly

24

doubled over the course of the past ten years—jumping from $476,090 in 2005 to $885,099 in 2015 (Schulz 2015). A large factor in the growth of sales prices in Spanish Harlem is the boom in condominium prices, which are typically indicative of new development in the area marketed towards the city’s wealthy (Small 2017). Planning decisions made by New York City government contributed to the boom in condominium construction. Former mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration rezoned a large portion of the neighborhood to increase housing density (Hylton 2015). This rezoning led to an increase in interest from real estate firms and developers, who sought to capitalize on the more advantageous building allowances opened up by the rezoning. Over the roughly fifteen years since, new residential midrises have sprung up over the neighborhood, with their developers expressing their desires to “connect East Harlem to the Upper East Side” (Hylton 2015). And while Mayor Bill de Blasio has committed to constructing 200,000 affordable housing units in New York by 2024, only just over one percent of the affordable units constructed thus far have been placed in East Harlem (Warerkar 2017). As a complex phenomenon, gentrification is irreducible to sets of numbers and movements of capital. It is instructive to pay attention to more visceral, unstructured data sets informed by direct human experience. As the real estate news site 6sqft reports, “New restaurants with a downtown vibe are beginning to pop up [in Spanish Harlem]. D’Amore Winebar is a cozy café with Italian tapas; Lexington Social is another spirits and tapas bar with all the usual suspects (fancy mac n’ cheese, truffle fries, Brussels sprout salad) you’d expect to find in the latest haunt in Williamsburg…since certain reports attribute yoga studios to hipster-fication, we should note that East Harlem has several, including a Bikram Yoga studio” (Schulz 2015). The sudden movement of affluent populations into a neighborhood corresponds not only to pricing increases, but a felt change in the character of said neighborhood. While Spanish Harlem has in many ways retained its historic roots as a Hispanic community,


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 2 - A mural adorning one of Artspace PS 109’s walls. Photo Credit: Kevin Whang

25


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

and many of its long-time business have remained opened, this may change as rents increase further, implicating not only residents, but businesses too. Just as gentrification displaces residents, it has also begun to displace the culture of Spanish Harlem, as evidenced by the wine bars and yoga studios cited by 6sqft. These pricier digs make it harder for those living in Spanish Harlem to find activities and businesses to patronize in their own neighborhood and also oftentimes create a sense of alienation from a community that many have called home for decades. Along with these new, trendy openings, attention to the neighborhood by the press, developers, and the general public has increased. In early 2016, the New York Times named East Harlem one of four “next hot neighborhoods” in New York (Higgins 2016). As early as 2013, the New York Post ran a headline for an article documenting “El Barrio’s Journey from Boho to Bourgeois.” (Bonislawski 2013). The press coverages presented here both record that gentrification has occurred in an area and further spur it. New developments in the neighborhood are springing up in tandem with the displacement of longtime residents. In 2013, East Harlem boasted a higher rate-of-entry into shelters for families than any other neighborhood in Manhattan (Calmes 2016). Rising costs have begun to hamper the ability of many residents to stay in the neighborhood. As told by one resident, “Rent is going sky-high in the neighborhood. The community is being restructured, small businesses are closing, and people who lose their jobs can’t afford their rent” (Calmes 2016). While the neighborhood has not yet been overrun by young professionals looking for budget-friendly homes, the terms have been set for the development of East Harlem, and tension has begun to bubble as many residents feel that the influx of development capital in the neighborhood will ultimately be predicated on their removal. Enter Artspace PS 109—an affordable housing development on Ninety-Ninth and Third geared solely towards artists. In a time of tumult for the Spanish Harlem neighborhood, as longtime residents fight for their right to remain against new residents who graft their desires onto the 26

surrounding storefronts, the Artspace apartments present an interesting case study of the complex and at times contradictory dynamics of gentrification. The building itself was once a New York City public school, the eponymous PS 109, before it was vacated over fifteen years ago. As demolition was expected to begin in 1995 (Meier 2016) on the beautiful, Gothic Revival property, the community protested, demanding that the space be reused in some productive way. Fears abounded that the demolished lot would eventually be handed over to developers looking to transplant another monotonous luxury mid-rise. In response, Artspace, a nonprofit based in Minneapolis, offered up their plans for the location (Zimmer 2011). Artspace works to provide affordable housing for artists, with the justification that artists are necessary for the vibrancy of a community, as well as precariously situated financially due to increasingly expensive costs of living on generally lower incomes. The nonprofit does so by managing various properties across the country that are kept highly-affordable and solely occupied by artists (Leber 2014). In a city suffering a dearth of affordable housing, and in a neighborhood that is particularly in need of affordable housing, the 100 percent affordable Artspace PS 109 seems like both an oasis and a trap. Many regard artists as the harbingers of gentrification, and as such, Spanish Harlem residents responded to Artspace’s proposal with concern that their apartments would only bring the creative types whose presence opens the floodgates for new residents. Artspace’s responsibility, according to vice president of communications Melodie Bahan, was to assure that the property would not be overrun by “hipsters from Brooklyn” (Leber 2014). After winning over the approval of the community by promising that at least fifty percent of the units would go to community artists, Artspace worked to renovate the old school to transform its space into eighty-nine apartments, ranging from studios to two-bedrooms, along with plenty of gallery space and room to house other cultural organizations (Zimmer 2011). Where does Artspace PS 109 fit in this moment of Spanish Harlem’s history? It clearly has a noble goal of providing affordable housing. And the housing it provides is in demand in Spanish


It is useful to consider Artspace PS 109’s strengths as a model for the provision of affordable housing in the midst of a heated debate over how to provide affordable housing in New York. Artspace generally has two advantages over the typical affordable housing strategies put forth by New York City government— cost and relative provision. The city typically frees up affordable housing in a somewhat indirect manner. Instead of constructing explicitly affordable properties in neighborhoods in need, the city offers incentives for real-estate developers to allocate a certain percentage, somewhere from twenty-five to thirty percent, of their units for affordable housing (Baird-Remba 2016). This requirement compels developers to invest in constructing larger, often mixed-use properties that supposedly boost the economy of an area by bringing jobs and spurring ‘neighborhood revitalization.’ Thus, the city subsidizes its own affordable housing program by outsourcing the creation of new units to private developers and developers subsidize their construction by earning tax credits or other financial benefits in return (Savitch-Lew 2017). Critics, however, counter the benefits of the city’s strategy on the two points that distinguish Artspace PS 109. First, critics often contest the idea that the affordable units built by developers in mixed-income buildings are truly affordable. Affordability in New York City is set based on low-income households paying thirty percent of their income on housing costs, and the income ranges that qualify for affordable housing are defined by the Area Median Income (AMI). Critics claim that AMI offers too broad a demographic picture to actually capture the economic need of an area. In New York City, the AMI is gauged based on the five boroughs in addition to Putnam, Westchester, and Rockland counties. This means the AMI for New York City ends up at roughly $77,000 a year for a three-person home. In comparison, the AMI for East Harlem specifically is $33,595. Mayor de Blasio’s most recent affordable housing guidelines, the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing policy, generally defines affordable as within reach for households making

forty percent of the AMI—roughly $36,000 a year (Baird-Remba 2016). This definition barely reaches the economic middle in East Harlem and excludes those who most need affordable housing. In this sense, Artspace is a welcome development in that it comes closer to providing affordable housing within reach of more East Harlem resident artists. The lowest price point for a studio at Artspace PS 109 requires a minimum yearly income of roughly $19,000 (New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development 2014). The second criticism levied against New York’s affordable housing strategy is that in prioritizing luxury housing to create affordable housing, the city actually accelerates gentrification by facilitating an influx of wealthy residents into a neighborhood. A building may offer up twenty-five to thirty percent of its apartments to those in need of affordable housing, but the remaining seventy to seventy-five percent of the building is still inhabited by residents who are able to pay a premium for their apartments. These residents go on to inflate the relative costs of other expenses in the neighborhood such as groceries and also bring in new businesses, such as the aforementioned wine bars, that disrupt the cultural character of the original neighborhood. Mayor de Blasio’s recently announced a new East Harlem rezoning plan to encourage creation and preservation of 300,000 units of affordable housing by 2026 faced heavy community pushback on this exact point (Murphy 2017, 3). For good reason, too—if affordable housing is only produced through disruptive development devised by actors outside of the neighborhood and unaware of all of its histories, the city will end up with a largely unrecognizable East Harlem. Artspace PS 109 succeeds again in that 100 percent of its units will be affordable. This affordability will at the very least, in theory, not contribute to the pattern of rent-raising in the neighborhood to accommodate more affluent residents. Furthermore, due to income requirements for residency at PS 109, the economic fabric of the neighborhood will be largely retained. The weakness of Artspace PS 109, however, lies in its professed target for only fifty perfect of residents to be 27

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

Harlem, evidenced by the fact that over 500 artists from the community applied to Artspace for affordable housing (Padilla 2015).


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

indigenous to the community. While fifty percent for local residents is higher than what other communities have been able to procure from private developers, it still means that roughly forty-five units will become occupied by residents moving into East Harlem. This is somewhat of a drop in the bucket—any block of East Harlem likely has more than forty-five units on it. However, it still allows the possibility that the culture of the neighborhood will be altered, perhaps in the same direction that the new luxury developments take it. Particularly regarding a neighborhood with such a storied history and culture as East Harlem, the cultural displacement affiliated with gentrification is a weighty concern—especially considering that artists are often times themselves the producers of culture. It also is worth considering an alternate course of action that would be purely beneficial—that the building could have been offered exclusively to artists living in East Harlem. Ultimately, whether or not Artspace 109 provides a service to the neighborhood, it definitely does not provide a model that can be scaled. As articulated by Justin Davidson at New York Magazine, “Combining affordable housing with historic preservation is a fine idea, but it’s also an expensive way to make life cheap for a miniscule number of New Yorkers. The $52 million construction budget, more than ninety percent of which was paid for by a medley of federal, state, and city funds, comes out to $580,000 per household…At that rate, keeping artists in New York is a civic luxury” (Davidson 2015). In the end, what Artspace PS 109 most valuably offers us is a reference point for a comparative analysis of affordable housing strategies currently being pursued by the government of New York City. The East Harlem neighborhood stands at a crucial point in front of two divergent paths. With the right investments on behalf of the city and private entities, the neighborhood can retain its character and preserve that which it offers its residents—affordable living in a familiar cultural context. The other road is less hopeful—with rampant displacement already in progress, East Harlem may become unrecognizable to its former self. Our study of Artspace PS 109 has allowed us to examine a microcosm of the city’s response and evaluate its overall strategy accordingly. 28

As a base line, the city must aggressively pursue a true affordability strategy specifically suited to the needs of each of its neighborhoods. The city must take care not to undermine affordable housing strategies by involving real estate developers seeking to ultimately profit from neighborhood improvement. If the mayor’s office can only offer up meager portions of each new building in New York City to those in need of affordable housing, the offer itself may become irrelevant. Those in need might have been already pushed out by the rising cost of almost everything else. Artspace PS 109 offers an invaluable resource, even if it plays with metaphorical fire with such a high inclusion rate of artists from outside of the community. The development may offer an oasis that preserves some corner of the East Harlem neighborhood, but the city will need to develop more creative plans to protect the rest.


Austensen, Maxwell, Ingrid Gould Ellen, Luke Herrine, Brian Karfunkel, Gita Khun Jush, Shannon Moriarty, Stephanie Rosoff, et al. “State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2015.” NYU Furman Center, 9 May 2016. http://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/NYUFurmanCenter_ SOCin2015_9JUNE2016.pdf. Baird-Remba, Rebecca. “City Estimates the Impact of East Harlem Rezoning.” New York YIMBY, 11 November 2016. http://newyorkyimby.com/2016/11/city-estimates-the-impact-of-eastharlem-rezoning.html. Bonislawski, Adam. “El Barrio’s Journey from Boho to Bourgeois.” New York Post, 24 December 2013. http://nypost.com/2013/12/24/el-barrios-journey-from-boho-tobourgeois/. Calmes, Maggie. “Wary of Gentrification, East Harlem Braces for Rapid Change.” Gotham Gazette, 1 April 2016. http://www.gothamgazette.com/city/6253-wary-of-gentrification-eastharlem-braces-for-rapid-change. Davidson, Justin. “The Beauty (And Limitations) of El Barrio’s Artspace PS 109.” New York, 5 February 2015. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/beauty-and-limitationsof-artspace-ps109.html. Dwyer, June. “Reimagining the Ethnic Enclave: Gentrification, Rooted Cosmopolitanism, and Ernesto Quinonez’s ‘Chango’s Fire’”. MELUS 34, no. 2 (2009): 125-139. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20532682. Higgins, Michelle. “New York’s Next Hot Neighborhoods.” New York Times, 26 February 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/realestate/new-yorks-next-hotneighborhoods.html?_r=1. Hylton, Ondel. “Revealed: East Harlem Rental Building by Gerald J. Caliendo Architects Rising at 2183 Third Avenue.” 6sqft, 2 April 2015. https://www.6sqft.com/revealed-east-harlem-rental-building-bygerald-j-caliendo-architects-rising-at-2183-third-avenue/. Leber, Jessica. “In Gentrifying New York, Can Affordable Housing for Artists Change a Neighborhood.” Fast Company, 17 December 2014. https://www.fastcompany.com/3039771/in-gentrifying-new-york-canaffordable-housing-for-artists-change-a-neighborhood.

New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. “Affordable Housing for Rent.” 2014. https://a806-housingconnect.nyc.gov/ nyclottery/AdvertisementPdf/96.pdf. Padilla, Andrew J. “A Rejected Artist in NYC: Who Really Wins Affordable Housing Lotteries?” Latino Rebels, 5 February 2015. http://www.latinorebels.com/2015/02/05/a-rejected-artist-in-nycwho-really-wins-affordable-housing-lotteries/. Sanchez, Pierina Ana. “Preserving Affordable Housing in East Harlem: August 2016.” Regional Plan Association, 2016. http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Preserving-Affordable-Housing-inEast-Harlem.pdf. Savitch-Lew, Abigail. “Draft Housing Plan for East Harlem Frustrates Stakeholders.” City Limits, 4 May 2017. http://citylimits.org/2017/05/04/draft-housing-plan-for-east-harlemfrustrates-stakeholders/. Schulz, Dana. “East Harlem: From Manhattan’s First Little Italy to El Barrio to a Neighborhood on the Cusp of Gentrification.” 6sqft, 9 April 2015. https://www.6sqft.com/east-harlem-from-manhattans-first-littleitaly-to-el-barrio-to-a-neighborhood-on-the-cusp-of-gentrification/. Small, Eddie. “The Era of the South Bronx Condo Has Yet to Arrive …But It May Not Be Too Far Away.” The Real Deal, 19 May 2017. https://therealdeal.com/2017/05/19/the-era-of-the-south-bronxcondo-has-yet-to-arrive-but-it-may-not-be-too-far-away. Walker, Ameena. “Affordable East Harlem Apartments Will Get Created under Accelerated Program.” Curbed, 3 May 2017. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/5/3/15534456/new-affordable-housingeast-harlem-apartments-accelerated-program. Warerkar, Tanay. “De Blasio’s Affordable Housing Agenda to Get Even More Ambitious in 2017.” Curbed, 14 February 2017. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/2/13/14596926/nyc-affordable-housingbill-de-blasio-state-of-city. Zimmer, Amy. “‘Eyesore’ School to Be Transformed into Affordable Housing.” DNA Info, 4 October 2011. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20111004/upper-east-side/ affordable-artist-housing-rehab-eye-sore-school-on-e-99th-st.

Meier, Matthew. “A Former New York City Public School Building is Transformed into Housing and Community Space for Local Artists.” Retrofit magazine, 18 July 2016. Murphy, Jarrett “Rezoned East Harlem = Loss of Affordable Housing.” 2017. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3692766-Movement-forJustice-in-El-Barrio-s-10-Point-Plan.html.

29

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

WORKS CITED


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

CO NNE CTI NG TH E DOT S IN N ORTH CARO LI N A’S C IT IES : H o w t h e C h a r l o t t e a n d Tr i a n g l e R e g i o n s a r e U s i n g Tr a n s i t P l a n n i n g t o C reat e Pro s p e ro u s a n d Re s i l i e n t Fu t u re s NATE BAKER, AICP Nate Baker is a planner with Clarion Associates in Chapel Hill, North Carolina where he works

with communities to prepare comprehensive plans, conduct zoning assessments, and rewrite development ordinances. He leads the firm’s work on scenario analysis and strategic analytics that inform policy development of client plans. Previously, Nate was a planner with the City of

El Paso, Texas. He is a Fulbright Research Fellow and in 2016 studied regional planning and interjurisdictional collaboration in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. MICHELLE E. NANCE, AICP Michelle E. Nance is the Planning Director for the Centralina Council of Governments, providing planning services to nine counties in the greater Charlotte region. She directs the Council’s

work related to land use and transportation, healthy community initiatives, energy, and the environment. Her work is focused on helping local governments address shared, long-term issues through collaboration and partnerships. Michelle is the former Director of Planning and Development Services for the city of Gastonia, and she has experience in state, regional, and local government planning. Michelle holds a Master of Public Administration and Bachelor of Science in Urban and Regional Planning from East Carolina University. She is a past president of

the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association, was named the 2014 Health

Champion for Active Living by the Region 4 Community Transformation Grant Project Team, was honored as one of the 2017 50 Most Influential Women in the Charlotte region, and was named 2017 Woman of the Year by the Mecklenburg Times. JASON WAGER, AICP CEP Jason Wager is Planning Program Supervisor at the Centralina Council of Governments

(CCOG). Jason’s work includes projects that employ land use planning principles and public input/engagement processes where he is regularly involved in transportation, energy, and

environment-related activities that include collaboration among solid waste/recycling programs, transit and freight movement stakeholders, water resource planning experts, and renewable energy/energy efficiency initiatives for local governments. He also serves as Coordinator for

the Centralina Clean Fuels Coalition (CCFC), a United States Department of Energy voluntary government-industry partnership that promotes transportation choices including the use of

alternative fuels, mode diversity, and clean vehicle technologies. Jason is a member of the

American Institute of Certified Planners, is a Certified Environmental Planner (AICP CEP), and

has a certificate in Municipal Administration from the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Government. He also sits on the Sustainability Technologies Advisory Board at Central Piedmont Community

College, serves on the Plug-in North Carolina Steering Committee, is a Catawba Wateree Water Management Group Advisory Committee member, represents Clean Cities Coalitions in the southeast on the national Coordinator Council, and is a trained group process facilitator. 30


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

ABSTR ACT North Carolina’s two largest and fastest-growing metropolitan areas are working to manage growth and position themselves for continuing vitality. An important component of this work is planning for transit expansion. In the Charlotte region, planners have embarked on an ambitious public engagement strategy, known as the Regional Transit Engagement Series, to build a dialogue with government staff, elected officials, and private sector leaders in small and medium-sized communities that fall within the path of urban growth. In the Triangle region, planners have adapted to jurisdictional fragmentation and “coopetition” by working with and nurturing citizen coalitions, providing education and information, adapting to transit funding and planning hurdles, and planning for placemaking and affordable housing around transit nodes. These processes should be watched closely by planners looking for ways to expand economic opportunity and improve livability as our communities grow.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE Metropolitan areas are facing increasing changes in market, climate, and sociopolitical conditions throughout North Carolina and the United States. In addition to governmental hurdles, revenue loss, and market volatility, metro areas must overcome jurisdictional fragmentation and local autonomy to establish a regional identity, expand opportunity, and become more equitable. North Carolina’s two largest and fastest growing metropolitan areas are working to address these and other challenges by nurturing coalitions and planning for transit. By expanding transportation choices for residents, case studies and empirical evidence show that local governments improve access to housing, jobs, and services; promote innovation and workforce development; and provide opportunities for placemaking

along corridors and within more compact urban nodes. Meanwhile, rapidly growing metropolitan areas are spilling over jurisdictional boundaries, impacting once suburban and/or rural areas. The social, economic, and environmental systems of urban cores and their outer suburbs are now, more than ever, intertwined and interlinked. In response to these trends, the Charlotte and Triangle regions are both embarking on ambitious planning initiatives to expand transportation options, in particular by investing in transit and supportive land planning at the local and regional levels. The urban spatial structure of each of these regions differs, though both are seeing steady population growth. The Charlotte metropolitan area is a highly monocentric region anchored by the City of Charlotte, surrounded by communities with populations ranging from under 1,000 to close to 90,000. The Triangle region is polycentric in form, with Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill serving as the primary urban nodes, all with a population over 150,000. Both are also in different stages of regional transit planning and development. The Charlotte and Triangle regions have consistently looked to one another for planning inspiration. Charlotte already has over eighteen miles of light rail transit in place and efforts underway to plan for additional light rail lines and expand bus service locally and regionally. Planners in the Triangle aim to establish bus rapid transit routes in Raleigh and Chapel Hill, secure funding for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project, and maintain and introduce fare-free transit in Chapel Hill and Durham, respectively. Planning at the regional scale is becoming increasingly important as functional urban areas grow outward, leapfrogging jurisdictional boundaries. Increasingly, federal agencies expect communities to work together 31


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

as a region to address issues of shared concern; economic development and social opportunity issues are also increasingly regional in nature. Regional planning comes with inherent challenges due to governmental fragmentation and multiple overlapping and sometimes competing jurisdictions and funding sources. In North Carolina, where centralized authority at the regional level is relatively weak, regional planners must engage in coalitionbuilding and educational outreach in order to accomplish a shared vision. As regions grow throughout the Southeast, planners and leaders at the state and local levels can borrow from the lessons learned during the expansion of transit in these two regions.

The Charlotte Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was named the number one destination for millennials (18-34 year olds) in the nation after an analysis of inand out-migration patterns completed in November 2016. At the same time, the region, like many others, is anticipating a greater number of seniors over the next two decades, both from in-migration and through “growing our own.” These demographic trends in the greater Charlotte region point to the need and desire for transportation choices and increased mobility options to reduce household transportation budgets, support walkable land use patterns, encourage “aging in place,” and provide independence later in life.

CHARLOT TE REGION

Between 2012 and 2015, CCOG led the development of a regional growth framework called CONNECT Our Future, a landmark achievement for the region. The plan came from an intense, three-year planning process involving four metropolitan planning organizations, a ninety-five-member project consortium, 120 local governments, and over 8,400 stakeholders.

The Centralina Council of Governments (CCOG) is the lead regional planning agency for the nine-county greater Charlotte region. As such, CCOG is often tasked with addressing complex issues that are multi-jurisdictional and long-term. The current challenge involves increasing transportation choices, namely cross-county transit, within the region. Engaging the public, local governments, and business leaders to understand common interests and encourage support and funding for regional transit is critical to the Charlotte region’s continued economic competitiveness.

What’s Going on Now? In the 2010 Census, the Charlotte region was identified as the fastest growing area with a population over one million, and the population is expected to almost double by 2050. The economy is regional, with over fifty percent of the population working in a different county than they live, and over 150,000 workers traveling into Mecklenburg County every weekday. Main arteries are heavily congested and prospective businesses are concerned about the state of transportation in the region. In addition, a recent study of intergenerational upward social mobility found that Charlotte was the worst performing large U.S. city for upward mobility. While the study highlighted Charlotte, the analysis was conducted for the Charlotte commuter zone (a ten-county area), making upward mobility a regional issue, and we know transportation access is a crucial element in providing access to jobs and housing as a means to escape poverty (Chetty, 2014). 32

Transportation choice emerged as a top growth priority, including an overwhelming interest in public transit from communities of all sizes. In fact, rural and small town leaders highlighted the need for increased transit options for job access; to address mobility needs for seniors, persons with disabilities, and veterans; and to support local economies by connecting non-drivers to local businesses. Leaders from across the region recognized that long-term transit planning should be accelerated in order to maintain the Charlotte MSA as a competitive region. The region’s comprehensive economic development strategy, as laid out in the 2017-2022 Prosperity for Greater Charlotte report, outlines key strategies that are needed for the region to maintain its competitive advantage for domestic and international commerce. Promoting transit planning to move people throughout the region is one of three tactics highlighted to improve and modernize regional infrastructure. The report outlines the importance of aligning economic development, housing, and employment with the regional transit system.


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 1 - Planners engage with regional leaders and stakeholders to coordinate transit initiatives.

Source: Centralina Council of Governments

The Charlotte Regional Freight Mobility Plan, a bi-state, fourteen-county, effort that involved state departments of transportation, transportation planning organizations, airports, ports, rail, and logistics businesses, highlights challenges and offers recommendations for moving goods and materials through and within the region. The plan notes that the Charlotte NC-SC region ranks forty-seventh in the nation for annual truck congestion, which costs the region $131 million annually (Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), 2015). The plan also notes that over seventy-seven percent of the region’s freight tonnage is moved by truck and that trucking will represent the biggest increase in regional freight movements over the next thirty years—yet another factor pointing to the need for transportation choices in the region. Compared to peer regions, the Charlotte region is substantially lagging in the availability of cross-county transit options. The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) operates two light rail lines (the latest extension opened in March 2018). By December 2018, future corridors

will be identified to the southeast, west, and north of downtown, all predominantly within Mecklenburg County. This opens the door for regional transit planning to determine where transit lines should extend beyond the currently planned CATS routes and in the nearterm, how communities outside Mecklenburg County can connect to the CATS corridors.

Why Transit? Transit access offers multiple benefits to individuals including upward mobility, lowering a family’s home/ transportation costs, and providing access to jobs, services, and medical facilities. Transit-oriented development can help communities create attractive places, spur economic development, and open the door for a greater range of housing choices. In addition, the Charlotte region only narrowly meets the Environmental Protection Agency’s health-based standard for groundlevel ozone; therefore, public transit plays a role in maintaining healthy air, promoting sustainability, and reducing our contribution to climate change by offering an alternative to single-occupancy vehicle trips. 33


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

Regional Transit Engagement and Outcomes In late 2016, the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), the policy board for the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), asked the Centralina Council of Governments to continue the regional transit dialogue started in the CONNECT Our Future project. Through a Regional Transit Public Engagement Series, stakeholders were given an opportunity to have a focused conversation about regional transit, well before any planning work took place. Communities expressed their aspirations, concerns, values, and interests around long-term transit. The geography for this work included Mecklenburg County, five North Carolina counties immediately adjacent to Mecklenburg County (Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, and Union counties), and the urbanized areas of Lancaster and York counties in South Carolina. Beginning in March 2017, CCOG and CATS staff engaged local government managers, planners, and transportation professionals in eight counties over the ensuing two months. The results of this initial phase pointed to the need for a regional transit plan that would establish future transit lines and modes outside Mecklenburg County. Desired elements of the plan include: • • • • •

Mobility options and connections (other than light rail) Rapid transit destinations, corridors, and modes Regional commuter rail options Funding options, barriers, and peer region review Administrative structure options and peer region review

Other key outcomes included the need for a scan of the current transit operations in the region and solid messaging about the benefits of transit from a variety of viewpoints. Feedback gathered during these early discussions guided work on a second phase, which included engagement from August through early October 2017. Across the same eight county geography, groups from the earlier phase were joined by local, state, and federal elected officials, 34

economic development organizations, institutions, and major employers. This phase of engagement highlighted the importance of simply continuing a regional transit conversation. Further, three major themes emerged that speak to why regional transit is important to this region’s future success:

1. Ensuring global competitiveness and job retention 2. Meeting the mobility needs of a growing, changing population, and

3. Providing economic opportunity, through physical and social access, to a broader cross-section of our communities. A key question during the engagement process asked participants to express how a regional transit plan would enable their community or county to take actions that they are not able to do now. Overwhelmingly, participants noted the efficiencies of collaboration across communities and the economic competitiveness gains that could be realized with a well thought-out regional transit plan. Participants responded that a regional transit plan would: •

Provide a unified vision and the potential of shared decision-making among local governments: - Provide a “larger voice” for jurisdictions that may not normally be heard - Make the region more competitive for outside funding - Save time now and save money in the long-term by coordinating as a region - Support the reservation of right-of- way that will be needed for transit

Support economic competitiveness for all in the region - Offer predictability for economic development and business investment decisions - Present a unified message to businesses and residents considering the region or already here


• • • • • • • •

• •

Development of a regional transit vision as a next step beyond the CATS 2030 system update Enhancing local and regional mobility options and connections Regional collaboration opportunities around trip planning, fare payment, and integrated service Human Transportation Services coordination and planning Veteran transportation and crossjurisdictional medical transportation Rapid transit destinations, rapid transit lines, and transit modes Regional commuter rail options Intentional engagement of local, state, and federal elected officials and staff to ensure identification of key policy issues important to the region Funding options, barriers, and best practices from peer regions Administrative structure options and peer region successes

Next Steps A Regional Transit Summit, to be held in May 2018, will invite national speakers to the region to discuss the economic benefits of transit, the mobility needs in the region, highlight case studies from successful regions, report the results of the Regional Transit Engagement Series, and serve as a call to action for moving forward with a regional transit plan. The regional transit plan is the clear next step to connect the CATS 2030 planned light rail lines to the rest of the region.

After the May 2018 Regional Transit Summit, work will shift to developing a plan scope, building support for funding, developing transit-supportive messaging, securing a plan consultant, and building the base of stakeholders needed for transit planning and future implementation efforts.

From the Fall of 2018 through 2020, the region will undertake the development of a regional transit plan and help communities that are ready prepare for the establishment of new, local funding sources (sales tax, value capture, tax increment financing, etc.) to move plans to reality.

Success will be measured through multiple milestones including:

Developing a regional transit plan scope

Securing funding for a transit plan

Developing the regional transit plan

Preparing communities with the information needed for county-wide discussions on future (possibly new) transit funding

35

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

As the latest round of engagement meetings wrapped up, a market research firm assessed the attitudes of the general public on transit-related issues, which included specific outreach to underrepresented groups, individuals with differing abilities, seniors, and veterans. The survey was intended to identify the tipping points for public transit ridership; such as cost, frequency, time, and transit stop location; to assess why residents would ride transit, and to determine how they would prefer to finance needed infrastructure improvements. Taken together, topics that have been identified as needing further attention from upcoming regional transit engagement and planning efforts include:


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

Challenges

What’s Going on Now?

A key need includes educating elected leadership, city/ county management, and private sector leaders from across the region so that they understand the benefits and true costs of regional transit and can communicate both to others. Transit-supportive messaging is needed to speak to the core values of a diverse population. Success will also require that the regional transportation planning organizations understand their role in the process, which will include supporting the plan and incorporating results into their long-term planning documents. Federal agencies will need to document their support for the plan and provide funding for plan development.

Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary, Research Triangle Park, and other fast-growing municipalities in the Durham and Raleigh metropolitan areas make up the Triangle region. With a 2016 combined Gross Regional Product of $122 billion, the region is one of the largest and fastest growing economies in the Southeastern United States. Between 2005 and 2015, the population grew by 30 percent, adding nearly half a million people (TJCOG, 2017). Despite economies that rely upon a geographically diverse workforce, the Triangle has struggled to establish a unified metropolitan vision and regional identity (Geary, 2008). The first efforts began in 1987 with a series of “World-Class Region” conferences, where the goal was to find ways for making the region successful. These conferences convened leaders in local government and business with the goal of creating a foundation for collaboration.

The biggest hurdle related to regional transit planning is the geography and the number of communities and community leaders that need to be on the same page. This challenge is exacerbated by short election cycles and the continuous turnover of leadership. Another challenge is understanding when to bring in the broader public; it is not desirable to try to craft “all the answers” before public outreach, but there needs to be enough data for a solid information exchange. Building support for the plan scope, identifying plan funding, and creating the plan will be time consuming and take expert facilitation, stakeholder engagement, and messaging. The greater Charlotte region has a track record of success for doing just that, as illustrated through the CONNECT Our Future project. Due to the pace of growth, there is a sense of urgency for developing mobility options. Only through continued engagement, collaboration, and partnerships, will our region be able to maintain the quality of life that our residents expect.

TRIANGLE REGION The Triangle region is a center of technology, education, governance, and culture for North Carolina. Anchored by major universities and the hallmark Research Triangle Park, the region has emerged as one of the driving economic engines in the state, experiencing decades of explosive growth.

36

The conferences had some successes. A 1992 vision statement from the conference stated: “We have learned the necessity of sharing resources, though the lessons have not been easy and they are not yet fully learned. Our inability to cooperate and unite in common goals limits us.” A priority emerged from the conferences, one that leaders recognized could be the glue that might hold the multiple jurisdictions in the Triangle together: transit. In 1991, the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) was established to draft a long-range transit strategy and to operate bus services across county and municipal lines, supplementing local and university bus companies and bringing each of the municipalities closer together. TTA started with bus service. It soon became apparent that the agency could work to get ahead of the curve, anticipating population growth and development, and the light rail plan was born. TTA worked on a light rail plan to connect Durham to Raleigh for close to 10 years with support from the federal government and had some successes. In the mid-2000s however, soaring costs brought federal support, and this plan, to an end.


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 2 - A GoTriangle rendering shows what the dedicated guideway could look like along U.S. 15-501 in Durham.

For several years questions remained. What would be the role of TTA? What is the role of transit in the region? All the while, support for transit persisted. Local leaders formulated a new vision with a substantial plan for heightened bus service, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and a regional rail system. Meanwhile, legislation that passed through the North Carolina General Assembly allowed Wake, Durham, and Orange counties to put in place a half-cent sales tax to fund transit. Durham and Orange counties began to work to come up with county plans, led by their respective County Commissioners (Gulley, 2017). Durham County and Orange County each passed referenda in 2011 and 2012, establishing the half-cent sales tax to help fund transit. These successes allowed new bus service and expanded bus routes.

The Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project Picks Up Speed, With Hurdles The Triangle is moving ahead with light rail plans that will connect stops in downtown Durham, the medical center in Chapel Hill, and multiple places in between. To those who have lived in the Triangle for decades, the project has been a consistent promise of a big-city amenity in a region of multiple disconnected centers—a promise that to many has always seemed just beyond reach, even as comparable systems have flourished around the country. Between 2000 and 2015, light rail passenger trips on the country’s 27 light rail systems doubled to 1.6 million daily unlinked trips (APTA, 2000, 2016). North American light rail investments totaled $40 billion in 2015 (Freemark, 2015).

37


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

In a time of sustained attacks on government intervention at all levels, there is seemingly little that defines planning in a time of uncertainty more aptly than the decision to move forward with a multibillion dollar transit project, especially given that it requires fifty percent of its funding from the federal government during a chaotic time period. Yet taking no action to develop public transit in a dynamic region would be a highly risky decision itself that, according to cost-of-congestion studies, could have dismal financial and economic consequences for the region, not to mention impacts on open space, air emissions, and quality of life. A 2014 study conducted by INRIX and the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated that nationwide traffic congestion is responsible for $124 billion per year in direct and indirect costs, and that this number will likely rise to annual costs of $186 billion by 2030, if nothing is done about traffic.

Aside from the challenges, the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project continues to hold enormous promise for regional economic development. According to a July 2017 market study and demand forecast produced for GoTriangle by Toyon Group and Gateway Planning Group, the project’s investments could be leveraged to encourage numerous desired outcomes. The market study identified five key outcomes, including:

Given the recent population and economic growth seen in the Triangle, and the traffic congestion that comes with it, the greatest risk could simply be to maintain the status quo. Further, the status quo is built on the unsustainable model of disconnected, automobile-oriented sprawl, which polarizes communities by race, class, and values, and deepens their reliance on fossil fuels.

One of the challenges of making the public case for light rail in the United States is the nature of transportation funding: road and highway funding is typically more reliable, and the cost of road development projects is rarely made publicly available. As a result, the average person is unlikely able to recite the huge costs of building and maintaining road infrastructure; meanwhile, a single light rail line will have a single published number, making it a much easier target for criticism, especially when it is continuously debated in local news outlets. Turning to the other side of the ledger, it is difficult to quantify the benefits of fixed rail transit, especially when they are paired with land use planning that creates synergistic effects around transitoriented development, affordable housing investments, and the modern market shifts that favor more sustainable lifestyles.

38

• •

“Additional tax revenue due to accelerated higher-value growth in station areas; Accelerated commercial growth including attraction of class “A” office space, global headquarters, and other large corporate users as well as resulting complementary retail and hospitality uses; Increased housing choices and commuting options across a range of incomes; Reduced costs of associated infrastructure and maintenance required to support new residents and business activity due to fewer linear miles of new water and wastewater lines, roads, and utilities; and, Expansion of the communities’ economic base, facilitating priority policies such as making affordable housing available in accessible, high-quality neighborhoods.”

Thanks to broad support for transit across the region, planners have managed to advance the project into the engineering phase. However, this progress came with several hurdles and there are remaining threats. Although the plan originally had the state picking up twenty-five percent of the cost, the North Carolina General Assembly’s sudden decision to cap the state’s funding at ten percent forced Durham and Orange counties to increase their commitments from twentyfive to forty percent. The local share now sits at roughly $750 million, over $250 million more than originally anticipated, in addition to short- and long-term debt. Durham and Orange counties are still working out exactly how they will split the cost, but Durham, where more of the system’s infrastructure is planned, will likely pick up most of the added cost (Grubb, 2017). Each


The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has also modified its potential commitment to the project, originally backing the project with eighty percent of the cost. That commitment was later reduced to fifty percent, a substantial reduction for multibillion-dollar infrastructure projects (Gulley, 2017). Recently, the FTA reduced its expected annual payout to $100 million a year from $125 million a year during the approximately eight year construction period. The final federal contribution will also depend on the project receiving the funding from state and regional partners, and is expected after 2020. These changes leave a $200 million gap, in addition to financing costs, that GoTriangle and local governments have to fill until the federal reimbursements catch up (Grubb, 2017). The gap could be filled with a combination of additional local government commitments, cash contributions, other federal grants, and land donations. Federal funding is further complicated by the fact that President Trump’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2019 would eliminate, among other programs, future New Starts transit programs. The American Planning Association condemned the budget proposal, stating that it “fails local communities” and “undermines existing local community development, housing, and transportation programs” (American Planning Association, 2018). A more favorable spending plan passed by Congress in March 2018 delivered a broad rebuke of the President’s vision, but the threat remains. Without federal funding, the light rail transit project, and other transportation infrastructure projects around the country, could be delayed. Previous delays have driven up overall cost estimates as the construction costs, including the price of steel, have ballooned. Additional cost increases may follow recently imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. Thus far, the existence of coalitions has helped keep the project moving forward. With political turmoil

prompting uncertainty at various levels of government, local coalitions have helped the project stay on course. To find solutions to state budget cuts and federal transportation funding changes, GoTriangle’s Board of Trustees formed the Funding and Community Collaborative, a blue ribbon group made up of private citizens and leaders from universities, private industries, health care institutions, and governments, to work together to advance the project. GoTriangle learned from cities like Atlanta and Detroit, where nonprofits assisted in project financing, and established GoTransit Partners, a 501(c)(3). Initial members of the nonprofit’s board of directors were appointed in August 2017. The nonprofit will be able to receive philanthropic donations, especially those identified by the Collaborative, including tax-deductible donations of property (real property, money, and other personal property). The tax benefits associated with donations to a nonprofit organization are anticipated to make contributions more desirable to individuals and businesses. Additionally, the nonprofit will be eligible to seek foundation grants not typically available to public agencies. The Republican-led federal income tax overhaul passed in December 2017 may challenge this strategy by reducing financial incentives for giving to nonprofit organizations.

Coalitions Mobilize for Not Just Great Transit, But Good Transit, Too Decades ago, a man named Wib Gulley campaigned for mayor of the City of Durham, pledging to make Durham “not just a great city, but a good city,” referring to the need to not just grow the economy, but also create a city that worked for everyone (Feldblum, 2017). He went on to become a North Carolina state senator, general counsel to the Triangle Transit Authority, and an affordable housing advocate. Senator Gulley was also a key early supporter of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project, an initiative that has undergone multiple iterations of planning and design. It is the centerpiece project of an overall strategy to expand access to transit throughout Durham and the Triangle.

39

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

county will pay for its portion with revenue from the general fund, a half-cent transit tax, car rental fees, and vehicle registration taxes.


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

The process to develop and pass the new Durham County and Orange County transit plans involved a lot of conversations with local elected officials, public engagement sessions, and informal conversations; GoTriangle played a critical role in providing staffing and technical expertise. Additionally, there were numerous grassroots citizen-advocates from diverse business, environmental, neighborhood, and political groups who supported the plan and stepped up and worked together to pass the referendums (Gulley, 2017). An important feature of the information that was used to help build public support for the light rail project was an emphasis on characteristics of the expected ridership pool: a diverse population of office commuters, lower-wage workers, students, hospital patients, and families. In Durham, a people-powered coalition movement from a broad cross-section of the population is pushing for transit, transit-oriented planning, and affordable housing around key transit nodes. With an influx of more than 60,000 people along the light rail line over the next twenty years, and annual economic growth in the Durham metro area of

FIGURE 3 - Durham Congregations, Associations, and

Neighborhoods (Durham CAN) is one of the community-driven organizations that advocates for improving access to jobs, affordable housing, and transit. (Source: Durham CAN)

40

between three and five percent, housing prices and rents are rising steadily, a trend expected to escalate over the next twenty years (GoTriangle, 2017). As a result, land values could rise between 700 and 900 percent (Sorg, 2014). Providing subsidized affordable housing around light rail stations is typically considered fundamental to achieving equity goals, especially as planners redefine affordability as including housing plus transportation costs and recognize that low-income people rely on transit more heavily than those with the means to own and maintain their own vehicles. Yet building new affordable units, especially for low-income and very lowincome populations, can be challenging due to the rapid increase in land value around large fixed-route transit infrastructure projects. The Coalition for Affordable Housing and Transit is a grassroots citizen-led coalition of organizations that advocates on behalf of disadvantaged, transitdependent, and low-income members of the region. The coalition is made up of organizations like the Durham Congregations, Associations & Neighborhoods (Durham CAN), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, the Durham People’s Alliance, and the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham (INC). The coalition is also supported by an advisory committee of former members of local governing, administrative, and advisory bodies including the North Carolina General Assembly and Durham City Council. The coalition’s primary goal is focused on the provision of affordable housing around rail transit stations and bus hubs in Durham. To achieve this, the group pushed for the passage of a resolution that fifteen percent of homes within a half-mile radius of each transit station would be affordable to residents earning less than sixty percent of area median income (less than $40,000 per year for a family of four), which was ultimately unanimously adopted by the City Council and County Commission (CAHT, 2015).


The coalition has also worked to expand and enhance transit service throughout the City and was instrumental in the passage of referendums for a sales tax dedicated to transit. The coalition also advocates drawing from the local labor force for transit-related careers, and establishing a living wage for workers. Election results in Durham’s November 2017 election dramatically reshaped the City Council, filling seats with candidates who ran on transit and affordable housing platforms. This sweep could be read as a signal of the community’s desire for a broad shift of local government policies and spending to prioritize these issues. The City’s new mayor, Steve Schewel, worked on former Mayor Gulley’s election campaign many years ago, and has since been an advocate and councilmember pushing for these and other social and economic programs. With multiple candidates-turned-councilmembers that ran on a platform of expanded services and equity, including a fare-free bus system, the City is politically positioned for aggressive public investments in local bus services that will likely connect to regional lines and provide services to those who most heavily rely on them.

Getting the Land Planning Right On the other end of the light rail transit project sits the Town of Chapel Hill, home to the University of North Carolina (UNC) and UNC Medical Center. In spite of its disconnected road network and low-density development pattern, Chapel Hill has pursued planning policies curbing sprawl, promoting compact development, and creating permanent affordable housing—initiatives that have had success. Some of the resulting policy tools are unique to the Town, and reflect proactive decisions made by past planners and policymakers. These policy tools include an urban growth boundary, inclusionary zoning, form-based codes, and planning for transit-oriented development. The urban growth boundary is made possible through the 2001 Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement that limits density and utility

extensions in designated rural areas. Although it may not be considered true inclusionary zoning (North Carolina statutes limit such a program), the 2010 enactment of one of North Carolina’s most aggressive inclusionary housing programs requires that a minimum of fifteen percent of new homeownership units be affordable for low- to moderate-income households, including partnerships with the Community Home Trust to maintain the housing units and keep the units permanently affordable. More recently, and not without controversy, compact redevelopment has manifested itself outside of the Franklin Street and Rosemary Street corridors in the Ephesus Fordham District, a new zoning district that was adopted in 2014. The area includes automobileoriented shopping centers built between the mid-1950s through the 1980s. Although this district is located away from the proposed light rail line, its vision for walkable, compact, connected, and mixed use form serves as a learning experience for urban redevelopment around light rail stations. Subsequent high-density mixeduse development resulted in a well-organized political backlash, but the densities and urban form are a step in the right direction for helping to provide more transportation choices to the region’s residents. GoTriangle, the Town of Chapel Hill, the City of Durham, and the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) are coordinating land use planning around stations, aiming to establish the framework for transit-oriented development. A $2.1 million grant was awarded by the Federal Transit Administration through 2018 for the land use planning project. Most of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit stations are planned within existing built urban areas where most land development will take the form of redevelopment and infill. The only exception to this is the Gateway Station area, the majority of which lies within the North 15-501 Focus Area identified in the Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan as a site for further study due to its high development potential. As planning progresses, this small area should be watched closely for lessons in greenfield transit-oriented development planning. 41


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

Lessons for Planners Planning for transit holds enormous potential for fastgrowing regions, through fostering and absorbing new growth, creating choices for residents and employers, improving the environment, nurturing upward economic mobility, and creating potential for compact transitoriented development. Yet transit initiatives in both the Charlotte and Triangle regions highlight the importance of coordinated planning efforts that link transportation and land use planning, and incorporate the programs and policies desired by the local community, with special attention on underserved groups. Conversations taking place in the Charlotte area may help to improve regional coordination for transit and could serve as a model for multijurisdictional collaboration on other issues of regional importance. With ever growing risks to projects that have taken decades to plan, the light rail experience in the Triangle illustrates how planning with coalitions helps to adapt to diverse and dynamic political environments—responding to uncertainty in an era of anti-government sentiments from leadership at the federal and state levels. If such projects cannot be carried out, it is likely that congestion would dampen the economic potential of American metropolitan areas and hinder their ability to compete in the global economy. It is the planner’s job to monitor trends and patterns that are shaping our communities, to provide information and education about challenges and opportunities, and to support efforts to plan intelligently and purposefully for the future. The work going on to plan for public transit in the Charlotte and Triangle regions of North Carolina is noteworthy, and offers lessons for the planning community about how these challenges can be successfully addressed, and how to use transit-oriented planning to help create prosperous and resilient futures.

42


WORKS CITED American Planning Association “APA.” APA Statement on Trump Administration’s FY 2019 Federal Budget Proposal. February 13, 2018. https://www.planning.org/policy/statements/2018/feb13/ American Public Transportation Association “APTA”. Public Transportation Ridership Report - 2016. Report. March 3, 2017. American Public Transportation Association “APTA”. Public Transportation Ridership Report - 2000. Report. 2001. Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez. “Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 129, Issue 4, November 2014. Feldblum, Samuel. “What a 1985 Insurgency Can Teach Us About Durham’s Mayoral Race.” Independent Weekly, August 23, 2017. www.indyweek.com. Geary, Bob. “The Triangle is growing apart, separated by geography, politics, transit and identity.” Independent Weekly, March 5, 2008 https://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/the-triangleis-growing-apart-separated-by-geography-politicstransit-and-identity/Content?oid=1206801 GoTriangle. Market Study and Demand Forecast. By Toyon Group and Gateway Planning Group. June 12, 2017. GoTriangle. Transit-Oriented Development Planning - Chapel Hill. Accessed December 12, 2017. http://gotriangle.org/Chapel-Hill-station-area-planning. Gulley, Wib. Telephone interview by author. December 4, 2017. Grubb, Tammy. “Durham-Orange light rail one step closer to $1.2B in federal dollars.” The Herald Sun, July 28, 2017. www.heraldsun.com. “Re: Request of the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority to Enter the New Starts Engineering Phase for the Proposed Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project.” Coalition for Affordable Housing and Transit (“CAHT”) to Lucy Garliauskas. August 21, 2015. Durham, NC. Sorg, Lisa. “Durham focuses on affordable housing near the proposed light-rail system.” Independent Weekly, September 24, 2014. www.indyweek.com. “TJCOG.” Triangle J Council of Governments. Accessed December 12, 2017. http://www.tjcog.org/.

43


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

A CO NVE RSATI O N WI T H PET ER MOS KOWITZ: G e n t r i f i c at i o n a n d t h e Fu t u re o f A m e r i c a n C i t i e s

SARAH SHAUGHNESSY Sarah Shaughnessy is a North Carolina native pursuing dual Master’s degrees in City and

Regional Planning and Public Health at UNC. She is interested in using interdisciplinary strategies to address health disparities related to the built environment.

PETER MOSKOWITZ Peter Moskowitz is the author of How to Kill a City, Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight

for the Neighborhood (Nation Books: 2017), which chronicles the transformation of four U.S. cities: New Orleans, Detroit, San Francisco, and New York. Moskowitz has also written for The New York Times, The New Yorker, The New Republic, and others.

Writing both a narrative and deeply researched commentary on urban policy, Peter Moskowitz frames gentrification not as a product of individual preference, but a process deeply-rooted in economic inequality, highlighting its detrimental impacts and the changes needed to correct it. Sarah Shaughnessy spoke with Peter on the phone in February 2018, and an edited transcript of their conversation follows:

SAR AH SHAUGHNESSY: You frame the book as a counterpoint to the narrative of gentrification as a product of consumer and cultural choice. I was hoping you could talk a little bit more about your motivation for writing the book. Who’s your intended audience?

PETER MOSKOWITZ: I guess I wasn’t thinking about my intended audience as much as I was thinking about what I wanted to understand about gentrification. When I first started writing the book, most things you were seeing in the popular press, in the New York Times and in other places, sort of framed gentrification as this unknowable phenomenon, this organic movement back to the city, and that seemed really inaccurate to me. But I couldn’t really find anything except super dense academic texts about gentrification. So I wanted to explore for myself, how does this really operate? Because nobody seemed to be looking into that. 44


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

SS: Well, I think you achieved that. For me reading it, it was very accessible and I appreciated your personal narrative and also those of the people you interviewed. This theme of placebased identity runs through your description of all four cities, but you make an explicit personal connection in San Francisco and in New York. Could you talk a bit more about your experience in those cities, and also about learning about cities that you were maybe less familiar with?

PM: Yeah. So, I knew about New York because I grew up there and I experienced gentrification first-hand in the West Village. I went away to college and came back and it was a completely different city as far as I was concerned by the time I came back. And I obviously couldn’t afford to live there, I mean, I’m not a millionaire, and that gave me a first-hand experience of what gentrification really feels like and how it can not only change the look of a place, but also change how people interact with it, and also change how memory functions. I felt like my childhood had been erased because all of the things that were part of it were now gone. And I think that’s why gentrification feels so traumatic to so many communities. I think a lot of times people will move into a neighborhood and think, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a new building,” or, “What’s the big deal? Change happens.” But for people who have lived somewhere for a long time, I think it’s really traumatic to have it change so dramatically in such a short period of time. It also makes building community really hard because of the knowledge that gets erased. If someone who’s not familiar with New York goes to the West Village, they might think, “Oh, what a cute wealthy neighborhood.” They have no reason to know what it used to be like— how many middle class families it supported, how many working families it supported—and they therefore have

no reason to care about those people, or to fight for them, or wonder where they went. And that can really be said of really any city. That’s what I found in Detroit and New Orleans. There was a New York Times article about New Orleans—it was called “Experiencing New Orleans with Fresh Eyes and Ears,” and it was about all of these white people moving there who were like, “Wow, what a great magical city!” Little did they know that they were essentially living their magical lives on top of the destruction of the black middle class there, on top of the hundred thousand missing African Americans since Katrina. So, in that way I could really transpose my experience in New York on all the other cities I went to. But I think it really just hit home for me in New York, because that was my personal experience. It hit home for me in other places, too—especially San Francisco. I start the San Francisco section talking about Joe Talbot and he reminds me a lot of myself—kind of an alternative white guy who grew up in a city, definitely grew up with artistic parents—and just seeing him drive through San Francisco and being so angry and upset while all these techies were walking around, just kind of oblivious to the changes that occurred moments before their arrival.

SS: The idea of building community as an antidote to gentrification is really interesting, but I also think it’s difficult because it’s not really something that can be manufactured. I wonder what your opinion on that is—the role of conventional urban planning and design tools to mitigate gentrification, versus making space to facilitate organic community building.

45


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

PM: I mean, I don’t think there’s a design solution to

PM: Well, I’m of the opinion that while culture is

gentrification and I think one of the biggest problems is that we keep acting like there is—like if we build things in a certain way that we can influence it. Obviously, the way that cities are built can help or hurt. But gentrification is really about economics, you know? Poor people have way less power than rich people, and it sounds so obvious, but without income inequality there really couldn’t be gentrification. You need a gentrifier and a gentrified. So the main problem with gentrification is that people don’t have the ability to stay where they live, because they don’t have power, because they don’t have money. And until that changes, you can design the best, most integrated buildings in the world, you can make everything look really nice and pro-urbanist, but at the end of the day, it’s not going to solve the inequality.

important, it’s kind of downstream from economics. As much as you want to create culture, if you want to gentrify a city, you want to open an artist space or a studio, all of that requires money, and the law being on your side. Let’s say if it was illegal to open an artist loft in SoHo, then regardless of cultural desires, SoHo wouldn’t have become a place of artist lofts. So I think the government is really the biggest factor there. And you can see that playing out all over. Governments want cities to gentrify. It’s good for their bottom line. And this goes back to the consequence of major tax cuts of the 1970s, when the federal tax rate for the richest Americans was essentially cut in half. And that new tax rate decreased the funds for things like public schools, and public housing, and roads, and public transit, and everything else that makes cities function. So now cities are in increased competition with each other.

The West Village is a perfect example of that. Jane Jacobs wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities there and everyone kind of salivates over that book as if, if you just build neighborhoods like that, you’ll create great neighborhoods. But if you can’t afford to live in the West Village, then it’s not a great neighborhood. And even if you can afford to live there it’s not a great neighborhood anymore. It’s essentially Starbucks and Rite Aids and banks and empty retail because not even the fanciest retailers can afford rent there anymore. So, I obviously think Death and Life was a great book, but people tend to ignore the economic component of that book. People tend to say, “If we plant a few trees and design integrated neighborhoods then everything will be fine.”

SS: Yes, they’re still inaccessible to more than half the population. It’s interesting, too, these three interrelated concepts at the root of gentrification, as I understand it: the desire for profit, or this economic piece; shifting cultural preferences; and then government policy, current economic policy, and all of the historic policies that have created these structural inequities. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you see these relating to each other and shaping cities now?

46

You can see this with the competition for the Amazon headquarters, where cities are literally rolling over, saying “Please come here. We’ll give you whatever you want because we need your tax revenue.” And that’s really sad to me. It’s a losing game in my opinion. But it’s attractive to cities because all cities, especially in the United States, are broke. I mean, New York is one of the richest cities in the world, but somehow its government barely has enough money to function, and that’s because of our crazy tax situation. So what that incentivizes city governments to do is essentially the Richard Florida strategy, right? Attract creatives, attract young wealthy people, attract companies that support those kinds of people, and milk them for their tax revenue. And at the end of the day, if you go to New Orleans and talk to the politicians there, they’ll say, “Oh, we’re doing better than we were before Katrina,” because they’re richer; not the politicians themselves, but most of the city has more money. And if you’re looking at the books, you know, it looks like things have gone great. Unfortunately, that doesn’t take into account everything that was lost in that economic decision.


insured, it must be a single family home, it must not be in a mixed-use area, and it must be built with X, Y, and Z specifications. So it essentially created suburban housing from scratch. And then people were kind of goaded into wanting those homes. There were even advertisements after World War II that said things like, “It’s your patriotic duty to buy a home.” So it wasn’t an accident that people did this. People were essentially told to and incentivized to. And the same can be said of gentrification. There’s nothing that says a city has to gentrify. But now that it’s profitable to gentrify a city and there are all these mechanisms in place, through culture, that encourage people to do that. You know, I could probably write a whole essay on Sex and the City and Seinfeld and how they play into that. But it’s not an accident that people want to move back to the city, it’s because it benefits a certain group of people.

SS: You touch on this with the idea of when, postWorld War II, the government had to really sell suburbia to people, how it’s not really a natural desire for people to want to move outside of the city. That idea of selling a culture and a lifestyle to people, one that they don’t actually want, is interesting.

PM: Yeah, we think of gentrification as inevitable, just like the term “white flight.” We think white flight is inevitable. The phrase itself implies that it’s just random, right? But people were influenced to do these things. The craziest research I did was through this book, A Plague on Your Houses [by Deborah Wallace and Rodrick Wallace], which showed how systemically firehouses were closed down in the Bronx to essentially push poor people into more concentrated areas. And then as the Bronx was burning, that’s when white people decided to leave. There are similarly purposeful policy events for every suburbanization. Think about redlining. People think about redlining as something that disenabled people of color to move to the suburbs. But what it also did was effectively create the suburbs because it made it so that black people couldn’t get mortgages. It said that in order for a house to get

SS: Another interesting framework that your book brought up was the tension between structures and individual agency. There is this system that’s encouraging us to act a certain way but then, as individuals, like myself for example, as a potential planning practitioner or someone who wants to work in that area, and also somebody who lives in a city and will probably move to neighborhoods where it’s cheap to live—what is my role in gentrification? It’s not an inevitable thing, necessarily, but I don’t know. What is your opinion on the structure versus agency dilemma?

PM: I mean, there’s no way an individual can solve gentrification. There are ways individuals can help come up with solutions to gentrification, but in the same way that you personally not shopping at Walmart is not going to destroy Walmart. You can’t just expect to, for example, not move into a neighborhood or not say hi to your neighbor and think things like that are really going to help. I believe in the only solution being top-down government action. But in order for that to happen, i.e. in order for universal control to happen, in order for there to be a new New Deal to fund billions of dollars 47

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

I’m probably not the best person to talk to about this because my book is mostly about economics. But Sarah Schulman’s Gentrification of the Mind talks a lot about this, and it’s kind of a self-feeding cycle: as a city gentrifies, we become more individualistic. We become more isolated from social movements, and then the art we create becomes isolated from those social movements and becomes self-referential, or only tries to please an art market. And also as a city gentrifies it becomes more expensive, so you have to make art that sells for more money. So that in itself kind of gentrifies art and you end up with these politically neutered cultural spaces. You can see this a lot in New York where you have a lot of culture, but it’s culture that appeals to tourists and the Koch Brothers. You don’t really have anything experimental going on there anymore.


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

for public housing to be built—you know that’s not going to happen any time soon unless there’s collective action from the bottom-up. So, I say this of every city I’ve been to, you can literally just google the name of your city and the word “gentrification” or “housing rights,” and there will be a group that has been working for this for years since before you may have known about the term. And they are always itching for new people. I think one of the most unfortunate things is how guilty gentrifiers feel. Guilt is not a productive emotion for gentrifiers to have. I used to feel really guilty about it, I used to feel shame about where I lived, and then I just thought, well, why don’t I try to do something instead of being sad and doing nothing, because that helps no one, including myself. So I would encourage people to get really involved in community groups that push for housing justice. The biggest problem is that we don’t have a housing movement in this country at all. Like in Berlin, for example, it’s common to see people on the streets protesting for rent control. In other countries, housing is much more a part of the political conversation. Jeremy Corbyn, for example, just proposed taking over rich people’s houses and giving them to the poor. When’s the last time you heard housing mentioned in political discourse in the United States, even though it’s everyone’s number one living expense? It’s a political non-starter at this point. So that’s really what needs to change. And everyone, especially gentrifiers, has a responsibility to help change that.

SS: What do you think makes it a political nonstarter? Why do you think it’s not in the dialogue right now?

they were explicitly meant to jump-start the American economy, but they were also a cultural one and a political one. At the time, right after the Great Depression, people had lost their faith in the US government because of the Great Depression. People were eyeing socialism and communism and saying, “Maybe that’s not such a bad idea.” And there was a lot of racial mixing in cities. Women were working outside of the home. So the suburbs became a way to essentially tie people down to a specific way of life. It may sound kind of conspiratorial, but there are all of these great quotes you can read about, some of which I include in the book, where owners of corporations would say things like, “If you want to make a man patriotic, give him a mortgage,” or “If you want to make sure a man doesn’t revolt, make sure he buys a house.” So I think the idea of private homeownership is very embedded in our political system and it benefits those in political power not to mess with that. Of course it’s becoming less sustainable as systems of support are more and more out of reach for people, and as more and more people are renting, and as people are having trouble paying their mortgages. So I think something will change inevitably. But as of now, it wouldn’t benefit any mainstream politician to really address housing because it’s such an embedded part of our political system.

SS: So, you end the book with a list of actions or policy directions. I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about where you pulled those from, and if you really think they’re feasible in the next 10 years or so.

PM: I don’t think any of them are feasible in the next PM: I think for a couple of reasons. I think for one, there’s this long history—it’s built into the American dream, the idea of privatized housing that holds your wealth. We’ve been taught for decades and decades that that’s how you grow your wealth. You know most wealth in this country is housing wealth. We’ve also been taught that that’s what makes us American in a way. There’s a lot written about this but suburbs were not only an economic project, although 48

10 years. I’m pretty pessimistic about current politicians and their views on housing—[New York City Mayor] Bill de Blasio being the best example of this. He is supposedly one of the most progressive politicians and he campaigned extensively on the idea of affordable housing. But he’s built something like 6,000 units of housing that are only semi-affordable and not done much else. In my opinion, he is completely in the pocket of real


That being said, theoretically, these changes are not hard to make. You know, New York instituted rent control in the 1940s and then again in the 1960s. San Francisco did it; other cities have it. So at some point, somehow, there was political will to do these things. It’s just a matter of getting that political will back. I think that’s a long-term project, but who knows. In Philadelphia we just elected a District Attorney, Larry Krasner, who doesn’t believe in incarcerating people, so maybe change is possible.

things like that. But when I would go to cities, every single book event I did was packed. In downtown Los Angeles there were hundreds of people waiting in line to get into the bookstore. And I say that not to brag, but just because it was surprising to me that people care. People are concerned about how much they’re paying for housing, they’re concerned about their cities, and there hasn’t been any political movement to capture that energy yet. It was surprising to me that the energy was there and made me happy to see it.

SS: So perhaps there is a little bit of hope for change.

PM: Yeah. I’m very hopeful in terms of people, if that makes sense. I’m just not very hopeful in terms of our country’s political system and how it can help people or not. But I think people are cool.

SS: I hope so. What was the most surprising thing for you about writing this book or that you learned in the process of writing it?

PM: I guess there are two things that really surprised me, one being how global gentrification is—how enmeshed it is in how much the world is changing because of globalization, and how we don’t really even understand what the endpoint will be. In my opinion, we’ve seen gentrification, and maybe we’ve even seen the peak of it in the United States, but then there’s something else that’s going to be coming. I think maybe New York will look more like Hong Kong in a few decades and Philadelphia might look more like New York. I just think things are so rapidly changing, and there’s really no way to know what the stopping point is. So that’s one thing that really boggled my mind—how these changes are so huge and in many ways so detrimental and traumatic and how few people are talking about it. The other thing that surprised me was how much people care. I think people don’t have the language to talk about gentrification and it often gets talked about in these boring policy ways—about affordable housing, and tax increment financing, and inclusionary zoning, and other 49

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

estate developers. I think that’s the case in a lot of cities. Often real estate development is the number one sector donating to politicians, which is a huge change that not many people are talking about. Most city politicians from Boston to San Francisco are really bankrolled by the real estate industry. So, I do have very little hope that our current crop of politicians will really change anything.


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

A NE W DI RE CTI O N FOR T HE NORT H CA ROLINA C H APTE R O F TH E AM ERICA N PLA NNING A S S OC IAT ION

KEN BOWERS, AICP Ken Bowers is Planning Director for the City of Raleigh, and is in his second year as Chapter President of APA-NC. He has eleven years of public sector experience with the City of Raleigh

and nine years of private sector experience with the New York City-based planning and real estate consultancy of Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates. KATHERINE HEBERT Katherine Hebert is a Healthy Community Design Specialist and Senior Planner with the Centralina Council of Governments. She has nine years of experience with city and regional

planning and healthy community design work including working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the Town of Davidson, North Carolina. She is the

former Davidson Design for Life Coordinator, conducting nine Health Impact Assessments on a variety of built environment and policy topics in the area of housing, transportation, access

to healthy foods, workforce development, transit, and parks and recreation. Katherine is also

the founder of Creating Community Change Consulting, a consultant practice dedicated

to helping communities make small changes to greatly improve the health of its citizens. Katherine has a Master’s in City and Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and a Bachelor of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies, Environmental Policy and Planning from Appalachian State University.

ABSTR ACT In 2017, the North Carolina Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA-NC) conducted a strategic planning process that resulted in the adoption of a new mission statement, a renewed commitment to continuing four ongoing chapter initiatives, and the creation of three new strategic priority areas. This article explains the strategic planning process followed by the APA-NC executive committee, introduces the new mission statement, ongoing initiatives, and strategic priority areas, and concludes with a request for assistance to help the chapter make this plan a reality.

50


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

ONGOING INITIATIVES

Each chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) must adopt a strategic plan that will shape the chapter’s development and work over a four- to five-year time horizon to remain in good standing with APA national. The executive committee of APA-NC met for their annual retreat on August 18, 2017 and started the four-month process of crafting a new mission statement and strategic priorities for 2018 - 2022. While remaining dedicated to the ongoing initiatives of Great Places in North Carolina, Plan4Health North Carolina, North Carolina Planning Assistance Team, and Planning for Prosperity, the executive committee is proud to announce three additional strategic priorities for the next four years— affordable housing, resiliency, and diversity and equity.

APA-NC has four ongoing initiatives: Great Places in North Carolina, Plan4Health North Carolina, North Carolina Planning Assistance Team, and Planning for Prosperity. Ongoing initiatives are long-standing projects or programs that the chapter is committed to continuing for the foreseeable future. As the chapter restructures its committees to address the new strategic priorities, these initiatives may also be adjusted to align with these priorities. For example, the North Carolina Planning Assistance Team may be called into action to help a community recover from Hurricane Matthew as part of the resiliency priority.

NEW MISSION STATEMENT Although APA-NC has had a statement of purpose for many years, it is too long to recite from memory and is rarely used at meetings or during presentations about APA-NC. Therefore, the executive committee drafted multiple versions of a new mission statement and presented them to participants at the annual chapter meeting on September 28, 2017 in Greenville, NC during the statewide conference. The following mission statement was adopted at the executive committee meeting on October 13: “APA-NC promotes equitable, healthy, and prosperous communities across North Carolina through professional planning leadership, advocacy, and education.” This mission statement incorporates both the purpose of the APA-NC—providing leadership, advocacy, and education in planning—and the new strategies and ongoing initiatives of equity, health, and prosperity.

Great Places in North Carolina In 2011, APA-NC launched the first chapter-level Great Places program that awards communities for using planning to create great places, such as memorable main streets and revitalized downtowns. The program has expanded over the last couple of years to include rotating categories for greenways, historic rehabilitations, public spaces, and places for healthy living. Pitt County won a North Carolina Great Place for Healthy Living award in 2016 and received a national Great Places award in 2017 for their County Home Complex. Recipients of the award are recognized at the annual APA-NC awards luncheon, receive a plaque at a community organized event, such as a town council meeting or community festival, and can use the video created at the awards ceremony to further promote their achievements. The program helps to increase awareness of the important role planning and planners play in creating places where people enjoy living, visiting, and playing.

51


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

Plan4Health North Carolina Plan4Health North Carolina started through grant funding from APA’s Planning and Community Health Center, which had received three years of funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to plan and implement programs throughout the nation to increase access to physical activity opportunities and healthy nutrition. With assistance from APA-NC, the Centralina Council of Governments (CCOG) did initial work in West Charlotte to increase physical activity in neighborhoods most at risk for poor health outcomes. In 2017, the chapter, with assistance from CCOG, launched Plan4Health NC—a statewide initiative to help build capacity across the state to recognize, design, and develop healthy communities. As part of this program, APA-NC established goals in the five categories of: creating an APA-NC presence and framework; increasing statewide partnerships and collaboration; developing resources; devising marketing efforts; and hosting conferences and stakeholder roundtable discussions. To date, Plan4Health NC has accomplished its goals of forming a standing steering committee of APA-NC, holding sessions at state and national conferences, participating in national healthy community collaboratives, developing a statewide collaborative of cross-disciplinary professionals, adopting an official name and logo, and hosting two regional roundtables and the annual Planning for Healthy Communities Conference.

North Carolina Planning Assistance Team Based on the national Community Planning Assistance Team (CPAT) program, the North Carolina Planning Assistance Team (NCPAT) is a chapter-level pro-bono planning service. Having lain dormant since a single successful assignment several years ago, NCPAT was reinvigorated in 2017 with the creation of a special-purpose committee led by co-chairs experienced in the national program as well as similar programs offered by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). The goal in 2018 is to have two NCPAT undertakings a year and to incorporate the other initiatives and strategic priorities to promote resiliency, health, equity and prosperity. Interested communities will submit an application with relevant project information and, if selected, be expected to provide accommodations and 52

meeting space for the team and additional background information on the project area. Planners interested in serving on future NCPAT projects should also submit an application with experience and a description of their availability. The committee will select the project, recruit the planning team, and coordinate the project.

Planning for Prosperity The Planning for Prosperity program was conceived as part of the 2014 – 2017 Strategic Planning process in response to the Great Recession and the changing political environment in North Carolina at that time. During the 2018 – 2022 strategic planning effort, it was determined that Planning for Prosperity remains relevant to the chapter’s mission as well as a source of regional and statewide continuing education programming. The goal for the next four years is to have one major initiative of the program each year. Previous Planning for Prosperity work includes: a study and halfday economic summit to provide insights on the needs and desires of millennials in 2014, a program on smallscale manufacturing in local economics, and a focus on local food and its positive impact on local economies and communities in 2017.

NEW STR ATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR 2018 – 2022 At the annual board retreat in August 2017, the executive committee, with the assistance of planning consultant Rodney Swink, identified three new strategic priorities for the next four years: affordable housing, resiliency, and diversity and equity. Because these priorities are new, additional goals, initiatives, actions, and in some cases committees will need to be formed to advance each priority. APA-NC will spend the majority of 2018 firmly establishing these priorities, aligning the organizational structure to match them, and building capacity within its committees to start addressing aspects of each (See Table 1). The following is a description of each of the priorities, why it is a key need facing North Carolina communities and those who plan for them, and how APA-NC can make a difference.


In communities around the state, housing costs are rising faster than incomes. Housing production slowed to a crawl during the Great Recession. Coming out of the recession, the proportion of households who are renters grew, and in many communities the construction of new rental development could not keep pace. The result has been a significant increase in rental pricing. Even in the for-sale-market, many cities have seen prices outstrip income growth. The problem is most acute in specific geographies. Inner ring neighborhoods in urban areas, once affordable due to their old housing stock, have seen a wave of rehabilitations, additions, and teardowns and rebuilds, which dramatically raise the price of these older neighborhoods and disrupt formerly naturallyoccurring affordable housing (NOAH). North Carolina communities lack the authority available in other states to implement solutions such as mandatory inclusionary zoning. Some communities contribute local tax dollars for affordable housing, but in many places, this is either an excessive fiscal burden or a political non-starter. Attempts to build new affordable units through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit can run into neighborhood opposition. APA-NC can serve as a resource for data, defining the problem and identifying potential solutions that can be implemented in North Carolina, as well as a source of advocacy for enhanced local authority. Many local governments have done great work on this topic; their findings and best practices should be broadly shared. APA-NC can also work with partners to dispel myths about affordable housing, such as adverse impacts on property values or increases in crime, neither of which have been observed in scientifically rigorous studies.

Resiliency Extreme weather events and floods are becoming more common as North Carolina and the region feels the early impacts of climate change. Hurricane Matthew in October 2016 was the most significant flood event to hit the state since Hurricane Floyd in 1999. Raleigh was

hit by historic flooding just a few months later in April 2017, not from a tropical storm, but from a low-pressure system. Some parts of the state and the Southeast have seen multiple 100-year storm events over a period of only two years. Over a year after Hurricane Matthew hit, recovery from the disaster remains an urgent priority in eastern North Carolina. Planners have an important role to play in planning for both hazard mitigation and disaster recovery, and in making critical decisions about where and whether to rebuild, how to protect critical infrastructure, and how to relocate development out of harm’s way. The APA has an entire hazard mitigation and disaster recovery division devoted to this field. APA-NC has 36 members working in this division, making it the sixth most popular in the state. By strengthening and expanding this division and partnering with the North Carolina Planning Assistance Team, APA-NC hopes to help communities become more resilient in response to climate change statewide.

Diversity and Equity North Carolina is becoming more diverse with each passing year. Unfortunately, population diversity is not reflected within the planning profession. As of 2016, the state was approximately 63 percent white and 21 percent African American, with the Hispanic and Latino population being the fastest growing ethnic group in the state at 9.2 percent. While statistics on the racial and ethnic makeup of APA-NC members are not available, any attendee at the North Carolina Planning Conference can see that Hispanics, Latinos, and African Americans are not proportionately represented in the profession. As a result, planners will often find themselves working with communities where they lack easy familiarity with the norms, culture, and language. Planners need tools and resources to effectively engage and plan with diverse communities. As the leading provider of professional education to North Carolina planners, APA-NC can play an important role in making relevant training available to its members, both at and outside of the annual conference. 53

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

Affordable Housing


and 21 percent African American, with the Hispanic and Latino population being the fastest growing ethnic group in the state at 9.2 percent. While statistics on the racial and ethnic makeup of APA-NC members are not available, any attendee at the North Carolina Planning Conference can see that Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty Hispanics, Latinos, and African Americans are not proportionately represented in the profession. As a result, planners will often find themselves working with communities where they lack easy familiarity with the norms, culture, and language. Planners need tools and resources to effectively engage and plan with diverse communities. As the leading provider of professional education to North Carolina planners, APA-NC can play an important role in making relevant training available to its The concept of equity is and tied outside to an appreciation of diversity and needs to be more deeply embedded into the work of members, both at of the annual conference.

planners and APA-NC. Ever since urban areas began their post-World War II decline, revitalization has been focused needs to be deeply embedded The concept of equitytoislure tiedinvestment to an appreciation of diversity on place-based strategies into areas suffering and from decline. Inmore the new century, many into urban the work of and APA-NC. Ever since that urban areas began their post-World War II decline, neighborhoods areplanners receiving so much reinvestment displacement has replaced disinvestment as the top concern. hasrural beencommunities focused onthroughout place-based strategies to lure investment areas suffering from Otherrevitalization areas, including North Carolina, still struggle withinto disinvestment and increasingly In the new century, many urban are equally receiving so much that Planners’ seemdecline. left behind. Revitalization with benefits thatneighborhoods are not broadly and shared is notreinvestment true revitalization. Other areas, including rural communities displacement as the top Through concern.additional thinking and tacticshas needreplaced to evolvedisinvestment to match this new reality. training opportunities, resources, and throughout North Carolina, withthis disinvestment and increasingly seem left behind. discussions hopefully APA-NC canstill helpstruggle bring about paradigm shift.

Revitalization with benefits that are not broadly and equally shared is not true revitalization. Planners’ thinking and tactics need to evolve to match this new reality. Through additional training opportunities, resources, and discussions hopefully APA-NC can help bring about this paradigm shift. TABLE 1 - Strategic Plan for APA-NC’s New Priorities

Table 1 - Strategic Plan for APA-NC’s New Priorities

Initiative

Action

Year 1–4

Committee

Affordable Housing Goal: Position APA-NC as a leader and source of information and best practices on affordable housing statewide.

Initiative AH-1: Provide a clearinghouse for information on affordable housing.

54

Action AH-1.1: Create a webpage containing data and links to housing resources statewide.

2

New

Action AH-1.2: Compile a list of case studies and best practices from communities around the state.

2

New

Initiative AH-2: Advocate for new tools for affordable housing at the local and state level.

Action AH-2.1 Task the Legislative Committee in reaching out to sympathetic legislators to start a dialog on housing.

2

Legislative

Initiative AH-1: Provide a clearinghouse for information on affordable housing.

Action AH-2.2 with the UNCcontaining School of 3 AH-1.1:Work Create a webpage 2 Government data and linkstotoidentify housingpolitically-feasible resources affordable statewide. housing tools and policies that might be appropriate for communities in NC.

Legislative New

Action AH-2.3 partners AH-1.2:Identify Compilepotential a list of case studies whobest share affordable housing interests to and practices from communities build support for new public policies. around the state.

New

2

Initiative AH-2: Advocate for Action AH-2.1 Task the Legislative 2 Resiliency new tools for affordable Committee in reaching out to sympathetic Goal: Increase chapter involvement in hazard mitigation and disaster recovery. housing at the local and state legislators to start a dialog on housing.

Legislative


Initiative AH-1: Provide a clearinghouse for information on affordable housing.

2

New

Action AH-1.2: Compile a list of case studies and best practices from communities around the state.

2

New

Action AH-2.1 Task the Legislative Committee in reaching out to sympathetic legislators to start a dialog on housing.

2

Legislative

Action AH-2.2 Work with the UNC School of 3 Government to identify politically-feasible affordable housing tools and policies that might be appropriate for communities in NC.

Legislative

Action AH-2.3 Identify potential partners who share affordable housing interests to build support for new public policies.

2

New

Action R-1.1 Work with existing division members to sponsor socials, meetups, and other networking events at the conference and elsewhere to get more planners acquainted with the division.

1

New

Action R-1.2 Work with existing division members to increase the number of conference session proposals covering hazard mitigation and disaster recovery.

1

New

Action R-2.1 Perform at least one Matthew-focused NCPAT undertaking in 2018.

1

NCPAT

Action R-2.2 Assist Matthew-impacted local government(s) in applying for a national CPAT in 2018.

1

NCPAT

Action R-2.3 Communicate with NC Emergency Management, FEMA, and other disaster recovery leaders (i.e. Gavin Smith) about the availability of APA-NC members to assist in recovery planning.

1

New

Action R-2.4 Create a document that provides guidance and establishes an APA-NC protocol for responding to future

3

New

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

Initiative AH-2: Advocate for new tools for affordable housing at the local and state level.

Action AH-1.1: Create a webpage containing data and links to housing resources statewide.

Resiliency Goal: Increase chapter involvement in hazard mitigation and disaster recovery. Initiative R-1: Recruit more North Carolina planners to become members of the Hazard Mitigation and Disaster Recovery division of APA.

Initiative R-2: Involve planners in specific disaster recovery planning efforts, starting with communities still recovering from Hurricane Matthew.

55


Action R-2.3 Communicate with NC Emergency Management, FEMA, and other recoveryfor leaders (i.e. Gavin Smith) Carolina Planning Journal : Volume disaster 43 / Planning Uncertainty about the availability of APA-NC members to assist in recovery planning.

1

New

Action R-2.4 Create a document that provides guidance and establishes an APA-NC protocol for responding to future disasters.

3

New

Action R-2.5: Identify potential partnerships with other agencies and organizations seeking to provide information and support for programs and policies encouraging the development of resilient communities.

2

New

Initiative DE-1: Equip North Action DE-1.1 Commit to providing diversity Carolina planners with the and equity-focused sessions at future NC awareness and skills necessary Planning Conferences. to work with diverse communities in developing plans.

1

Membership & Diversity

Action DE-1.2 Sponsor learning and training opportunities around the state on how to effectively facilitate planning exercises in diverse communities, including lectures, courses, and webinars.

2

Membership & Diversity

Initiative DE-2: Increase outreach to secondary schools to introduce minority students to the profession of planning.

Action DE-2.1 Create a standard set of materials and recruit volunteers to give guest appearances at high schools and other secondary schools around the state.

2-3

Education & Outreach

Initiative DE-3: Provide networking opportunities for planners of color.

Action DE-3.1: Hold social gatherings, brown bag lunches, and conversation hours with planners of color for the purpose of networking.

2

Membership & Diversity

Action DE-3.2: Reposition the Diversity 2 Mixer as a free social event that coincides with the North Carolina Planning Conference and invite all APA-NC members to attend. This social event should focus on ethnical and cultural issues.

Membership & Diversity

Diversity and Equity Goal: Promote diversity in the profession and equity in planning practice.

56

Conclusion


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

CONCLUSION Over the next five years, APA-NC will be boldly embarking on an inspiring path—beginning three new priorities, continuing four ongoing initiatives, all while maintaining the day-to-day operations of an APA chapter. To accomplish this exciting new work, APA-NC must reach across sectors to professionals in multiple fields and strengthen its membership base and committee structures. If you are already a member of APA, please consider joining the North Carolina chapter, one or more of the APA divisions, or an APA-NC committee. More information about APA-NC, including the committee structure and executive committee contacts, can be found on the chapter’s website (www. apa-nc.org). If you are a planner and not a member of APA, consider joining and learning more about national and statewide efforts to advance the field of planning. Finally, if you are a professional in a related field or an interested community member please contact APA-NC so we can share more about the field of planning, how planning could be impacting your community, and what we could do together to promote equitable, healthy, and prosperous communities across North Carolina.

57


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

A F RAM E WO RK FO R FLEXIBILITY: M a n a g i n g U n c e r t a i n t y i n N a t i o n a l Te c h n i c a l A s s i s t a n c e P r o g r a m s

MIA CANDY Mia Candy is an Urban Planner at the Renaissance Planning Group based in Durham, North Carolina. She has ten years of experience in designing, delivering, and facilitating

community engagement in the fields of public education, environmental health, and urban planning. In her work in South Africa and across the United States, she uses her expertise in

GIS, data analytics, design, and visual storytelling to help cities and towns develop vibrant and equitable places. She holds a Master’s Degree in City and Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

ABSTR ACT Since 2011, Renaissance Planning has helped the EPA’s Office of Sustainable Communities (OSC) provide technical assistance to almost 200 communities from Los Angeles to Maine. Renaissance has worked with EPA on three programs: Local Foods, Local Places; Healthy Places for Healthy People; and Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities. Each has a different thematic focus, but is similarly structured: we get to know a community over a period of three months, facilitate a two-day workshop on site, and build an actionable plan that is culturally and contextually appropriate. While many places face similar challenges, their history, geography, development patterns, power dynamics, and personalities vary wildly. Our team helped the EPA develop a three-phase approach to address these variabilities. The approach is both robust and flexible, providing a common framework that allows for costeffective delivery of assistance to many communities. The framework is designed to be suitable for communities of all shapes and sizes, while helping us respond to uncertainty on the ground. This article unpacks the approach to describe how it helps community leaders, federal partners, and facilitators navigate challenges and surprises, as they work together to create a plan for action.

58


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

THE EVOLUTION OF THE APPROACH The EPA’s Office of Sustainable Communities (OSC) uses smart growth principles to “help communities grow in ways that expand economic opportunity, protect human health and the environment, and create and enhance the places that people love.”1 When OSC began offering technical assistance, a handful of communities received customized smart growth guidance to address their needs each year.2 Over time, EPA staff recognized that this highly customized approach, while effective, limited the number of communities that could potentially receive assistance. The agency determined that topicspecific tools could help them serve more communities. Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities was one of the first EPA programs that offered topic-specific assistance, including support for complete streets, equitable development, and rural development.3 To expand its reach further, EPA looked to develop an approach and framework that could provide “quick, targeted technical assistance”4 to a wider range of recipients. Around the same time, local food systems emerged as a common area of interest for many recipients of the Sustainable Communities in Appalachia technical assistance program. It was determined that by coupling a specific topic area—such as local food systems—with the efficiency and guidance of a technical assistance framework, more communities could benefit from EPA support to implement smart growth principles. In 2015, the Local Foods, Local Places (LFLP) program was born. One of the major advantages of launching a program focused on local food systems is that it aligns with the mission of many federal agencies, including those focused on economic and community development, infrastructure, health, and environmental sustainability. LFLP has been supported by seven federal agencies including the EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)5, and the Delta Regional Authority (DRA)6. The success of the approach allowed EPA and their federal partners to quickly respond to demand and roll out new programs addressing topics of high priority to American cities and towns. Since 2015, two more programs have launched, applying the same framework to different topic areas: Healthy Places for Healthy People, which strives to help communities partner with health care facilities to “create walkable, healthy, economically vibrant downtowns and neighborhoods,”7 and Cool and Connected, which helps small and rural towns “use broadband to create walkable, connected, economically vibrant main streets and… neighborhoods.”8 Each iteration of EPA’s technical assistance has seen the approach evolve, more effectively serving diverse communities across the country.9

THREE KEY PARTNERS For each technical assistance delivery there are three key players: the community point of contact and steering committee, the state and federal agency representatives, and the facilitation team. The community point of contact is the cornerstone of the process. Their leadership, relationships, and local expertise play a major role in its success.10 Federal involvement in the process lends a level of credibility that can help generate community interest and enthusiasm, engage a wider range of local and regional stakeholders, and attract resources and funding opportunities. For federal partners, the resulting action plans help guide where and how they

59


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

can direct assistance to the community moving forward, knowing that there has been a robust community engagement process that achieved consensus on the community’s priorities.11 When delivering technical assistance across the country, we rely on the regional and field offices of federal and state agencies to help navigate regionally specific uncertainties. For example, in Port Townsend, Washington,12 we benefited from the expertise of representatives from EPA Region 10, HUD’s Seattle Regional Office, Washington State Department of Emergency Management, and USDA Rural Development’s West Region. The federal partners and consulting team bring a neutral outside perspective and help navigate the complex processes and sometimes difficult conversations that arise.13 Together, we quickly get to know a community, facilitate effective public participation, and develop an action plan that will support the community on their way to success. In the following three sections I unpack each phase of the approach to help the reader understand its parts. I focus on select components of the approach and illustrate how they can help different partners navigate fundamental uncertainties and challenges in the planning process.

PH A S E I : A SSE S S Community Data Profile The first phase of the program spans approximately six weeks, during which the community point of contact puts together a local steering committee, identifies their community goals and challenges, and prepares for an on-site convening. This is a time for the consultant to learn as much about the community as quickly as possible. The team first completes a community data profile, a template for compiling key demographic, economic, health, and access14 metrics. They use open access data portals and subscription services to quickly gather as much information as possible. These sources may be inaccessible to lowercapacity communities.15 The data is not a replacement for local expertise, but allows the consultant to quickly and effectively understand local patterns as they relate to national and statewide trends. FIGURE 1 -An extract from the Community Data Profile for Port Townsend, Washington.

Port Townsend was a Healthy Places for Healthy People recipient in 2017.

60


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 2 - A community tour: the steering committee shows consultants and federal partners around an urban farm in Henderson,

North Carolina. Henderson was a Local Foods, Local Places recipient in 2017. Photo Credit: Mia Candy

Community Self-Assessment While the consultant compiles the data profile, the steering committee completes a self-assessment that helps identify which programs and policies are of interest to the community and which already exist. Like many elements of the approach, the self-assessment has evolved over time. Steering committee members—many of whom are already stretched thin—sometimes struggle to find time to complete the twenty-odd pages of questions. Instead, many community leaders use the document as a conversation starter and to bring the steering committee together.16 The framework, and the way it is applied, are continuously adjusted to more effectively cater to community needs and capacity.

FIGURE 3 - An extract from the Community Data Profile for Port Townsend, Washington.

61


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

FIGURE 4 - A menu of options: community members participate in interactive exercises to identify goals and prioritize actions in

Henderson, North Carolina. Photo Credit: Mia Candy

FIGURE 5 - A menu of options: consultants present design ideas for a downtown farmers market, based on community desires and priorities,

in Henderson, North Carolina. Henderson was a Local Foods, Local Places recipient in 2017. Photo Credit: Mia Candy.

62


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

Effective Outreach Representative participation at the two-day workshop is essential to the success of the program. Phase 1 wraps up by helping communities manage outreach for the workshop. Successful outreach marries local expertise with template materials to distribute customizable emails, flyers, RSVP forms, and press statements. When customized for community context and language, these materials help communities get the word out quickly and effectively. The consultant and federal partners also help the steering committee talk through outreach strategies and potential stakeholders, making sure that the right people are being reached. One element of successful outreach is ensuring that the steering committee represents all key populations in the community. In Waterville, Maine,17 a strong steering committee that represented key groups in the community brought over 100 people to the community meeting—a major success for their small town.18

FIGURE 6 - An extract from the Local Foods, Local Places community Self-Assessment Questionnaire.

63


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

FIGURE 7 - A menu of options: community members participate in interactive exercises to identify goals and prioritize actions, in

Greensboro, Alabama. Greensboro was a Healthy Places for Healthy People recipient in 2017. Photo Credit: Mia Candy.

PH A S E 2 : A S SE S S With a baseline understanding of the community context and a series of preliminary goals set, the consulting team, along with state and federal agency representatives, travel to the community for a two-day workshop. The on-site work is the most intensive period of the technical assistance, and is the time in which the team must adapt to high levels of uncertainty. The approach provides a framework to manage the uncertainties that come with arriving in an unfamiliar place and having to quickly provide expertise and guidance. Consultants use a standardized agenda to help frame the workshop, but when adjustments are necessary, the approach is flexible enough to allow alternatives.

healthcare providers, and anyone else central to the community story. Without fail, we come to understand essential parts of the story that we did not see in the demographic or health data. This may include challenges such as political dynamics, interpersonal relationships, or racial tensions. But the community tour also tends to highlight opportunities that communities themselves don’t recognize. In Randolph,19 a town of 900 in Nebraska, we arrived to learn that despite a struggling main street, their downtown was home to ten thriving local businesses—a major asset that the steering committee had not initially recognized.

A Community Tour

A Menu of Options

When it comes to understanding a community’s narrative, there is no substitute for on-the-ground experience. Each workshop begins with a local tour led by the community point of contact and steering committee. The steering committee highlights important locations, and the group stops to meet local business owners, faith leaders,

On the evening of day one, the consulting team facilitates a community meeting organized by the local steering committee. The purpose of the meeting is to gather public input on community values, opportunities, challenges, and priorities, and to adjust workshop goals accordingly. On day two, key stakeholders20 convene

64


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 8 - A menu of options: the Healthy Places objectives exercise help community members identify existing assets and understand

gaps in their health and community network, in Greensboro, Alabama. Photo Credit: Mia Candy.

to move the conversation to action using a series of brainstorming and planning techniques.21 The program approach provides consultants with a menu of options for engagement strategies. This flexibility is essential. The techniques chosen are initially determined by the steering committee’s goals and how far along they are in the planning process. But, the size and location of the meeting, who shows up, and what is learned on the ground can require on-the-fly adjustments. For some communities, a traditional community meeting is inappropriate altogether. In Los Angeles, in a neighborhood with a large immigrant population, fears of deportation meant adjusting our techniques to a dropin open house model. No participant was required to provide identifying information and local community leaders played a key role in facilitation.22 Each time we employ non-traditional methods or need to improvise, we simply add the technique to the framework for quick and efficient rollout in the next community.

Stories from the Road Consultants across the planning field use case studies to provide guidance to communities. There is value in relevant case studies, but also limitations to their utility. It is difficult to convincingly tell the success story of place that you did not witness firsthand.23 We therefore focus on “stories from the road,� or anecdotes from our own experiences around the country. They are delivered as material for inspiration rather than roadmaps to success. The ideal model for presenting case studies is peer-topeer sharing; we try to encourage this when possible. During a Healthy Places for Healthy People workshop for residents of Montgomery and Smithers, West Virginia, representatives from Rainelle and Williamson (both also in West Virginia, and recipients of the Local Foods, Local Places technical assistance) attended the meeting to share stories of their own community experiences.24 This kind of peer-to-peer sharing resonates more deeply than generic case studies and can be integrated more often into planning processes. 65


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

A SMART Action Plan Matrix

PHA S E 3: NEXT ST EPS

Once a community reaches a final set of goals and has identified potential action items to achieve each goal, the consultant introduces the SMART action plan matrix. This is one of the most powerful elements of the approach. It asks that for each goal, the community chooses four or five SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) actions. The goals and actions are laid out on a matrix and for each action, participants identify:

A Report Template

• • • • • • • •

Why the action is important and should be prioritized Immediate next steps or low-hanging fruit to kick-start the process Measures of success, such as improved health outcomes Time frame, ranging from a few months to two years Who is taking the lead and ensuring the action moves forward Who is the supporting cast that will remain committed to making it happen Costs or resources required, including time, materials, personnel, and funding Possible funding sources, especially grants or loans offered by state and federal agencies

The strength of the SMART action plan matrix is that it provides a clear, actionable roadmap to success, and it can be applied to any community context or goals.

In the weeks following the workshop, the consulting team documents the community narrative and workshop outcomes, particularly the SMART action plan. A customizable template allows consultants to produce multiple reports quickly. Alongside the report, supplemental resources are provided: community specific data metrics, topic area best practices, relevant case studies, key stakeholder contact information, quality photographs of the community, and a list of funding opportunities. Consultants can provide this depth of information to every community only because the program approach helps collect and communicate information efficiently. Effective, timely, and comprehensive communication of the workshop outcomes helps maintain momentum. Communities can use their action plan25 to galvanize public interest and leverage further funding and technical assistance. Martinsville, Virginia, is a good example of a Local Foods, Local Places recipient that has used its action plan to secure funding for implementation.26 As a direct result of the technical assistance process, Martinsville received $50,000 in Virginia Brownfields Assistance Funds (VBAF) to support a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, a $65,000 technical assistance award from the state of Virginia for a complete streets concept plan, and a $75,000 planning grant from the Appalachian Regional Commission to conduct feasibility studies for a Healthy Hub. For federal partners, the action plan is often the most valuable piece of the approach as it helps direct resources and funding more effectively to the communities they serve across the country. In Pikeville, Tennessee,27 the USDA Rural Development representative stated explicitly that they will use the action plan to prioritize where and how they direct funding and resources.28 That said, planning processes are dynamic. The report is built with the assumption that each community will grow and change over the course of the implementation timeline.

66


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 9 - A SMART action matrix:community members report out their goals and actions in Port Townsend, Washington.

Port Townsend was a Healthy Places for Healthy People recipient in 2017. Photo Credit: Mia Candy.

Each action plan is delivered as a living document that community members can adjust as their priorities evolve. Lessons Learned

important to have a strong understanding of which elements are appropriate for any one community context.

2 . Learn to read the room

Delivering EPA technical assistance to hundreds of communities across the country has taught us the value and limitations of the three-phase approach. What follows are four key takeaways to guide planners in the private, public, and non-profit sectors when developing their own technical assistance frameworks:

1. Prepare a menu of options

You cannot eliminate uncertainty, only manage it. No matter how well informed or thoroughly prepared you are, surprising circumstances often arise. A menu of options—including facilitation techniques, engagement strategies, and planning materials— can help planners make quick adjustments to their agenda. In this model, improvisation requires choosing a different technique, rather than creating one on-the-fly. It is important to develop a set of options that can be applied in a variety of communities, be it rural, Appalachian towns, or Midwestern immigrant neighborhoods. It is equally

Success often comes when the local point of contact is a strong leader and good relationship builder. Similarly, a framework provides a road map and menu of options for delivery, but is most effective in the hands of experienced facilitators. It is through years of experience that Renaissance Planning has acquired the skills that complement the three-phase approach. These include recognizing non-verbal signals, knowing which questions will extract underlying issues, and understanding how to read a room.29 Importantly, skilled facilitators know which elements of the approach are appropriate for different communities, and can adjust their approach on-the-fly, as unexpected circumstances arise.

3 . Leverage cross-sector expertise

A well-connected community point of contact and a representative steering committee provide essential insight into a community’s intangible local dynamics. A neutral facilitator, such as 67


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

a private consultant, can see the issues through fresh eyes and highlight neglected opportunities. Representatives from state agencies and from the regional or field offices of federal agencies can provide invaluable regional and context-appropriate expertise. In particular, inter-agency collaboration is an effective avenue through which communities can match and leverage resources. Communities from coastal Maine to downtown Los Angeles can benefit from an approach that brings together this kind of cross-sector expertise.

4.

Offer alternatives

Effective frameworks, while flexible, require a level of rigidity. For some communities, a strict framework—a timeline, a budget, customizable materials and templates, and standardized data and resources— can provide much needed support and remove early barriers to success. For others, the same framework can be inappropriate. In 2017, the EPA released an online ‘do-it-yourself’ Local Foods, Local Places toolkit, which can be downloaded and used by any community in the country.30 This alternate model—a standardized toolkit without the associated federal assistance or outside facilitation—is especially useful to communities who may want to pick and choose which tools to use and execute them on their own timeline. However, this model does not offer the value of having a neutral convener or the resources and credibility provided by federal support.31 Each approach has advantages and disadvantages; developing both can expand the reach of a program to many more communities, no matter their size, experience, or capacity.

When delivering technical assistance to communities across the country, a standardized yet flexible framework is an invaluable resource. The three-phase approach developed by EPA staff and their consultants helps community leaders, federal partners, and facilitators navigate challenges and surprises every step of the way.

68

END NOTES 1.“Smart Growth,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth 2. Stephanie Bertaina (Senior Policy Analyst at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) in discussion with the author, February 2018. 3. “Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities: Past Recipients and Tools,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/building-blocks-sustainablecommunities-past-recipients-and-tools#2011 4. “Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities: Past Recipients and Tools,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/building-blocks-sustainablecommunities-past-recipients-and-tools#2011 5. The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the Delta Regional Authority (DRA) provide support for communities within their respective regions. Under some technical assistance programs including Local Foods, Local Places, and Healthy Places for Healthy People, the ARC provides recipient communities in Appalachia with a $20,000 grant to implement priority actions that are decided upon during the process. 6. “Local Foods, Local Places,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/ local-foods-local-places 7. “Healthy Places for Healthy People,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/ smartgrowth/healthy-places-healthy-people 8. “Cool and Connected,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed February 2, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/ cool-connected 9. The four federal programs that currently use the three-phase technical assistance approach are: Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities; Local Foods, Local Places; Healthy Places for Healthy People; and Cool and Connected. 10. Melissa Kramer (Senior Policy Analyst at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) in discussion with the author, February 2018. 11. Melissa Kramer and Stephanie Bertaina in discussion with the author, February 2018. 12. Port Townsend, Washington was a 2017 recipient of the Healthy Places for Healthy People program


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

13. In 2016 Selma, Alabama received technical assistance through the Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities - Supporting Equitable Development program. As one community member put it, the city is suffering from a “history hangover.” Abandoned by the white community during white flight, and never fully accessible to the black community, downtown has fallen into disrepair. These kinds of stories are not uncommon, and while the technical assistance programs cannot solve decades of poverty and inequity, they can create space for open dialogue.

23. Melissa Kramer in discussion with the author, February 2018.

14. Measures of ‘access’ to services and opportunities can include physical access (for example vehicle ownership, transit, or walkability), economic access (for example income or affordability), and social or cultural access (for example removing language barriers, providing culturally appropriate services, and absence of racial discrimination).

26. Melissa Kramer and Stephanie Bertaina in discussion with the author, February 2018.

15. Open source data platforms include the Census.gov, the USDA Food Access Research Atlas, the Feeding America Map the Meal Gap portal, the Community Healthy Status Indicator portal, and EPA’s Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, among others. Subscription services include ESRI’s Business Analyst and ArcGIS Online, and Social Explorer.

28. Stephanie Bertaina in discussion with the author, February 2018.

16. Caroline Dwyer (Senior Planner at the Renaissance Planning Group), in discussion with the author, February 2018.

24. Stephanie Bertaina in discussion with the author, February 2018. 25. Under the Local Foods, Local Places program, the final action plan is called the ‘Community Action Plan’. This highlights the fact that the community created the plan, has ownership over the plan, and can adapt the plan as needed. In other programs, such as Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities, the action plan is titled the ‘Next Steps Memo.’

27. Pikeville, Tennessee, was a 2014 recipient of the Sustainable Communities in Appalachia technical assistance program.

29. Caroline Dwyer, in discussion with the author, February 2018. 30. The Local Foods, Local Places toolkit is available for download on the EPA Smart Growth website at https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/ local-foods-local-places-toolkit. 31. Melissa Kramer in discussion with the author, February 2018.

17. Waterville, Maine, was a 2017 recipient of the Healthy Places for Healthy People program. 18. Stephanie Bertaina in discussion with the author, February 2018. 19. Randolph, Nebraska was a 2017 recipient of the Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities - Sustainable Strategies for Small Cities and Rural Areas program. 20. The technical workshop on day two is open to the public, but outreach is targeted to key stakeholders who can help move the conversation to action by providing policy, planning, and financial resources. This includes elected officials; directors of non-profit and philanthropic organizations; city and county staff; key community leaders, such as faith leaders and neighborhood mayors; and state and federal agency representatives. 21. For communities with a site specific project in mind, we use a mapping exercise to identify geographic and urban design opportunities and issues. For Healthy Places for Healthy People recipients, we offer a Healthy Objectives exercise which identifies existing assets and gaps to help prioritize next steps. 22. Caroline Dwyer, in discussion with the author, February 2018.

69


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

MULTI -M O DAL TRANS IT PLA NNING: A R e v i e w o f L o c a l O r d i n a n c e s f o r t h e P r o v i s i o n o f Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n I n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d P o l i c i e s i n t h e Tr i a n g l e R e g i o n o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a PAUL BLACK, AICP, GISP Paul Black is a Senior Transportation Planner at the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning

Organization, providing long-range transportation planning for the Raleigh/Cary region. Previous jobs include GIS Planner in Boone, Garner, Wake County, and the Durham City/ County Planning Department; private consultant in Upstate New York; research analyst for

Lowes Inc.; Assistant Director of Planning & Development at UCPCOG in Rocky Mount; Principal Planner for TJCOG in Raleigh-Durham; and Director of FBRMPO in Asheville. His

BA is from UNC-Chapel Hill and MA from Appalachian State, both in Geography. He currently

serves as the Co-Chair for Communications for the APA state chapter in North Carolina. He

is also a board member of the Triangle Greenways Council and member of the Town of Cary Greenway Committee.

ABSTR ACT State and federal funding for transportation has been stagnant for over a decade, with revenues declining or failing to keep pace with inflation. Local governments must look at other ways to provide transportation infrastructure. Policies at the state level, notably the Strategic Transportation Investments law, focus on main line through roads and divest the state from bicycle and pedestrian spending. This leaves a number of gaps in funding for bicycle, pedestrian, and secondary roads that local governments need to fill. In North Carolina’s Research Triangle area, a fast-growing metropolitan region, many jurisdictions are using their development process to make sure that new or changing land uses pay their own way where transportation is concerned. This article provides an inventory of how local governments in the region provide for thoroughfare protection, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, parking provisions, and related policies.

INTRODUCTION Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are multijurisdictional, regional-scale organizations responsible for transportation planning and decision-making in U.S. metro regions.2 The Research Triangle has two MPOs that are responsible for long-term transportation planning and are a required part of the federal transportation funding process. For 70


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

Good connectivity provides easy access to key destinations for pedestrians . . . Excellent connectivity actively seeks to discourage car use by making local trips easier and more pleasant by foot than by car.”

1

– PLANNING INSTITUTE AUSTRALIA

a region to be eligible for federal transportation funding, MPOs are required to have a 25-year Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Beginning in the 1990s, every four to five years Raleigh’s Capital Area MPO and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO create a joint, 25year Metropolitan Transportation Plan that identifies roadway, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian projects that are likely to be funded in the next quarter century. This plan has a vision, goals, and objectives section that is coupled with a requirement for performance measures. The plan also includes a review of the region’s land use ordinances that are designed with the objective to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities. MPO staff devised a series of performance measures for the ordinance review, one of which was “proportion of jurisdictions that have an ordinance requiring developers to build or pay in lieu for sidewalks.” The ordinance review began as a way to measure progress toward the Metropolitan Transportation Plan’s third goal, “Promote Multi-modal and Affordable Travel Choices” and its more specific objective, “Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.” Many cities and counties are able to provision infrastructure as part of the development process, including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure. The ordinance review is a way for the MPOs to track which jurisdictions require bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in their development process. The review also grew to include connectivity and land-use provisions related to bicycle and pedestrian issues. The resulting database is more than a performance measure—it is also a code library and policy tool used to help MPO member governments implement bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly development ordinances and help the region meet its performance goal. As the staff assembled and reviewed local ordinances, it became apparent that there were many other data points

that could be mined during the review. The result was an inventory of 31 data points to assess how individual jurisdictions and the overall region are addressing transportation-related issues, grouped into three categories: access, mobility, and process. Process was just a single check to determine if the ordinances made specific references back to a larger plan, and all but two jurisdictions met this criteria. Mobility dealt with more motor-centric thoroughfares and their protection for longer-distance movement, or trips that go beyond any single neighborhood or even between cities and regions. A typical work commute in the United States is around 15 miles one-way3 and is an example of the kind of travel these provisions are meant to address. Preserving these corridors for motor traffic is also important for the Triangle’s 3,353 average daily truck freight and delivery trips.4 Three data points are included in the mobility category: driveway restrictions imposed, frontage road provisions, and a traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirement. The majority of the data fall into the third category, access. Some data points were meant to identify positive planning steps, such as the provision of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and some identified barriers to bicycle and pedestrian planning created by parking or lack of connectivity. At CAMPO, we focused on connectivity since it is a key factor, along with a mix of uses and destinations, in creating a walkable environment.5

THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND COMPLETE STREETS The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) adopted a complete streets policy in July of 2009. Complete streets are defined by NCDOT as those that are “designed to be safe and comfortable for 71


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and individuals of all ages and capabilities. These streets generally include sidewalks, bicycle lanes, transit stops, appropriate street widths and speeds, and are well-integrated with surrounding land uses. Complete Street design elements that emphasize safety, mobility, and accessibility for multiple modes may include crosswalks, bus lanes, landscaping, lighting, signaling systems, and adequate separation between sidewalks and streets.”6 All roads in the state are under the purview of NCDOT, except those maintained by a city/town or that are in private ownership. This means that many public roads in cities and towns and all roads outside of cities and towns are state-maintained. NCDOT has a cost-share policy for any improvements not directly related to motor vehicle or safety improvements when constructing new or expanding existing roads. This is often an expensive proposition for towns and cities, and thus the complete streets policy is not always implemented. Most counties do not maintain roads at all in North Carolina, which further challenges the implementation of complete streets. In spite of these challenges, many local governments in the region are implementing some form of complete streets through the development process. As new development occurs, these local governments have the opportunity to provide for public streets and utilities, along with additional publicly funded infrastructure based on their land development ordinance requirements.

public infrastructure. The MPOs’ review project is an inventory of how local governments in the region leverage their development process and municipal code for connectivity, thoroughfare protection, parking, nonmotorized transportation, and transit.

THE INVENTORY Access: Connectivity & Connectivity Barriers Multiple connections and relatively direct routes are important best practices in transportation system design.10 The MPOs looked at three key issues related to connecting public streets: how streets are provisioned for existing and future connections, conditions under which culs-de-sac or other dead-end streets are allowed, and how private streets that may not allow a public connection are handled by an ordinance. The variables include: • • • • • • • •

According to NCDOT, there is $733 million in bicycle and pedestrian project needs throughout the state.7 State and federal funding for transportation has been stagnant for over a decade, with revenues declining or failing to keep pace with inflation. Policies at the state level that dictate funding priorities, notably the Strategic Transportation Investments Law,8 focus on through roads and divest the state from bicycle and pedestrian spending.9 This leaves a number of gaps in funding for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and secondary roads that local governments need to fill. In the Triangle, a fast-growing Sun Belt region, many jurisdictions are using their development process to make sure that new or changing land uses pay their own way for potential burdens the new use will have on 72

Min and max block length or a connectivity index Require multiple ingress/egress points for new development at some threshold Require stub out to adjacent property for future connection Require connection to existing, adjacent stub out to complete a connection Require cross access in parking lots Culs-de-sac by exception only (not by right) Private street ban (may not apply to townhouse/apartment settings) Max cul-de-Sac length (may also be for dead-end streets in general) Max cumulative cul-de-sac length (so you can’t hang a cul-de-sac off of another cul-de-sac to exceed the max


• • • • • • • •

Cul-de-sac pedestrian connectors Sidewalk requirement Bike lane/facility requirement Greenway requirement ADA requirement in ordinance Specific crosswalk provision (No) Bike sidewalk ban Greenway commuter exception

Access: Parking and Transit Parking was not initially included in the early stages of the review, but it became apparent that a number of bicycle and pedestrian provisions existed within the parking requirements of the development ordinances. It is also generally accepted that the layout and size of parking lots can have a significant impact on walkability.12 The ordinance review concentrated on three principles: reduction in number of required parking spaces, the layout of parking relative to buildings and public streets, and provisions or incentives for providing for transit, bicycles, or other ways that are likely to improve ambient air quality.13 The MPOs looked for a number of provisions, including: • • • • • • • •

Parking max (No) Parking minimum Mixed use parking, not max Shared parking No front load parking by right Electric vehicle parking Carpool/Vanpool parking Public transit connection/facility

• • •

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

Access: Bicycle & Pedestrian Many local governments also want to make sure that bicyclists and pedestrians can be accommodated by new infrastructure. Additionally, providing for bicycle and pedestrian connections in the right land use conditions can capture a significant amount of trips generated.11 The MPOs found a number of provisions to review, plus two non-development issues in the municipal codes—a sidewalk bicycle ban and accommodations for bicycle commuters after dusk on greenways. These provisions include:

Bicycle parking required Bicycle parking vehicle space reduction Transit connection vehicle space reduction (in progress, not included in final scores)

Mobility: Thoroughfare Protection Mobility is defined as the ability to move unimpeded, safely, and efficiently.14 The MPO reviewed the region’s ordinances for: • • •

Thoroughfare driveway restriction Frontage road provision Traffic Impact Analysis requirement (may vary depending on thresholds)

The Code Library The pertinent sections of the ordinances and codes were saved to a searchable database. This creates a library of ordinance language that jurisdictions can use. For jurisdictions that have fewer provisions and a greater opportunity to adopt additional items, such as smaller towns starting a suburban transition, the code library allows for comparisons of similar types of jurisdictions. For example, if Zebulon in eastern Wake County decided to add a cross-access provision to their development codes, their neighbor Wendell has a provision they could use. If Wendell’s language was not quite what Zebulon wanted, the code library would also have 11 other language examples to choose from. Scoring the Number of Ordinances: Because the nature of places varies greatly along the urban to rural spectrum, many of the ordinances reflect these differences. County development jurisdictions tend to be on the rural part of the spectrum, with more physical space between uses and less need to spell out specific requirements.

73


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

AVER AGE NUMBER OF ORDINANCES FOR COUNT Y JURISDICTIONS

FIGURE 1 - County Results: Durham is also a Combined City/County Ordinance for many planning functions; remove Durham and

the average is 10.5.

74


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

CITIES AND TOWNS AVER AGE

FIGURE 2 - City and Town Results: Overall the regional average was 15.2 provisions, with the caveat that it was very unusual

to have both a connectivity index and block length together—it is generally an either/or proposition.

75


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

FIGURE 3 - Overall Regional Results

76


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

The most common provisions found in the 31 jurisdictions referenced a comprehensive or transportation plan (29), maximum cul-de-sac length (27), and a sidewalk requirement (27). The rarest provisions were the nighttime greenway bicycle commuter provision (1) and a specific call-out for electric vehicle parking (1). In addition, it was uncommon to find a cumulative culde-sac length maximum (7), a specific carpool/vanpool parking section (7), and no specific minimum parking requirement (4). Because measuring only the sidewalk bike ban provision does not allow significant room for improvement in terms of providing bicycle and pedestrian protections, the final performance measure will also include the sidewalk, bike lane/accommodation, and greenway provisioning in the ordinances. For the next Metropolitan Transportation Plan update, it is likely some of these additional items will be incorporated as performance measures. At some point in the future, we might include a maintenance level measure once the majority of gains are achieved, or new technologies and behaviors could change what we choose to inventory and measure. As more jurisdictions add some of the no- or low-cost provisions, the region should be able to meet the plan performance goals. Where additional provisions have either a financial or political barrier, the inventory will be a tool to match planners with their peers in places that have overcome those barriers and help them craft language their governing bodies are comfortable using. In the absence of outside funding from the state and declining federal revenues, these development tools will be a key part of implementing the state’s complete streets policy and making the Triangle a sustainable, walkable place.

77


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

END NOTES 1. “Healthy Spaces & Places: A National Guide to Designing Places for Healthy Living.” Planning Institute of Australia, June 2009. https://www.healthyplaces.org.au/userfiles/file/Connectivity%20June09. pdf, p. 1 2. Sciara, Gian-Claudia. “Metropolitan Transportation Planning: Lessons From the Past, Institutions for the Future.” Journal of the American Planning Association 83, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 262–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2017.1322526. p. 263 3. “From Home to Work, the Average Commute Is 26.4 Minutes.” OmniStats, U.S. Department of Transportation, October 2003. https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/ omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/pdf/entire.pdf. 4. “Triangle Region Freight Plan Draft.” Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, Capital Area MPO, North Carolina Department of Transportation, November 11, 2017. http://files.www.campo-nc.us/programs-studies/freight/Triangle_ Region_Freight_Plan_DRAFT_20171113-Compressed.pdf. 5. A. Sevtsuk, R. Kalvo, and O. Ekmekci. “Pedestrian Accessibility in Grid Layouts: The Role of Block, Plot and Street Dimension.” Urban Morphology 20 (2016). http://media.voog.com/0000/0036/2451/files/Pedestrian%20 accessibility%20in%20grid%20layouts-%20the%20role%20of%20 block%2C%20plot%20and%20street%20dimensions.pdf. p. 2 6. “Complete Streets.” North Carolina DOT. Accessed January 22, 2018. http://www.completestreetsnc.org/about/. 7. Humberto Tasaico, and Patrick Norman. “Transportation Revenues, 2040 Plan: Presentation to the House Select Committee on Strategic Transportation Planning and Long Term Funding Solutions.” presented at the 2016 NC Leg, Raleigh, N.C., 2016. http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/house2015-172/2-1-2016_ Meeting/Presentations/Funding_Presentation.pd. p. 23 8. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 136: Transportation, Pub. L. No. §136-189.11.d.3.c. Accessed October 18, 2017. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/ Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0136. 9. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 136: Transportation, Pub. L. No. §136-189.11.d.3.c. Accessed October 18, 2017. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/ Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0136. 10. Reid Ewing. “Best Development Practices.” 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603: American Planning Association, 1996. p. 53-59.

78

11. Pei-Sung Lin, Aldo Fabregas, Abdul Pinjari, Karen Seggerman, Brian Bochner, Benjamin Sperry, Changyoung Lee, and Vivek Koneru. “Trip Internalization in Multi-Use Developments.” 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT100, Tampa, FL 33620-5375: Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, April 2014. http://www.fdot.gov/research/completed_proj/summary_pl/fdotbdk84-977-10-rpt.pdf. p.88 12. Glenn Miller, FCIP, RPP, Katherine Morton, MCIP, RPP, James Cole, Adrienne Comars, Victoria Prouse, and Aidan Whitely. “Rethinking Surface Parking for Pedestrian Friendly Office Development.” 555 Richmond Street West, Suite 402, P.O. Box 612, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3B1: The Canadian Urban Institute, July 2012. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/546bbd2ae4b077803c592197/ t/54b3ff8be4b055a31e600375/1421082507329/ CUIPublication.RethinkingSurfaceParking.pdf. 13. Federal Highway Administration, The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act: INTERIM PROGRAM GUIDANCE, November 12, 2013 p.23 14. David Wasserman, and Alpesh Patel. “Strategic Highway Corridors Concept Development Report.” 1554 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699: North Carolina Department of Transportation-Transportation Planning Branch, October 2005. p. 12


A. Sevtsuk, R. Kalvo, and O. Ekmekci. “Pedestrian Accessibility in Grid Layouts: The Role of Block, Plot and Street Dimension.” Urban Morphology 20 (2016). http://media.voog.com/0000/0036/2451/files/Pedestrian%20 accessibility%20in%20grid%20layouts-%20the%20role%20of%20 block%2C%20plot%20and%20street%20dimensions.pdf.

Pei-Sung Lin, Aldo Fabregas, Abdul Pinjari, Karen Seggerman, Brian Bochner, Benjamin Sperry, Changyoung Lee, and Vivek Koneru. “Trip Internalization in Multi-Use Developments.” 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CUT100, Tampa, FL 33620-5375: Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, April 2014. http://www.fdot.gov/research/completed_proj/summary_pl/fdotbdk84-977-10-rpt.pdf.

David Wasserman, and Alpesh Patel. “Strategic Highway Corridors Concept Development Report.” 1554 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699: North Carolina Department of Transportation-Transportation Planning Branch, October 2005.

Reid Ewing. “Best Development Practices.” 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603: American Planning Association, 1996.

Glenn Miller, FCIP, RPP, Katherine Morton, MCIP, RPP, James Cole, Adrienne Comars, Victoria Prouse, and Aidan Whitely. “Rethinking Surface Parking for Pedestrian Friendly Office Development.” 555 Richmond Street West, Suite 402, P.O. Box 612, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3B1: The Canadian Urban Institute, July 2012. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/546bbd2ae4b077803c592197/ t/54b3ff8be4b055a31e600375/1421082507329/CUIPublication. RethinkingSurfaceParking.pdf. “Healthy Spaces & Places: A National Guide to Designing Places for Healthy Living.” Planning Institute of Australia, June 2009. https://www.healthyplaces.org.au/userfiles/file/Connectivity%20 June09.pdf.

Sciara, Gian-Claudia. “Metropolitan Transportation Planning: Lessons From the Past, Institutions for the Future.” Journal of the American Planning Association 83, no. 3 (July 3, 2017): 262–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2017.1322526. “The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program Under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act: INTERIM PROGRAM GUIDANCE.” Federal Highway Administration, November 12, 2013. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/air_quality/cmaq/policy_ and_guidance/2013_guidance/cmaq2013.pdf.

Humberto Tasaico, and Patrick Norman. “Transportation Revenues, 2040 Plan: Presentation to the House Select Committee on Strategic Transportation Planning and Long Term Funding Solutions.” presented at the 2016 NC Leg, Raleigh, N.C., 2016. http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/ committees/house2015-172/2-1-2016_Meeting/ Presentations/Funding_Presentation.pd. “From Home to Work, the Average Commute Is 26.4 Minutes.” OmniStats, U.S. Department of Transportation, October 2003. https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/ omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/pdf/entire.pdf. North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 136: Transportation. Accessed October 18, 2017. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0136.

79

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

WORKS CITED


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

P LAN N I N G TO M AI NTA IN T HE VIA BILITY O F TH E LO U I SI AN A COA STA L ZONE: Balancing Ecological and Community Sustainability TRACI BIRCH, PHD, AICP Traci Birch is an Assistant Research Professor with the Coastal Sustainability Studio at Louisiana State University. Dr. Birch’s research and work focuses on strengthening coastal and inland communities through coordinated land use and environmental planning.

JEFF CARNEY, AIA, AICP Jeff Carney is the Director of the LSU Coastal Sustainability Studio, and an Associate Professor

in the LSU School of Architecture. He takes a design-led research and a systems-oriented approach to structural innovation and community design.

ABSTR ACT Restoring coastal processes and protecting coastal infrastructure in the face of land loss are critical for the longterm viability of the Louisiana coastal zone. As a result, the State of Louisiana has proposed a range of restoration projects designed to protect coastal infrastructure and habitats on an unprecedented scale, but conversations about what this means to communities are rare. At present, there are concurrent and sometimes competing policies in land development, conservation, hazard mitigation, and restoration that make planning for the future difficult. This paper presents a range of creative planning methods for engaging planners and citizens in the coastal restoration discussion. The intent of this article is to encourage innovative planning frameworks that support both coastal restoration and community sustainability.

INTRODUCTION Coastal erosion is a major problem for many states, but it is catastrophic for Louisiana. The state loses twenty-five to thirtyfive square miles of coastline each year, or eighty percent of all coastal wetland loss in the continental United States (Couvillion et al., 2017; CPRA, 2012, 2017b). This represents a net change in land area of approximately 1,900 square miles (an area roughly the size of Delaware) since 1932, and another estimated 1,750 80


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 1 - This aerial photo of Delacroix, LA exemplifies the precarious position of many of Louisiana’s coastal communities in the face of

land loss and possible disturbance from large-scale coastal restoration projects. At one time this community was surrounded by wetlands and maritime forests. Source: Ted Jackson, The Times-Picayune

square miles are at risk of loss over the next fifty years (ibid). Land loss is a result of levees separating the deltaic plain from the Mississippi River, hydrological alteration from oil and gas exploration, and accelerating eustatic sea level rise (Day et al., 2007). The wetlands of the Mississippi River delta make up the world’s seventh largest delta, supporting the largest commercial fishery in the lower forty-eight states and twenty-five to thirty percent of all national oil and gas production. They also provide protection for five of the ten largest U.S. ports and nearly seventy percent of the state’s population (LA OCD, 2015). In response, Louisiana has proposed a range of restoration projects designed to protect coastal infrastructure and habitats on an unprecedented scale. The proposals, outlined in the state’s 2017 Coastal Master Plan, include a total of 124 projects that largely rely on funding from the 2010 BP oil spill litigation settlement to implement. The projects include seventy-nine ecosystem restoration projects such as marsh creation, sediment and freshwater diversions, and barrier island reconstruction; thirteen structural protection projects, including the construction of levees and floodgates; and

thirty-two projects proposing nonstructural mitigation measures. Restoration actions seek to re-establish coastal wetlands to a condition that will protect the region’s ecology and major economic interests (Colten, 2017). Restoration proposals have strong science and engineering foundations seeking to achieve predetermined ecological and hydrological conditions. Structural protection focuses on building or enhancing physical barriers against storm surge and sea level rise to protect existing communities and infrastructure. Nonstructural efforts focus on three types of physical mitigation: 1) flood-proofing for commercial structures; 2) elevation of residences above the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority’s (CPRA) projected height for a 100-year flood, considering sea level rise and projected land loss; and 3) limited voluntary acquisition. The CPRA contends that this is the first nonstructural program in the nation to propose hazard mitigation on such a large scale. The Master Plan offers recommendations for mitigation of 26,000 structures coast wide—with an expected $6 billion dedicated to the effort (CPRA, 2017a: 18). The Master Plan concedes the nonstructural programs are voluntary, whereas other components are not—and therefore it is unlikely that all 81


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

26,000 structures will be included. Further, the plan makes no recommendations for mitigation of specific properties, historic or otherwise (CPRA, 2017a: 10). Lyles, Berke, and Smith (2014) note that land-use planning holds the greatest long-term risk reduction potential in terms of protecting against the effects of climate change, but is generally under-utilized. Beyond mitigation for existing at-risk buildings, planning and associated management tools can direct people and property into less hazardous areas and thereby reduce risk. Planning can also help address dubious development assumptions. For example, people in south Louisiana have historically moved north or to areas behind levees assuming that this will provide protection from flooding. Like all structural protection measures, levees are built to withstand specific events (e.g. a 100-year flood). In many cases, these standards are not intended to prevent all flood damage, but to work with the National Flood Insurance Program and other mitigation measures (Wilkins, 2018). Once constructed, however, levees often create a false sense of security to the extent that residents perceive the elimination of all risk. With perceived threats removed, few take extra precautions and there is often increased development in the so-called ‘safe areas,’ thus creating more at-risk properties rather than less. Tobin (1995) refers to this as the “levee effect”— where flood risk is actually increased with the false sense of security provided by levees, despite well-documented environmental, technical, and social weaknesses. This is evidenced by recent flooding in upland areas near Baton Rouge and in New Orleans, which experienced catastrophic levee failure during Hurricane Katrina. Without careful planning, it becomes easy to default to building practices, such as slab on grade construction and development in lowlying areas, which put people and businesses at risk even if a levee is nearby. Platt (2004: 335) contends that “privatism and localism are the twin sacred cows of land use and development in the United States.” While some states have enacted mandates and provided resources for local government planning, the majority of states (including Louisiana) leave the decisions of how and if land-use planning will be implemented to local authorities. This often results in highly fragmented 82

and competitive strategies across regions focused on expanding tax bases rather than coordinated development and ecosystem impact (Logan & Molotch, 1987). While the Coastal Master Plan is unequivocal in its support of land-use planning, local efforts are not included in the nonstructural projects budget. The Master Plan (2017: 10) states that “programmatic measures fall within the domain of local government and are not directly funded by the CPRA program, with the exception of specific capacity building measures that would increase the effectiveness of parishes in administering the program.” Rather, the CPRA makes policy recommendations for local government planning and calls upon other state agencies to work together to enhance state-level collaborations and develop programmatic initiatives and policies to make communities more resilient (ibid.). Despite promises of protection and restoration in the name of preserving coastal communities, the Master Plan’s primary focus on ecosystem conditions and neglect of community-based planning measures overlooks the very populations it intends to protect. As noted by Colten (2017: 699), managing Louisiana’s coastal wetlands is a human endeavor, “but the responsible government bodies sometimes carry out their task as if the environmental processes they direct were detached from the local society.” Without resources and technical support for land-use planning, there is a lost opportunity to drive elements critical to comprehensive risk reduction, such as: 1) where to (and not to) develop in coastal areas based on future loss and restoration strategies; 2) need-based capital expenditures and infrastructure investment; and 3) community knowledge, desires, and acceptable tradeoffs. To be fair, there has been much debate in Louisiana about government responsibility for working with coastal communities on issues related to sustainability and retreat. The state recognized the need to migrate away from the most vulnerable areas through the Louisiana Strategic Adaptations for Future Environments (LA SAFE) plan (2015), which the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s National Disaster Resilience Competition partially funded. The intent of LA SAFE


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 2 - The project map for the 2017 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan. Source: Louisiana Coastal Restoration and Protection Authority

is to dovetail with the Coastal Master Plan and address issues of community dislocation and relocation due to land loss (LA OCD 2015). In addition, Governor John Bel Edwards issued Executive Order No. JBE 201609, which highlights the need for all government agencies (local, state, and federal) to create vertical and horizontal coordination with the Master Plan’s goals and objectives. The Governor’s Office of Coastal Affairs has prioritized the promotion of interagency coordination and partnerships incorporating planning, floodplain management, and hazard mitigation. While these are all steps in the right direction, there is still a large question about what agencies and policies will drive coordinated land use planning and coastal restoration in the future. Further, there is also a question of whether traditional methods of land use planning are sufficient to meet the needs of coastal residents. In the Master Plan (2017: 4), there is recognition that “comprehensive planning should emphasize resilience, systems thinking, community engagement, equity, implementation, and adaptation in order to meet the challenges today’s communities face” in ways that it typically has not. Louisiana communities need guidance for local land-use planning that extends beyond political boundaries to consider regional infrastructure needs, coastal restoration impacts, and incentives and compromises that are equitable, just, and adaptable. The following provides an overview of some innovative planning frameworks that we believe will prove useful to Louisiana and other coastal states

as they tackle issues related to climate change, coastal restoration, and community sustainability.

ECOSYSTEM-BASED L AND USE PL ANNING The foundation of the Louisiana Coastal Master Plan is an ecosystem-based approach to restoration and management (Boesch, 2006). Ecosystem approaches broaden the scope of traditional restoration and management to consider a wide range of ecological, economic, and social interactions within a placebased system (Gerlach & Bengston, 1994; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Managing ecosystem restoration involves addressing multiple stressors and providing an adaptive management strategy where all drivers and their impacts are considered in relation to their effects on ecosystem functionality. To regulatory and resource management agencies, adopting an ecosystem approach means shifting from a narrow perspective of managing a single resource (e.g. air, water, trees, or fish) to a broader perspective focusing on a range resources and human impacts (Hartig et al., 1998). In Louisiana, this broader perspective has translated to a situation where biophysical ecology and hydrologic processes and systems are emphasized and well-studied, but has generally not been expanded to include social and cultural dimensions (Colten, 2017; Peyronnin et al., 2013). While scientific understanding of landscape change is employed to predict how the natural system will 83


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

transform and adapt, the needs of residents, communities, and economies must also be considered in the development of effective restoration and management approaches. To planners and development managers, this means looking beyond jurisdictional boundaries and addressing regional environmental issues, such as habitat fragmentation and land conservation, in local plans (Brody, 2003). Ecosystem management therefore involves not only a dramatic shift in natural resource management practices, but also a fundamental restructuring of the historical practices of land-use planning and development (Beatley, 2000; Brody, 2003; Montgomery et al., 1995). The ability to overcome the politics of land use and resource management, and achieve collaborative solutions will be the key to successful ecosystem restoration and management in the Louisiana coastal zone. Today, Louisiana’s regional transportation and coastal restoration planning units are spatially similar. Given the influence of major waterbodies on the landscape (e.g. the Atchafalaya Delta, Mississippi River, Maurepas Swamp, etc.) and their influence on regional identification, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are operating at approximately the same scale as coastal restoration planning units. Further, the CPRA and the Governor’s Executive Order No. JBE 2016-09 specifically call on the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) to engage in interagency coordination and partnerships so major transportation investments are in line with restoration goals and projected needs. With the support of multiple state agencies and the Governor’s office, Louisiana is poised to support land-use planning at the regional scale that could coordinate coastal ecosystem restoration, regional transportation investment, economic development, and community development. Today, parishes and city governments recognize a lack of capacity and resources to implement nonstructural measures within their own boundaries, and little if any ability to address systems outside their jurisdiction (Manning-Broome et al., 2015). There is a call for useful guidance on impacts and mitigation measures for both projected land loss and coastal restoration measures. Further, there is a belief that there will be less backlash from 84

constituents if planning directives come from the state rather than local government agencies (ibid). While there is a trade-off between exercising strong state government authority and allowing greater local autonomy, Louisiana has chosen the latter in matters of coastal ecosystem restoration. In light of this, it is imperative that the state establish an agency and framework supporting landuse planning, risk reduction, and the development of best practices for regional ecosystem management. There is precedent in the Louisiana Speaks regional planning initiative, which served as the statewide recovery planning effort after the 2005 storms (CPEX, 2018). This initiative was broken into four interlocking tracks—site-scale planning, neighborhood planning, parish planning, and regional planning—and served as the statewide recovery and policy guide. The effort resulted in an overall coastal recovery plan, regional infrastructure investment proposals, and the Louisiana Speaks Architectural Pattern Book and Planning Toolkit, all of which may serve as a model for an ecosystem-based planning initiative moving forward. There are also examples to consider for innovative land-use planning at the state and regional scale: •

The Georgia Planning Act establishes a regional authority and unified policy framework for jurisdictional interaction. For example, Atlanta, Plan 2040 establishes two sets of performance standards for jurisdictions within the Atlanta region—one that is required and one that demonstrates excellence. Local governments are expected to meet the required standards to be eligible for state grants and funding; and there are additional incentives for local governments that also meet the excellence criteria.

Envision Utah has a central, albeit consultative, approach that consists of creating best practices and model ordinances, which may be adapted locally to implement the Quality Growth Strategy (QGS) in appropriate local contexts. Envision Utah also provides awards for exceptional QGSs and facilitates demonstration projects to highlight locally tailored applications.


The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) and the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act (RESTORE Act) offer two possible sources of funding for an ecosystem approach to land use planning. GOMESA allows for revenue sharing of outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing activities in most Gulf Coast states. The RESTORE Act establishes a fund and distribution plan for eighty percent of the civil penalties levied in the case of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Under the RESTORE Act, thirty percent of the amount made available to Louisiana will go directly to coastal parishes based on a range of conditions. Specifically, as a condition for receiving amounts allocated under the RESTORE Act, parishes must complete a comprehensive land use plan, though few know what this plan is supposed to contain (Wilkins, 2018). Similarly, GOMESA funds projects and activities that support the protection and restoration of people and infrastructure directly impacted by coastal wetland loss. Given the availability of resources and a need to provide guidance to parishes on effective and efficient land-use planning, the state is in a unique position to provide agency support, technical assistance, and incentives for regional collaboration and inclusion of ecosystem restoration goals in plans and supporting policies.

LOCAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AS A TOOL FOR PL ANNING Grumbine (1994; 1997) notes that ecosystem management must include recognition that people are embedded within natural systems, and that societal values play a dominant role in ecosystem management. Ecosystem planning and management entails understanding natural system properties and processes, and understanding systems as dynamic while promoting stakeholder engagement and coordination between partners (Armitage et al., 2009). However, current models of stakeholder engagement often generate extensive transcripts of public opinion, but are limited in terms of scope and genuine stakeholder representation (Bethel et al., 2014). Public meetings often present technical information in a form that the layperson does not easily relate to, and in an atmosphere that can hinder understanding and cooperation—a complaint voiced by residents regarding the 2012 Coastal Master Plan (Colten, 2014). As a result, public hearings and stakeholder group meetings may do little to increase public understanding. Further, there seems to be an increasing mistrust in scientific findings about resource management. Such skepticism undermines the public perception regarding the integrity of scientists and the scientific process (Ko et al., 2017). Scientific research is often carried out with little interaction with policymakers or stakeholders, and does not always reflect the needs or experiences of local stakeholders. To support the Coastal Master Plan, the CPRA developed a modeling approach reflecting both the environmental complexity and climate reality of the state (Groves & Sharon, 2013). These modeling efforts reflect ecological, hydrological, and geological components of the region. However, there is no comparable accounting of acceptable restoration compromises given limited resources or the societal disruptions that will accompany ecological restoration. Bethel et al. (2014) have begun to explore ways to engage Louisiana’s coastal residents to better understand traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), and how it can be incorporated into coastal restoration and hazard mitigation planning, which could also hold promise for local land-use planning. Local community 85

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

• Brooking’s Metropolitan Plans emphasize the importance of the regional scale in guiding development. While focused primarily on restructuring economic development, this approach is widely used to identify: 1) unique regional assets; 2) catalytic policies and interventions for moving regions forward; and 3) ideas for restructuring federal, state, and philanthropic engagement in ways that invert top-down and highly siloed processes.


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

members often possess abundant ecological knowledge, defined as a cumulative body of understanding, practices, and beliefs that evolves by adaptive processes, is handed down through generations by cultural transmission, and centers on the relationships of humans with one another and their environment (Berkes et al., 2000; Bethel et al., 2014: 1082). As noted by Burley (2010), Louisiana is one of a handful of locations in the U.S. where most people can trace their familial ties back generations, and many are engaged in natural resource-based activities that provide a lifetime of environmental observation and experience. Interest in TEK has grown due to a recognition that engaging community members based on their experiences can result in greater community support for sustainable resource management (Berkes et al., 2000), and augment science-based modeling to inform resource decisionmaking. Recent studies have shown that incorporating TEK in collaborative decision-making can reduce cost, bolster stakeholder confidence in the fairness of a process, and increase trust among stakeholders (Moller et al., 2004). There are numerous examples of using TEK in natural resource management, but few examples of its use in landuse planning, despite its potential for helping to identify local areas of concern and combine value priorities with risk impacts to identify priority focus areas. Exceptions include McEwen and collaborators (McEwen et al., 2016; McEwen & Jones, 2012; McEwen et al., 2012), who began using TEK to inform land use planning in the U.K. after the 2007 floods; and the Mi’kmaq Confederacy of Prince Edward Island, Canada, who have used TEK to develop appropriate landscape values and coastal protection strategies for significant cultural landmarks (MacFayden, 2015). Use of TEK in coordinated land use planning can play a key role in augmenting on-going modeling efforts, galvanizing support for large coastal restoration projects, and developing compromises given the reality of limited resources (Tompkins et al., 2008).

THE COAST AS COMMONS The Coastal Master Plan lays out a compelling case for the restoration economy and provides a pivotal moment for all coastal sectors to re-envision the future of Louisiana’s working coast. From a land use perspective, discussing alternative ways of inhabiting the coast is imperative. 86

However, there are community member concerns that restoration will be used to push people out and replace them with private industry (Colten, 2014). Wascom and Wilkins (2005) note there is little discussion of disputes arising from large-scale, publicly-funded restoration projects impacting private property. The authors argue that “creative methods of working with coastal managers and landowners must be in place before impassible legal roadblocks arise” (Wascom and Wilkins, 2004: 498). Yet, there has been little movement toward reigning in the practices that led to Louisiana’s coastal crisis. While some federal, state and local entities work to restore coastal wetlands, others continue to grant permits for petrochemical pipelines and industrial development in wetland environments. There must be a discussion— from the planning and administration perspective— about “bringing back the commons” (D. Popper & Popper, 1987). Without de-privatization, it is unlikely that federal or even state lawmakers will be willing to expend large sums of money on combating coastal erosion if they believe that the most substantial benefits will go to private parties. There will be winners and losers in any scenario. We already see declines in population and quality of life in southern Louisiana, much of which has fallen hardest on the poor. Further, based on limited funds and technology, there are no restoration scenarios that protect all communities and industries (LA OCD, 2015). Popper and Popper (2002: 23) define smart decline as “planning for less—fewer people, fewer buildings, fewer land uses.” The clearest application of this concept is in their proposal to establish a Buffalo Commons in severely shrinking parts of the Great Plains. The Poppers found that preservation and restoration of large parts of the Plains as “somewhere between traditional agriculture and pure wildness” offered “ecologically and economically restorative possibilities” (2004: 4). While there are similarities, examining Louisiana through this lens also represents uncharted territory—the canary in the coalmine for what may face many coastal regions. Business as usual in the face of climate change and the associated impacts (sea level rise, land loss, habitat degradation, increased storms, etc.) will be untenable.


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

Managed retreat and a re-evaluation of development patterns, property rights, common goods, and justice is necessary if coastal change predictions for the next fifty years are even partially correct.

CONCLUSION Around the globe, governments and communities are confronting the reality that, as human-caused climate change warms the planet, rising sea levels, stronger storms, increased flooding, harsher droughts, and dwindling freshwater supplies could drive the world’s most vulnerable people from their homes. In response there have been, and will continue to be, large-scale restoration efforts to protect economic and social interests. Much like Louisiana leads the charge in ecological restoration, it is also in a unique position to develop and implement new planning processes that are collaborative and inclusive to protect coastal communities and culture. The successful implementation of large-scale coastal restoration projects and ensuring the sustainability of coastal communities requires a systems approach, contextual sensitivity, incorporation of local knowledge, and a re-conception of public trust property. While absent from most discussions so far, land-use planners hold one of the keys for facilitating the transfer of knowledge (both scientific and communal) into action, encouraging broad stakeholder participation, and shaping proactive and adaptive responses in coastal communities. Louisiana’s coast provides a unique opportunity to start this dialogue.

87


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

WORKS CITED Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., Diduck, A. P., Doubleday, N. C., Johnson, D. S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E., & Wollenberg, E. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity Frontiers in Ecology, 7(2), 95-102.

CPRA. (2017b). Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Retrieved from http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2017/04/2017-Coastal-Master-Plan_Web-Book_CFinal-withEffective-Date-06092017.pdf.

Beatley. (2000). Preserving Biodiversity: Challenges for Planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 5-20.

Day, J. W., Boesch, D. F., Clairain, E. J., Kemp, G. P., Laska, S. B., Mitsch, W. J., Orth, K., Mashriqui, H., Reed, D. J., Shabman, L., Simenstad, C. A., Streever, B. J., Twilley, R. R., Watson, C. C., Wells, J. T., & Whigham, D. F. (2007). Restoration of the Mississippi Delta: Lessons from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science, 315(5819), 1679-1684. doi:10.1126/science.1137030

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251-1262. Bethel, M. B., Brien, L. F., Esposito, M. M., Miller, C. T., Buras, H. S., Laska, S. B., Philippe, R., Peterson, K. J., & Parsons Richards, C. (2014). Sci-TEK: A GIS-Based Multidisciplinary Method for Incorporating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Louisiana’s Coastal Restoration DecisionMaking Processes. Journal of Coastal Research, 30(5), 1081-1099. doi:10.2112/ JCOASTRES-D-13-00214.1 Boesch, D. F. (2006). Scientific Requirements for ecosystem-based management in the restoration of Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Louisiana. Ecological Engineering, 26, 6-26. Brody, S. D. (2003). Implementing the Principles of Ecosystem Management Through Local Land Use Planning. Population and the Environment, 24(6), 511540. Burley, D. (2010). Losing Ground: Identity and land loss in coastal Louisiana. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Colten, C. E. (2014). Scenario Building Workshops. Retrieved from Baton Rouge, LA: Colten, C. E. (2017). Environmental Management in Coastal Louisiana: A Historical Review. Journal of Coastal Research, 33(3), 699-711. doi:10.2112/ JCOASTRES-D-16-00008.1 Couvillion, B., Beck, H., Schoolmaster, D., & Fischer, M. (2017). Land area change in coastal Louisiana 1932 to 2016: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3381. Reston, VA. CPEX. (2018). Louisiana Speaks Regional Plan. Baton Rouge, LA: Center for Planning Excellence. Retrieved from https://www.cpex.org/louisianaspeaks/ CPRA. (2012). Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. CPRA. (2017a). 2017 Coastal Master Plan: Appendix E: Flood Risk and Resilience Program Framework. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Retrieved from http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2016/04/Appendix-E_FINAL_10.09.2017.pdf.

88

Gerlach, L., & Bengston, D. (1994). If Ecosystem Management is the Solution, What’s the Problem? Eleven Challenges for Ecosystem Management. Journal of Forestry, 92(8), 18-21. Groves, D. G., & Sharon, C. (2013). Planning Tool to Support Planning the Future of Coastal Louisiana. Journal of Coastal Research(sp1), 147. doi:10.2112/SI_67_10 Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27-38. Grumbine, R. E. (1997). Reflections on “What is Ecosystem Management?”. Conservation Biology, 11(1), 41-47. Hartig, J. H., Zarull, M. A., Heidtke, T. M., & Shah, H. (1998). Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management: Lessons from the Great Lakes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(1), 45-75. Ko, J.-Y., Day, J. W., Wilkins, J. G., Haywood, J., & Lane, R. R. (2017). Challenges in Collaborative Governance for Coastal Restoration: Lessons from the Caernarvon River Diversion in Louisiana. Coastal Management, 45(2), 125-142. doi:10.1080/08920753.2017.1278145 LA OCD. (2015). LASAFE: Louisiana’s Strategic Adaptation for Future Environments. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Office of Community Development, Disaster Recovery Unit. Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban Fortunes: The political economy of place: University of California Press. Lyles, L. W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2014). Do Planners Matter? Examining Factors Driving Incorporation of Land Use Approaches into Hazard Mitigation Plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(56), 792-811. doi:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20 MacFayden, J. (2015). Cultural Values in the Coastal Zone: AANDC Cliamte Change Adaptation Project 2014. Retrieved from Prince Edward Island, CA: Manning-Broome, C., Dubinin, J., & Jenkins, P. (2015). The View from the Coast: Local Perspectives and Policy Recommendations on Flood-Risk reduction in South Louisiana Retrieved from Center for Planning Excellence: Baton Rouge, LA: McEwen, L., Garde-Hansen, J., & Holmes, A. (2016). Sustainable flood memories, lay knowledges and the development of community resilience to future flood risk. E3S Web of Conferences, Vol 7, p 09002 (2016), 09002. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20160709002


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

McEwen, L., & Jones, O. (2012). Building local/lay flood knowledges into community flood resilience planning after the July 2007 floods, Gloucestershire, UK. Hydrology Research, 43(5), 675-688. doi:10.2166/ nh.2012.022

McEwen, L., Krause, F., Jones, O., & Garde Hansen, J. (2012). Sustainable flood memories, informal knowledge and the development of community resilience to future flood risk. Flood Recovery Innovation and Response III, 159, 253-264. Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P. O. B., & Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society, 9(3), 2. Montgomery, D. R., Grant, G. E., & Sullivan, K. (1995). Watershed Analysis as a Framework for Implementing Ecosystem Management. Water Resources Bulletin, 31(3), 369-386. Peyronnin, N., Green, M., Parsons Richards, C., Owens, A., Reed, D., Chamberlain, J., Groves, D. G., Rhinehart, W. K., & Belhadjali, K. (2013). Louisiana’s 2012 Coastal Master Plan: Overview of a Science-Based and Publicly Informed Decision-Making Process. Journal of Coastal Research, 1-15. doi:10.2112/SI_67_1.1 Platt, R. H. (2004). Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Popper, D., & Popper, F. (1987). The Great Plains: From Dust to Dust, a Daring Proposal for Dealing with Inevitable Disaster. Planning, 53, 12-18. Popper, D. E., & Popper, F. J. (2002). Small can be beautiful: Coming to terms with decline. Planning, 68(7). Tobin, G. A. (1995). THE LEVEE LOVE AFFAIR: A STORMY RELATIONSHIP? Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 31(3), 359. Tompkins, E. L., Few, R., & Brown, K. (2008). Scenario-based Stakeholder Engagement: INcorporating Stakeholders Preferences into Coastal Planning for Cliamte Change. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 1580-1592. Wascom, M., & Wilkins, J. (2005). Legal Issues Relevant to Coastal Restoration Projects: The Louisiana Experience. Paper presented at the Conference Paper for NOAA Coastal Zone ’05, New Orleans, LA. Wilkins, J. (2018). Developing Legal Strategies for a Sustainable Coast. In J. W. Day & J. A. Erdman (Eds.), Mississippi Delta Restoration (pp. 231-257). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington DC: Island Press.

89


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

E X PANDI NG O P P O RTUNIT IES : S u p p o r t i n g L o w - I n c o m e Yo u t h t h r o u g h J o b s i n U r b a n M a n u f a c t u r i n g

JULIANNE STERN Julie Stern is a developer at the Jefferson County Housing Authority in Denver, Colorado. She received dual Master’s degrees in City and Regional Planning and Business Administration from UNC-Chapel Hill in 2015.

NICHOLA LOWE Nichola Lowe is an Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning at UNC-Chapel Hill. Her

work focuses on the institutional arrangements that lead to more inclusive forms of economic development and specifically, the role that practitioners can play in aligning growth and equity goals.

Youth unemployment in the United States has finally returned to pre-Great Recession levels, but that should not be cause for celebration. The labor market participation rate for 16 to 24 year olds remains historically low, hovering at just under 60 percent. Black and Latino youth face an especially high risk of labor market detachment, joining the ever-growing ranks of “opportunity youth,” defined as individuals that are neither working nor enrolled in school. When youth from communities of color do secure paid work, these jobs often pay appallingly low wages and provide limited career advancement. Educational institutions are under increasing pressure to address America’s youth unemployment crisis, basing their interventions on a widely held assumption that they can expand job opportunities by providing younger generations of job seekers with valuable skills. But employers must also play a major role, extending quality jobs to younger workers and creating structures to support career mobility. Without employer-supported career pipelines, there is risk of further marginalization for low-income youth, not to mention intensified threat of industry skill and labor shortages. Educational and training institutions have a key role to play in bringing employer strategies and support to fruition. Their 90


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

labor market interventions must go beyond the standard ‘educational-fix’ to include strategies of employer engagement that simultaneously shape and improve work environments so the next generation of workers can have access to high-quality, meaningful jobs. Employer engagement is at the heart of an innovative, fastprogressing initiative in Chicago called Manufacturing Connect—a federal and state funded program started in 2007 for students of a public high school based in a low-income, predominantly African American neighborhood on Chicago’s Westside. Manufacturing Connect (MC) is designed to help students and graduates of Austin College and Career Academy secure quality jobs in urban manufacturing. To support this goal, MC staff solicit input on its applied curriculum from local manufacturers—mostly small and medium-sized metal manufacturing firms. MC also asks local employers to provide students with work-based learning experiences through summer internships, plant tours, and job shadowing. But MC’s key innovations are strategies that translate these exchanges into quality employment outcomes for Austin graduates. MC ultimately pushes firms to take a critical look at their own gaps in human resource management that can undermine job quality and job security for younger hires and incumbent workers alike. While still a work in progress, Manufacturing Connect offers insights for workforce practitioners and planners seeking to shore up employment in urban manufacturing and, in the process, expand career opportunities for lowincome youth.

THE MANUFACTURING CONNECT MODEL The Chicago Manufacturing Renaissance Council (CMRC), a coalition of organized labor, manufacturing firms,

local government, community leaders, and educational institutions, implements the Manufacturing Connect program at Austin College and Career Academy. In 2005 the CMRC coalition began developing the concept for a manufacturing-oriented high school. CMRC chose the Austin neighborhood for school siting given that it was one of the most distressed areas in Greater Chicago; roughly 35% of Austin families live below the federal poverty line. Although implementing the MC program within a neighborhood school in an economically distressed community raised additional challenges, CMRC leader Dan Swinney stressed that “rebuilding our manufacturing in Chicago should begin in those communities hit the hardest by deindustrialization. We believe that these communities need to be prioritized in promoting development despite the many difficulties.” Austin College and Career Academy opened its doors in 2007, known at that time as Austin Polytech. To date, the school has graduated 6 cohorts, totaling over 380 students. Over 180 of these high school students have participated in the MC program. MC-enrolled students are given an opportunity to take manufacturing and engineering electives starting in their sophomore year and in the process, can earn up to five nationally recognized NIMS metalworking credentials. MC staff also work closely with teachers to incorporate manufacturing and engineering concepts into the traditional academic lesson plans—a geometry class, for example, might focus a lesson about ratios on the engineering considerations behind the wingspan-tolength-to-seating ratios of aircraft models. In their sophomore or junior year, students participate in a oneday group job shadow with an employer partner and a five-day paid internship over their spring break. The summer before their senior year, students participate in a longer paid internship with an employer partner. Upon graduation, students interview with employer 91


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

partners for open jobs—an opportunity that graduates can access on an open-ended basis. At last count (August 2017), 46 out of the 185 students that graduated from the MC program between 2011 and 2016 secured permanent post-graduation employment in manufacturing facilities in the Greater Chicago area, and all placements have involved African-American students. The average starting salary for a graduating MC student securing entry-level job placement in manufacturing is around $12/hour plus benefits, although graduate salaries range widely; one MC graduate now earns more than $70,000 annually only a few years post-graduation. In 2016, the program added a post-secondary counselor to its staff with the goal of supporting the college application process. As part of this expanding support, MC now track postsecondary education—100% of MC participants graduating in 2016 applied for a college degree program. Although to date only 25% of ACCA’s graduates have pursued post-graduation careers in manufacturing, a growing number of those exploring interim options have returned 1-2 years after graduation to seek manufacturing jobs. To further encourage this, MC’s placement and mentorship services remain available on an open-ended basis after graduation. MC staff also extend on-going support to college-bound MC graduates, enabling them to leverage MC resources and networks to secure rewarding manufacturing jobs after they complete degree programs in engineering or manufacturing-relevant technical fields.

EMPLOYER ENGAGEMENT A distinctive characteristic of Manufacturing Connect is its intensive engagement of employers, carrying forward relationships developed during the program design phase. Employer roles in the MC program include informing the technical curriculum; guiding the program’s investments in its machine shop; creating work-based learning opportunities; and interviewing MC graduates for postgraduation employment. MC’s employer network comprises approximately 60 Chicago-based firms, all small and medium manufacturers; the median firm has 40 employees and the largest employs 92

800. Most have an aging workforce and typically hire through word of mouth. They have implicit career ladders, but little in the way of a formal training infrastructure. In most cases, advancement happens on a “you know it when you see it” basis—CEOs say they look for qualities like “curiosity about how the machines work” and “mechanical aptitude.” As a result of these practices, few employers in the MC network place much value on the “signaling” element of an academic degree or even an industry credential. The informality with which skill is recognized in these firms provides opportunities for MC to place students who lack higher education but can still demonstrate their value on the shop floor. But because most employer partners tend to hire from “within the family” (theirs or current workers’), most new hires already have accurate expectations about life on the manufacturing shop floor. Many employer partners therefore lack experience communicating clearly about expectations, especially about how employees should demonstrate the potential for advancement. In cases where new hires’ expectations differ from the work environment they initially encounter, employers are often ill-equipped to proactively bridge these gaps. A key to MC’s success, therefore, is creating opportunities for students to become more accustomed to this work routine and workplace “culture.” MC staff invest considerable time in “building cultural bridges” between students and employers, using programs like job shadows and internships as opportunities for students to learn about the expectations of prospective employers. MC staff also host lunchtime sessions for students where they facilitate explicit discussions comparing students’ own values and experiences to those they are likely to encounter in the manufacturing workplace. These exchanges have helped students recognize, for example, that asking questions is actively encouraged in the manufacturing workplace. They also provide a safe space for students to discuss problems they encounter at work. In addition to preparing students to adapt to the routines of manufacturing workplaces, MC staff work to “build


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

FIGURE 1 - Terrence Wilson, a graduate of the Manufacturing Connect program, at his job at Dudek & Bock Spring Manufacturing Co.

on the Southside of Chicago. Credit: Georgia Lasio

93


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

the bridge from both sides”—developing the capacity of employer partners to support younger workers in starting on a manufacturing career path. With support from MC staff, MC employer partners have formalized processes for communicating expectations to new employees. Just as students’ first direct experiences of the manufacturing workplace provide an invaluable opportunity to understand the expectations of the manufacturing shop floor, employers find that integrating student workers into their ongoing operations brings to light key areas where improved communication channels are needed. For many firms, this has included not only stronger practices for communication from executives to employees, but also from executives to supervisors and from supervisors to employees. At one manufacturing facility, supervisors have taken the initiative to independently develop additional supports for incoming workers. Incumbent workers at all levels of the firm are engaged in identifying and articulating the behaviors and skills that are needed for successful ‘onboarding’ of new talent. For some firms, the MC experience has motivated them to also establish formal internal training systems that provide clear opportunities for employees to gain and advance new skills. With that in mind, many companies have strengthened their internal mentorship structures in an effort to retain workers hired through MC. Again, these changes often involve engaging incumbent workers and supervisors in new ways; workers that may have themselves lacked a clear pathway to advancement are now part of a collaborative approach to making access to training and advancement more transparent. Other employers have gone further, with one MC partner recently creating a mock-up production area in order train new employees off-line. This not only gives MC students and other new hires an opportunity to ease into their work, but also reduces scheduling tensions between on-site training and production demands. The MC program has recently expanded into two other Chicago-based high schools, creating an opportunity to expand its employer partner network and, in the process, continue to enhance workbased learning opportunities and career pipelines.

94


F E AT U R E A R T I C L E S

EXTENDING THE PATHWAY Conventional wisdom is that formal degrees and certificates protect workers because they are defensible and transferable. But the traditional college path also poses risks for students who are not academically prepared or, more likely, face considerable financial constraints. The Manufacturing Connect program’s approach is one that planners and related practitioners have helped to develop in support of low-income, adult workers and job seekers. The approach is based on a model of sector-based workforce development that adopts a “dual customer” approach by working through some of the tensions inherent in balancing the needs of job seekers and employer partners. While the MC program is still a work in progress, the fact that a small group of students have indeed been launched on manufacturing career paths through the program suggests the potential for an alternative career pathway built primarily on work-based learning. But equally, MC’s experiences demonstrate that building the infrastructure—both within and external to firms—to align the expectations of students and employers is no easy task. Workforce and economic development practitioners can play a crucial role in extending the model by connecting educators, employers, and community activists, with the goal of developing a sustainable and replicable framework for helping small manufacturers recognize, nurture, and develop the skill and talent of a new generation.

95


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

BEST M A ST E R ’ S P ROJE CTS CLASS OF 2017

R ACHEL WEXLER CATALYZING SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH THE ARTS 2 0 1 7 B e s t M a s t e r ’s Pro j e c t i n E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t A w a rd

Envisioning art as a tool for both economic development and social activism, Wexler offers an analysis on art and its social value in communities. She especially places attention on the relationship between the artist and their residency as they navigate the often complex, political workings of the residency administration, its funders and donors, encompassing organizations, and governmental bodies. Wexler approaches two different artist residencies for the base of her research: the McColl Center for Art + Innovation in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the Hubbub artist residency program in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Deliberately choosing two locations that clash (McColl, an internationally established site, versus the Hubbub, small and locally influential), these two case studies seek to show how artists in different residencies engage with the community and balance their values against those of the residency administration. In turn, attention is also given to how residency administrations support their artists while taking into account what their funders view as socially/ economically valuable art. These findings are solidified and applied in Wexler’s own artist residency program, Artists in Residence (Revolution Mill, or AirRev). The McColl Center and the Hubbub offers an observation into the impact of a residency in molding a community’s receptivity to art and its values. Art’s isolation stems from inaccessibility, not only from a physical barrier, but also an elitist aura felt by the general public that reinforces its closed space. It becomes essential, then, for residency administrations to promote authentic, engaging relationships between the artist and their community. To do so, a decisive first step lies in the selection process of the artist in entering a residency. Selecting an artist who aligns with or are in solidarity with certain community issues may emphasize genuine regards toward public engagement, if a 96

residency deems that critically important. A residency may also be guided by specific social activism roots, for which a safe space is extended to the artist. The artist, then, may be secure in the freedom and care given and become able to create and cater to themselves, their residency program, and their local community. In return, the community may reciprocate both socially and economically by becoming involved with the process of making and consuming art. However, achieving this relies often on the support of donors and forming strategic partnerships—which are also contingent on overlapping values and agendas. Findings suggest that artist residencies with common ground between themselves, their partners, and their funders, may fare better in synchronizing and creating authentic solutions to social and economic development within their communities. Funders, especially, while fulfilling their support for the arts, may generally be detached from the work of the artist. Partners, meanwhile, may initiate collaborations that help fill in closed gaps. As an entity designed to support artists first and foremost, artist residencies under such alliances should then support the artist’s freedom to produce art that succeeds in satisfying personal values, and supervise the artist as they then create opportunities that engage with community agendas, economic needs, and social activism.


AN ANALYSIS OF VIRGINIA’S MOPED SAFETY AND REGISTRATION LAW ON OPERATOR COLLISION RATES AND INJURY OUTCOMES 2 0 1 7 Te r r y L a t h r o p A w a r d f o r B e s t M a s t e r ’ s P r o j e c t i n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n

Vulnerable road users (VRU), which includes pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists, are found blocked in the midst of transportation policies and roadway infrastructures that are heavily designed for standard automobiles. Mopeds, a subgroup of motorcycles, are frequently neglected due to its vehicle classification as a gray area between motorcycles and bicycles. As many states do not require moped registration, estimates for moped sales in the state and national levels are difficult if not impossible to procure, and due to its being overlooked, no tools or requirements exist to record and track automobile safety reporting. Literature on moped safety is limited to areas whose moped presence is denser, such as Australia and Europe, and most research based in the US is largely limited to the effects of alcohol on crash severity, rather than on traffic safety policies. In 2013 Virginia enacted SB 1038, a two-phase measure designed to improve moped user safety through vehicle registration, identification, and safety requirements. Phase I, effective July 1, 2013, requires moped operators to wear helmets and carry government issued identification. Phase II, effective July 1, 2014, requires users to register their mopeds at the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. In order to test the effectiveness of both phases, the policy’s pre- and post-policy implementation periods were assessed using a three-part evaluation framework consisting of an Interrupted Time Series Analysis (ITSA), a Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis (CITSA), and logistic regression. The ITSA compared levels of collisions, injuries, and fatalities during the pre- and post-policy months (January 2010 ~ July 2013 and July 2013 ~ July 2016, respectively). The CITSA, on the other hand, sought to assess SB 1038’s Phase II effectiveness by comparing Virginia’s collisions, injuries, and deaths with those of North Carolina (July 2013 ~ July 2015), whose moped safety laws have included a helmet policy since the 1970s, and which enacted a measure similar to SB 1038’s Phase II in 2015. A logistic regression using the ITSA’s same time frame provided an analysis on the risk of serious injury and fatality during SB 1038’s pre- and post-implementation.

The ITSA and CITSA produced conflicting results: according to the ITSA, Phase I saw reduced collision rates in the months following its implementation, but the time period after Phase II showed no reduction in serious injury or fatality rates. The CITSA, however, found an increase in collision overall, including time after Phase II. An ITSA performed on Virginia data alone reflecting the original CITSA’s time frame found no significant outcomes for rates of injuries and collision after Phase II implementation, suggesting an issue with the use of North Carolina as a control. A logistic regression, while finding several significant variables that affected risk of injury (e.g. urban/rural designation, alcohol consumption, helmet use) found no support for Phase II’s part in reducing any risk of serious injury or outcomes. This result supports the ITSA’s findings. Combining results from the ITSA, CITSA, and logistic regression suggest that while a decrease in moped collision rates was found between the implementation of Phase I and Phase II, the frequency and risk of serious injury/fatality saw no reduction in the same time frame. Sample attenuation from a third variable may be at play, in which moderate risk-taking individuals are reduced from the pool of moped riders following SB 1038’s new regulation, leaving high risk-taking individuals to continue their operating (leading to lower collision rates, but persisting injury/fatality rates). Another possibility can be found in the measurement of moped collision rates, due to the fact that data regarding registered moped populations prior to SB 1038 are limited, and substitution methods may not be entirely accurate. Future studies evaluating SB 1038 must consider ways to account for this. Nevertheless, this analysis, which sought to clarify SB 1038’s influence on moped safety, shows the policy’s partial effectiveness in reducing moped collisions, and the implementation of similar policies in other states (SB 1038’s Phase I in particular) may have a positive effect on reducing moped collision rates overall. 97

BEST MASTER’S PROJECTS - CLASS OF 2017

JOSEPH SEYMOUR


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

CHASE NICHOL AS DOROTHEA DIX HOSPITAL: CENTER BUILDING REUSE STUDY 2 0 1 7 S t u a rt C h a p i n A w a rd f o r B e s t M a s t e r ’s Pro j e c t i n L a n d U s e a n d E n v i ro n m e n t a l P l a n n i n g

While rehabilitation of historic sites may differ in scale, finances, ownership, or use, its preservation and adaptation requires careful planning and coordination. This study examines the complex factors surrounding reuse projects through an analysis of Dix Park, whose Center Building is to undergo a reuse transformation of its own. Designed by A.J. Davis and built in 1856, the Dorothea Dix Hospital consists of an asylum design, including a central building and two wings. Numerous alterations and additions were incorporated: in 1951, the central pavilion was removed and replaced with the McBryde Building, with the Hargrove surgery building following it in 1975. Amidst the addition of various extensions and support facilities, however, the Center Building’s original design still lays intact, and now waits for rehabilitation efforts to begin. Rehabilitation must take into consideration not only the site’s physical condition, but also its greater regional context. In the case of Dix Park, its location proximate to downtown Raleigh offers itself as a tool for increasing growth in the area. This growth, encompassing cultural, technological, and tourism development, would spur subsequent economic changes. Furthermore, any plans for reuse must reflect sensitivity and respect to the site’s original purpose. Three case studies serve as examples of varied reuse models. The Commons at Grand Traverse (Traverse City, Michigan) was redeveloped by the Minervini group, with 300,000 square feet of space transformed for condo, retail, office, and restaurant use. The Richardson Olmstead Complex (Buffalo, New York) adopted a Master Plan whose core vision sought to rehabilitate the hospital complex to serve as a mixed-use, multi-purpose civic campus. The Presidio (San Francisco, California), which originated as a military base, became a National Park, an urban park, and a mixed-use development. In all three cases, reuse options varied and were determined considering the site’s physical context and feasibility. Partnership choices for development also varied, of which included private master developers (The Commons), public agency master developers (The Presidio), and statutory corporations as master developers (Richardson Olmstead Complex). The Commons under the Minervini group was allowed more financial flexibility, which included the possibility of using 98

federal historic rehabilitation tax credits. The Presidio, under the National Park Service and the Congress-made Presidio Trust, made use of federal funding, but also engaged with private developers to become financially self-sufficient. For the Richardson Olmstead Complex, a private subsidiary (RORC) under the Richardson Center Corporation syndicated historic rehabilitation tax credits to private investors. Beyond these differences, similarities in the sites’ approaches offer three key lessons pertaining to rehabilitation. First, in terms of general planning, a phased approach proved to be important as a strategy for mitigating possible risks and adapting to changing market conditions. Secondly, for the sites themselves, a central focal point was established in order to serve as a core area and a gateway for visitors. Often, this focal point functioned as an image or symbol of the site, and made for a lasting overall impression. Lastly, the retention of the sites’ historical architecture was especially imperative, as its value as a historical legacy was an asset when applied to rehabilitation investment, tax credit financing, and preservation efforts. Nicholas proposes a potential model for Dix Park after taking into account information gleaned from the above cases. One option includes following the Presidio with the use of a statutory corporation as a master developer and a “Dix Hill Trust.” Nicholas also structures possible costs and financial estimates for demolition of the McBryde and Surgery buildings and incorporates a mixed-use development plan that serves to reduce potential risks, promote both daytime and evening activity, and demonstrate a mix of public access and revenue generating use (civic/institutional, hospitality, event, and office uses). Four important recommendations for planning Dix Park’s rehabilitation are also provided: collaborating with NCSHPO and NPS (revising to include historic portions of the Center Building) for tax credit equity purposes, having robust, open, participatory planning for Dix Park’s real estate, considering the creation of a trust to develop and manage assets, and deciding on a mixed-use strategy for the Center Building as an opportunity to present the coexistence of public and private uses.


FAIR HOUSING POLICY EFFECTS ON HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER’S SPATIAL INTEGRATION 2 0 1 7 Ce n t e r f o r Co m m u n i t y Ca p i t a l A w a rd f o r B e s t M a s t e r ’s Pro j e c t in the Area of Economic Inclusion 2 0 1 7 Lo u i s e Ve n e b l e Co ke r A w a rd f o r B e s t M a s t e r ’s Pro j e c t in the Area of Housing and Community Development

The history of spatial segregation in the United States involves discriminatory barriers against minorities that limit chances for upward mobility. Unfortunately, government policies to combat residential segregation are often met with little success. One such policy, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, was created by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a way to provide low-income families a form of rental assistance. In reality, HCV households face racial discrimination and financial barriers that bar them from having any real choice in residential matters. As the program does not cover legal protection, HCV holders can do little when faced with discriminating landlords who refuse those using government assistance. Often, landlords may not wish to involve themselves with paperwork required for allowing HCV holders to rent or have negative preconceptions of those who use vouchers. Additionally, as HCV holders are often social and racial minorities, refusing these holders may act as a subtle form of racist or classist discrimination. The HCV program illustrates the difficulty in creating upward mobility for low-income families. Studies show that many voucher holders live in tracts in which more than 20% of the population is living below the poverty threshold, with as little as 1 in 5 holders living in low-poverty neighborhoods. HCV holders often face burdensome costs (e.g. relocating costs, deposits) in addition to discriminatory practices by landlords that exclude them from viable residential options; thus, HCV holders are still racially and economically segregated. One possible solution for the HCV program’s increase in effectiveness may be establishing source of income protection laws. When source of income became a protected class in the District of Columbia in 2006, discrimination dropped from 45% to 28% between 2010 and 2013. However, income protection under fair housing laws varies by state and show equally varying results. Income protection laws also do not denote the absence of discrimination, which voucher holders may still face. To determine the role of source of income protection on HCV households, data from four cities were compared, two with source of income protection in their fair housing laws (Grand Rapids, MI in 2000 and Memphis, TN, in 2002) and two without income protection (Chattanooga, TN and Milwaukee, WI).

Eight independent variables under three general groups (economic, demographic, and housing market) were analyzed using a multivariate multiple regression to assess the change in percent voucher households per tract in 2000 and 2016. These included variables such as percent poverty, percent White population, and median gross rent. Dispersion of HCV households would be analyzed by negative or positive trends between 2000 and 2016: tracts with a high percentage of vouchers in 2000 and a lower percentage in 2016 would indicate dispersion of HCV holders, while an increase of voucher holders in 2016 would indicate an increase in the concentration of voucher households. One key result indicated no statistically significant impact of income protection policies on reduction in percent of voucher holders by tract. Grand Rapids and Memphis both saw a negative relationship between income protection policy and reduction in HCV holders (presence of the policy made way for a larger decrease in the percent of voucher holders in the area), yet Milwaukee and Chattanooga saw a similar decrease in percent of holders between 2000 and 2016. While it may be assumed that the percent of voucher holders decreased for tracts in Grand Rapids and Memphis as a result of income protection, the similar pattern seen in Milwaukee and Chattanooga suggests otherwise. In addition, the idea that tracts with increases in percent of voucher holders under income protection policies would show weaker increases overall proved to be incorrect as well. Grand Rapids and Memphis had increases in concentrations of HCV households, counter to the hypothesis that income protection leads to dispersal of HCV households to different neighborhoods. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that while income protection laws showed no statistically significant effects, the four cities analyzed may have offered trends not seen in other cities and findings should not be generalized to the overall impact of source of income protection policies made in other cities and states. It still holds true that voucher holders, regardless of the impact of income protection laws, must have legal protection necessary to use their vouchers effectively in any neighborhood of choice, and that financial and social obstacles faced by HCV low-income households should be eliminated as soon as possible. 99

BEST MASTER’S PROJECTS - CLASS OF 2017

ANNIE BAUMANN-MITCHELL


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

CHRIS BENDIX NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE NEAR LOCAL RAIL SERVICE: DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS IN FOUR US REGIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE 2 0 1 7 Lo u i s e Ve n e b l e Co ke r A w a rd f o r B e s t M a s t e r ’s Pro j e c t in the Area of Housing and Community Development

Local rail transit infrastructure benefits people and communities by providing an alternate method for navigating congested roads, channeling growth around transit hubs, and allowing mobility for individuals without private vehicles. Literature on the subject finds general agreement that local rail service serves as a tool for connecting communities and is associated with land and property value increases around stations. However, most US studies have not taken into account recent trends in infill development, making it difficult to analyze changes in land use and property values stemming from the impact of transit proximity. Furthermore, while local rail service offers positive attraction to the nearby area, rising property values and subsequent rent hikes may put significant pressure on low and moderate-income renters and result in these individuals being displaced. Due to transit proximity being capitalized into the price of land and housing, only highincome households may be able to pay for the convenience of nearby high quality transit service. Do demographic shifts exist in neighborhoods near local rail stations? If so, do certain groups benefit at the expense of others? Bendix looks at four different areas in which new local rail lines have been opened and/or expanded in the last decade: Los Angeles (Expo Line) Twin Cities (Green Line), Denver (W Line), and Seattle (ULink Light Rail). Using half-mile radii as “station areas,” Bendix measures changes in neighborhood characteristics (including racial background, median home value, median income, median gross rent, and population density) through census data from 1990 and 2000 combined with ACS baseline data from 2011 to 2015. Compiled findings from the case studies show that increases in median gross rent for areas near local rail stations are disproportionately high when compared to increases for areas outside half-mile station area radii (14% vs. 11% in 1990s; 26% vs. 15% between 2000 and 2015), with some increases surpassing the municipal average. Rising property values and rents allow for more real estate investment, which in turn broadens the tax base, with local governments being able to offer more services. However, low and middle-income households suffer, and it becomes difficult to justify the cost of using nearby public transport and living in a high-rent area instead of relinquishing this proximity and owning a private 10 0

vehicle instead and living farther from goods and services. As expected, individuals who would benefit most from local rail services may not be able to afford it, and residents near rail stations are replaced by those who can afford the increasing prices. Hispanic populations in particular show a trend of moving away from local rail areas to be replaced by White only households, which merits serious attention. A pressing issue becomes that of equity, in which planning local rail service should bring attention to the recipients of the service and the benefits it can bring. At the federal level, the main concern is ridership and cost-effectiveness, as well as environmental impact and economic development potential. At the next level, states may have more influence on affordable housing units, and can pass legislation on how affordable housing should be integrated into rail planning. However, the majority of policies that ensure affordability around transit areas are formed by local and regional governments. The Twin Cities, for example, have multiple private/public agencies (e.g. transportation planning, housing, and land use planning) at the regional level, and possess a strong TOD (transit-oriented development) policy that emphasizes equity and implementation. Effective station area planning should always be context-specific, and working with plans and policies at the local level seems to be vital in creating regionally specific equity. Understanding the reasons for and what benefits may stem from carrying out a local rail project beforehand ensures that concerns and needs are properly addressed and handled by local and regional policymakers. Station area plans should be formalized and adopted before a transit line opens so that goals are aligned for developers and residents alike. Forming multi-agency partnerships (housing agencies, non-profit/ for-profit developers, transit providers, land use/zoning planners, residents, etc.) may also prove to be beneficial so that long-term relationships can form between various agencies for continuous efficiency in the future. Lastly, proper attention should be given to familiarizing residents and including them in planning efforts, with an emphasis on reducing displacement risk, ensuring affordability, and understanding the community’s needs and wants.


POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ALONG THE DUKE BELT LINE: AN ANALYSIS OF APPROPRIATE SITE LOCATION, CURRENT CONDITIONS, AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 2 0 1 7 J a m e s We b b A w a rd f o r B e s t M a s t e r ’s Pro j e c t i n t h e A re a o f Placemaking and Real Estate Development and Design

Wood’s project examines the various real estate redevelopment opportunities provided by urban trail infrastructure, using Durham’s future Duke Belt Line (DBL) as an example case. The DBL is a project envisioned to reuse and repurpose an area long neglected and anticipates social and economic stimulation. While the rise of American tobacco manufacturing led to the emergence of Durham, its decline also gave way to Durham’s decline in the midtwentieth century. Disruptive urban renewal efforts and erratic growth patterns led to a Durham whose street grids and arterial roads are inconsistent and lack provisions for pedestrian travel. This study considers the risks, challenges, and opportunities of any future development around the DBL. Possible development strategies bear distinct risks and benefits. Infill development often entails the recycling of vacant or underutilized lands within cities and suburbs, which contributes to an efficient use of land and infrastructure. While it may aid in conserving environmental resources and increasing economic investment, fragmented ownership and high capital costs can deter advancement. Brownfield development involves even more risks, as it comprises the redevelopment of a property complicated by potentially harmful substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Converting such areas into green development projects are advantageous, but it can be plagued by issues concerning environmental liability, financial barriers, and cleanup considerations. Rails-to-trails development seeks to simplify and encourage non-motor trips and decrease road congestion, emissions, and public costs. The benefits of creating pedestrian trails include increases in public health, environmental conservation, and improved alternative travel patterns. Common problems that arise from attempting such development are contingent on a city’s urban form, which often are biased for motor travel and lack the appropriate infrastructure for a bicycle and pedestrian environment. Similarly, wellness-oriented development is focused on the impact of the environment on physical and mental health, with the premise of providing greenways in order to decrease the burden of health costs to the community

overall. It contends that a city’s design plays a significant role in individual wellness and that creating greenways will promote active lifestyles. Trail-oriented development (TrOD) is influenced by the development strategies above and may be the most effective for future DBL development opportunities. Recent trends indicate a departure from past automobileinfluenced urban forms, with an increasing number of Americans prioritizing walkability when choosing living arrangements. Wood makes use of three distinct case studies with differing TrOD structures to guide future DBL planning. Findings emphasize the importance of project proximity around existing trails, providing plenty of physical connections to the trail, and using a mixed-use development plan to target a broader range of possible users and consumers. Wood splits the area of the DBL into three study areas (SA1, SA2, SA3) for examination. Durham land is divided into development tiers by the UDO, each of which is associated with different allowable uses and densities. These different tiers allow for a mix of uses and contextualize various development opportunities. All study areas are analyzed with regards to topography, environmental conditions, land-use, real estate development pipelines, median income, and potential redevelopment opportunities. Development proposals are then presented for two sites: The Mills and Pearl Mill Townhomes (both located in SA2). The proposals aim to incorporate trail-oriented development findings and analyze both the risks and opportunities concerning development along the DBL as well as site characteristics and environmental concerns. This is reflected in the specific development plans derived for both sites: for The Mills, a mixed-use site of office, apartment, retail, and structured parking blends in well with the transit/pedestrian downtown tier, while plans for Pearl Mill Townhomes include building twenty attached townhomes (fitting the residential nature of that area). Other factors analyzed include entitlements and market feasibility.

101

BEST MASTER’S PROJECTS - CLASS OF 2017

ALLEN WOOD


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

R E VI E W | TH E E N D O F LOYA LTY: Th e R i s e a n d Fa l l o f G o o d J o b s i n A m e r i c a

AUTHOR | RICK WARTZMAN Review by Allison Forbes

Rick Wartzman’s book The End of Loyalty reviews labor and management trends from the mid-twentieth to early twentyfirst century, providing insight into the psychology of labor and business leaders as they wrestle with each other, global trade, foreign competition, and eventually the mandate of maximizing shareholder value. His story draws on the experiences of workers, labor leaders, and CEOs at General Motors, General Electric, Kodak, and Coca-Cola. The main character of the book, however, is the “corporate social contract,” a commitment by firms to reward workers’ loyalty with training, wage increases, generous retirement plans, and other benefits to enhance quality of life. Wartzman describes its fortification through a series of concessions by management to labor in the post-World War II “Golden Years.” He also describes the contract’s dissolution as employers subsequently withdrew their promises. (A complementary perspective on this latter period was also captured by Peter Cappelli in The New Deal at Work: Managing the Market-Driven Workforce, 1999.) Too many of us are familiar with the current state of the corporate social contract: few young job seekers commit to one employer for life and few of us can expect employment perks to enhance quality of life; there are few opportunities for training and advancement; and more of us are working on short-term contracts now than in 2005. On the last point, you can also consult a paper by Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger (NBER Working Paper No. 22667, September 2016) and see the January 2018 National Public Radio series “The Rise of the Contract Workers.” Wartzman has penned several popular books and covered economic issues for the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times. He is currently the director of the K.H. Moon Center for a Functioning Society at the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University. The engaging style of the book makes the firm and national-level policy details and debates accessible, as public policy treatises are woven deftly into the engaging narrative. Wartzman’s journalistic approach and his even-

PublicAffairs, 2017. 366 pages. 10 2


BOOK REVIEW

ALLISON FORBES‘s research addresses economic planning problems with analysis of supply chain and labor

market dynamics. She aims to improve labor market resilience by providing state and local leaders with the

tools to make high impact investments in training and education for more equitable, inclusive development. Allison’s doctoral dissertation at the University of North Carolina (UNC) addresses how manufacturing companies maintain and upgrade the skills needed to produce cars and car parts in the U.S. and Mexico.

handedness make both labor- and business-led actions understandable, if not likeable. A long bibliography and endnotes, available online, aid the reader in her investigation of individual issues raised by the author. Planners and political economists may be interested in how the influential voices of business leaders have been organized both in favor of and in opposition to investments in wages and full employment. Wartzman describes how the actions of the Committee for Economic Development pushed the county into job-creating investments and pulled it out of recession. Wartzman also manages to include important details that are often overlooked in popular corporate histories. First, he addresses the fact that supply chain management decisions, in addition to internal management decisions, have important labor market implications. This topic does not receive the attention it deserves, but is at least mentioned in this book. Second, he recognizes the prevalence of two-tier wage systems, whereby older workers are pitted against newer workers, or a core workforce is protected at the expense of a periphery of temporary or disposable workers. UNC’s Arne Kalleberg and other scholars have commented extensively on the increasing number of these precarious work situations. Need another reason to read the book? The American Planning Association makes an appearance on page 239: they hosted the “New American Realities” forum in the 1980s on the increasing precarity of work. Wage stagnation, short-term and precarious employment, and limited or costly health coverage have long plagued cities and towns across the country. Planners can read Wartzman’s book to find out how we got here, but have to rely on their own resources moving forward. While light on policy recommendations, Wartzman’s narrative points to the need for business, labor, and other civic leaders to negotiate a new social contract.

103


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

R E VI E W | TH E CO LO R OF LAW

AUTHOR | RICHARD ROTHSTEIN Review by Stephanie Watkins-Cruz

At some point in our education, we learn about the two types of segregation—de jure and de facto. De jure segregation refers to segregation caused by law and public action. De facto segregation is segregation that happens by circumstance or “fact,” not by any public action. It is widely believed that the impacts of racism and segregation have mostly dissipated, and that any segregation we see today has not been caused by law or public action. Seeing how segregation persists in American cities brings to mind a number of questions: Did racial prejudices tear the American neighborhood apart? Why do our neighborhoods still wear segregation as if it wasn’t legally banned decades ago? Are we living in de facto segregation? And whose fault is it anyway? All of these questions are thoroughly addressed by Richard Rothstein’s core arguments in The Color of Law. Rothstein, a Senior Fellow at the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society and the Economic Policy Institute, sets on a dense journey through over a century of public policy in hopes of convincing and explaining to readers the following points:

Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017. 239 pages. 10 4

America’s neighborhoods were segregated through racist policies designed, planned, and implemented by our government at the local, state, and federal levels;

Because of the painfully long list of examples of statesanctioned segregating—it is our (the American people’s and the government’s) responsibility to fix it.

Rothstein builds his argument by starting at an unexpected point in history. He begins by citing the Civil Rights Act passed in 1866 by Congress to enforce the abolition of slavery. The act was intended to complement the Thirteenth Amendment because it prohibited actions that perpetuated the characteristics of slavery. Actions that made African-Americans second class citizens—such as racial discrimination in housing—were prohibited under the Act, but only until 1883. At that point, the Supreme Court disagreed with the notion that exclusion from housing markets could be


BOOK REVIEW

STEPHANIE WATKINS-CRUZ is a third year dual-degree student pursuing Masters’ degrees in Public Administration and City and Regional Planning. She specializes in housing and community development with a special interest in community development finance and affordable housing.

a “badge or incident of slavery.” Thus African-Americans would go unprotected in housing for the next century. Rothstein proposes that, by actively prohibiting AfricanAmericans from buying or renting housing, the federal government created a second-class citizenship remnant of slavery, and therefore the government failed to uphold the Thirteenth Amendment. Rothstein continues to construct his argument through his discussion of the 1974 Supreme Court case Milliken v. Bradley, which dealt with the planned desegregation of Detroit public schools. Particularly important in that case is the legal train of thought of Justices Warren E. Burger and Potter Stewart that federal courts do not have a responsibility to change a situation unless it can be proven that the state (or localities) contributed to the situation. And even when such evidence was provided, the courts often ignored it, denying its existence. The ruling in this important court case serves as another basis for Rothstein’s major point—that the government at multiple levels supported the segregation of America’s cities via ignorance, biased legal interpretation, and destructive public policies. Throughout The Color of Law, Rothstein cites over a century of public policy examples from coast to coast to support his points. No level of government nor the private sector is safe from his pen. Particularly impactful are the examples of white liberal localities that reacted to non-white population growth as if it were the plague and responded by geographically quarantining communities of color and building barriers to prosperity and equal opportunity. For those in the field of city planning, the text challenges us to take a second look at what intentionally planning for equitable outcomes should look like. Planners’ hands are all over the implementation of the discriminatory policies that segregated America, and The Color of Law

does not shy away from calling out individuals from the field of planning like Robert Whitten and Harland Bartholomew, and groups like the Atlanta City Planning Commission and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Land Use Planning Committee. Rothstein succeeds in exposing the cruel facts of history and in integrating personal anecdotes into the dense but impactful narrative flow. The stories of people affected by segregation provide a human example for the reader who may not be able to picture the consequences of history themselves. Despite a few awkward phrases, such as asking “What could they have been?” in reference to some of the family members of his subjects, the analysis remains relevant. After his in-depth legal and political analysis of our nation’s policies, Rothstein’s last chapter titled “Considering Fixes” feels like a tease. In the chapter he admits that the challenge of finding a “remedy” for over a century of “unconstitutional” policymaking and implementation is impossible. He does offer two broad but potentially potent suggestions:

Re-educate our youth about how the government actually segregated America instead of blaming it on racial tension and prejudices

Design, plan, and implement policies that integrate at various levels

Despite the less-than-robust conclusion, The Color of Law inspires an urgency that is hard to shake off. Rothstein puts a mirror up to America and forces the reader to see that the history and consequences of segregation impact the future of the entire nation.

105


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

R E VI E W | E M E RGE NT ST RAT EGY: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds

AUTHOR | ADRIENNE MAREE BROWN Review by Alyzza May

In a world of turmoil and ongoing political and social attacks, the author adrienne maree brown invites us into her book Emergent Strategy to ground us in the moment and embrace all of the change that touches our lives. From there, brown challenges us to see the ways we can affect change through the principles of emergence and emergent strategy, which she defines as “how we intentionally change in ways that grow our capacity to embody the just and liberated worlds we long for.” Invoking knowledge from the natural world and popular culture, brown guides us in the process of creating more possibilities and transformation in adaptive, interdependent, and resilient ways. The journey through Emergent Strategy is an unconventional one, mixing personal prose, reflections, links to talks, music videos, and quotes to convey the meanings of emergence and shaping change. Through this unique formatting brown provides a gateway to transforming the worlds in which we live. adrienne maree brown (who does not capitalize the spelling of her name) brings to this text her full self in a breadth of professional and personal experiences, from which she highlights opportunities for learning and areas of growth for herself and the reader. Professionally, she is a co-editor of Octavia’s Brood: Science Fiction Stories from Social Justice Movements, a member of BOLD (Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity), and oversees the Just Films Narrative Shift Program for Allied Media Projects. brown is also a social justice advocate, healer, doula, and student of emergence, somatics, transformation and science fiction—all of which feed into the content of the book. It is apparent in Emergent Strategy that brown is influenced heavily by the work of the writer Octavia Butler, and her mentors in movement and thought: Grace Lee Boggs and Margaret Wheatley, among others. In a time when the work of Octavia Butler is experiencing a renaissance of sorts, we see Butler’s influence alive in Emergent Strategy. adrienne maree brown developed many of her ideas related to “shaping change” from Octavia Butler’s concept of “shaping God” or the idea that “God is Change,” where adherents recognize their own power to affect and direct change. “Shaping God” is introduced in the Earthseed verses of Butler’s book, Parable of the Sower (Four Walls Eight Windows: 1993).

AK Press, 2017. 274 pages.

10 6


BOOK REVIEW

ALYZZA MAY is an angelic troublemaker and cultural organizer in Greensboro, North Carolina. They were part of a team that worked to start the first participatory budgeting process in the south, co-founded the Greensboro Mural Project, and are committed to helping build the new economy. Alyzza is a Master’s student

at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, studying City and Regional Planning with a concentration in Housing and Community Development.

In one section of the book, brown confesses to being a “recovering charismatic leader,” in part from her work with the training organization, Ruckus Society. brown contrasts this experience to how much of our work sits in this cross section of getting collective work done, but also raising up perceived rock stars, and how such things counter each other. An element of this discussion that I appreciate is the contribution of the concept, “glamouring people,” which comes from the television show, True Blood, for manipulating people away from their true knowledge—a thing charismatic leaders can influence. Throughout the book, brown brings in contemporary pop culture references to express herself, which make the concepts and text very accessible. For example, in another section discussing resilience—how we recover and transform in a process that learns from pain—she quotes Beyoncé: “If we are to heal, let it be glorious.” For city planners and people in the planning field, Emergent Strategy has important applications when considering systems thinking and systems change. The section on how to transform our pain raises the question, should planners consider themselves healers? To be sure, city planners have been the cause of immense pain, as seen in the legacy of urban renewal, meaningless charrettes, and when community members are seen as an afterthought in the engagement process. brown’s concept of shaping change is also relevant for planners who are entrusted with shaping a community’s growth. Emergent Strategy focuses heavily on the role of collaboration as a mandatory vehicle for change, which allows for the voice of all those whose lives we affect to be expressed, heard, and hopefully responded to and incorporated. Through brown’s framework, we may think of planners as being better positioned to work as collaborative healers.

the reader to access different senses and emotions at different times. We are whole beings, and must treat ourselves and the work we do in ways that engage and benefit our holistic selves. Emergent Strategy also has a personal and organizational assessment section that is a helpful tool in assessing and shaping the emergent change you touch—a tool that can always be returned to in the future. Emergent Strategy is a timely and timeless book that encourages growth in the reader. Planners hold power shaping whole cities and regions, and in turn, have great responsibility to direct change. A broader audience will benefit from reading this book, and it would be well suited for group reading with people who want to think expansively about what the future may look like through their collective efforts. Consider: Whether you’re a human being, an insect, a microbe, or a stone, this verse is true. All that you touch You Change. All that you Change Changes you. The only lasting truth Is Change. God Is Change. — Octavia E. Butler, Parable of the Sower

Emergent Strategy may not appeal to highly academic readers based on the self-help aspects and personal writings featured in the book. But brown’s multifaceted writing approach has the power to appeal to a wider audience. The disparate elements of the book allow

107


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

R E VI E W | VANI SH I NG NEW YORK AUTHOR | JEREMIAH MOSS Review by Colleen Durfee

We expect cities to change. It is difficult to criticize the way a city changes without coming off as a curmudgeon, out of touch, or lacking perspective. Still, Jeremiah Moss, in Vanishing New York: How a Great City Lost Its Soul, manages to persuade that some change is toxic. Using personal experience, in-depth historic research, and drawing from urban theorists, Moss diagnoses the poison sickening New York as “hyper-gentrification,” a condition of neoliberalism that is draining the city’s soul until what made New York New York disappears into distant memory. Gentrification is a contentious topic in planning practice and research. As cities across the world experience re-urbanization, the outcry against gentrification rings clear. Moss’s take on the hyper-gentrification plaguing New York adds a unique and impassioned perspective to the growing body of work surrounding re-urbanization. For Moss, New York’s soul is one of the greatest casualties of the gentrification war. Vanishing New York is a compelling case study used to deliver the message that we cannot stand by and watch our cities and the humanity that comprises them vanish into memory at the hands of developer profits and urban homogenization. Academics, practitioners, and enthusiasts of urban planning will find Moss’s description of what has happened to New York both heartbreaking and motivating. Vanishing New York is a call to action, especially for planners whom he would argue have a role in facilitating or disrupting the process of hyper-gentrification. Jeremiah Moss is the pen name of Griffin Hansbury, a wellknown activist, blogger and writer for publications such as The New Yorker, The New York Times, and The Paris Review. When he is not documenting the urban experience in New York, he works as a psychoanalyst in private practice. Hansbury first came to New York as an aspiring poet fleeing his small New England town upbringing for a setting that would accept him in his unconventional youth. He is known for opposing the displacement of mom and pop stores and ethnic and cultural enclaves of New York—most notably his campaign to save Café Edison on West Forty-Seventh Street. Moss describes New York as “a beacon for dissatisfied and desperate people.” He contends some people need the City, and he is one of them.

Dey Street Books, 2017. 480 pages.

10 8

While he is not the first to do so, Moss contends that “hypergentrification” belongs to the era of neoliberalism. He argues that hyper-gentrification is not only inorganic but manufactured, planned, and intentionally benefits those with means while disenfranchising those without. Using personal anecdotes, rich metaphor, and witty prose, he chronologizes the city’s


BOOK REVIEW

COLLEEN DURFEE is a graduate of the UNC’s Department of City and Regional Planning, specializing in disaster recovery planning and economic development. Colleen has focused on the intersection of household financial stability and disaster recovery and hopes to help improve the recovery process for underserved communities.

destruction at the hands of City Hall, whose purpose he characterizes as competing for outside investors, upscale professionals, and tourists instead of tending to its citizens. Moss argues these changes are not the result of a natural cycle of change but instead of strategic decisions made by those in power to remain in power. In Vanishing New York, Moss convinces the reader that the changes seen in cities today are of a fundamentally different kind of those in the past. He does so by methodically outlining the series of events, decisions, and leadership regimes that set in motion the consumption of the city by hyper-gentrification. Drawing from urban theorists such as Jane Jacobs, David Harvey, Neil Smith, and Henri Lefebvre, he asserts that the divisive destruction of history and culture via hypergentrification is not a natural and inevitable outcome of a city cycling through change, as some argue. It the result of strategic decisions and alliances of powerful entities made in their own interests. Throughout the book, Moss continually refers to the long-standing battle over New York’s soul as a battle between tolerance and trade. Presently, and for the past several decades, tolerance seems to be losing as Duane Reade, Starbucks, and luxury hotels appropriate the cultural capital of New York’s artists, immigrants, and poor, in an effort to draw tourists in for an “authentic New York” experience. Moss begins most chapters with personal anecdotes of his experiences in particular neighborhoods. Once he pulls the reader into his world, he deepens our understanding with a historic account of how neighborhoods have changed over time, sometimes starting as early as the 19th century. Once the reader is invested in the neighborhood’s character and history, he concludes with a thoroughly researched report of how city leadership (aligned with corporate interests and facilitated by the planning department) displaced the small businesses, long-time residents, and cultural gems that made the neighborhood unique. Vanishing New York is a meticulously researched report of New York’s transformation from haven for outcasts to playground for the wealthy and middle America’s tourists. One of the most powerful and engaging aspects of Vanishing New York is Moss’s liberal application of

metaphors. The reader feels as if they have skin in the game as New York’s soul is sucked dry, whether they know the city or not. Through reading Vanishing New York, readers feel at once an insider and an outsider as the real New York is increasingly only accessed via memory and your sense of agency in reversing the trend dwindles in each chapter In most chapters, Moss discusses specific neighborhoods, but he breaks up these case study chapters to delve into specific themes or discuss particular city-wide events. For example, he takes the time to define neoliberalism, discuss how September 11th opened the floodgates to tourism, and present a case for resistance by remembrance. His intention in writing Vanishing New York is to educate the reader of a disappearing history. Crucially, Moss admits his own privilege in the spaces he pines for, adding a much-needed level of humanity. He also presents surprising and unpopular arguments against some of the most loved new New York amenities such as the High Line. But, he does so to explain how a curated landscape can cause residents and visitors to forget the value in what was there before. As you read, you may start to wonder how many city blocks you have walked by, ignorant of what was there before. You realize how easy it is to forget what is no longer visible. Vanishing New York tackles the topic of gentrification with such vigor and passion that you will most likely be convinced that the last several decades of New York’s growth consumes more than it brings to the table. Moss does not argue against change but objects to a particular kind of change driven by elite interests that sucks the life out of cities and replaces it with blind consumer culture. The neighborhoods once home to artists, punks, immigrants, the poor, the mad, and the unconventional are the new frontiers for colonization by the wealthy. Moss concludes with the contention that a city should move towards more equally distributing power and resources rather than reinforcing inequality. For Moss, Vanishing New York is his act of resistance, reminding and educating those who read it of the New York that was and can still be. Ultimately, Moss forces us to examine the way in which all of our cities are changing.

109


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

R E VI E W | LATI NO CI TY: U r b a n P l a n n i n g , Po l i t i c s , a n d t h e G r a s s r o o t s

AUTHOR | ERUALDO R. GONZÁLEZ Review by Jennifer Rangel

The late 20th and early 21st century have seen the emergence of new urbanism (NU), the creative class (CC), and transit-oriented development (TOD) as solutions to revitalize downtown cores across the country. Erualdo R. González’s Latino City analyzes the consequences of these planning efforts implemented in Santa Ana, California, and how they fostered the spatial alienation of an already marginalized demographic—the area’s Latino community. González highlights how the literature of central city redevelopment rarely focuses on heavily populated Latina/o, working-class, and immigrant communities. In an in-depth and interdisciplinary approach, Latino City explores the overt and covert manifestations of historical and spatial alienation of one of the largest communities of Mexican immigrants in the country, and how grassroots efforts in Santa Ana, California responded to these tensions. Today’s redevelopment efforts draw inspiration from imagined communities, such as the creative class, to reclaim and diversify downtown cores that have suffered from disinvestment. However, as González notes in the case of Santa Ana, city plans that attempted to support and attract the creative class were ultimately at odds with the existing community that lived in the area. Through his review of primary and secondary sources from the 1970s to early 2010s, the author contends that racism and elitism have fueled Santa Ana’s redevelopment efforts.

Routledge, 2017. 118 pages.

11 0

For example, the 1974 Downtown Santa Ana Development Plan (DSADP) portrayed the existing and expanding Latina/o community as an obstacle, and vilified the community with the creation of a “Social Profile” map. DSADP’s map used phrases such as “illegals generally found in this area.” Decades later, the 2007 Renaissance Plan (RP) intensified racial and class tensions, which led to the creation of another redevelopment plan—the 2009 Station District (SD). However, the SD was faced with resistance from the community as it was perceived as a repackaged version of the RP. Opposition persisted with the SD because it failed to include redevelopment efforts tailored for the existing community. The persistent exclusionary message of these plans led to the creation and persistence of grassroots groups to advocate for the community—one being the Santa Ana Collaborative for Responsible Development (SACReD), with which the author is affiliated.


BOOK REVIEW

JENNIFER RANGEL is a Master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC Chapel Hill. Jennifer’s background as a Mexican-American and Dallas-native influenced her interest in the urban

planning field. Her Master’s Project is titled the “Geographical Examination of Latino Urbanism: Oak Cliff as a Case Study,” and Jennifer aspires to elevate the voices of her former community.

It is clear from González’s sequential evaluation of Santa Ana’s redevelopment efforts and the responses from grassroots movements that Santa Ana’s government lacked an understanding of the needs from the existing communities residing in the disinvested urban core. Latino City reveals the unspoken hidden mechanisms associated with redevelopment efforts that alienate communities of color in favor of middle-class and nativeborn whites (often coded as creative-class, artsy, or hip). Erualdo R. González is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies at California State University in Fullerton. His areas of research and teaching are community development and participation, urban politics and governance, health equity, and Latino Urbanism. These areas of interest are intersected with race, ethnicity, class and immigration—with special attention to Mexican, Chicana/o-Latina/o communities. He also has twenty years of experience as an evaluator and strategic planner in rural and urban settings. In Latino City, González sought to present the strengths and weaknesses of the actors involved in the redevelopment conversations throughout the years, including the city council, developers, and SACReD. He analyzed a wide array of sources as a way to evaluate intentions from both sides of the debates. For example, González notes that previously written books about the history of Santa Ana omit the existence of the city’s cultural character or sparingly mention the Latina/o and Mexican immigrant community. Latino City, by contrast, not only acknowledges the existing community, it also provides anecdotes and examples of how the existing community saved the forgotten downtown. Furthermore, the author reflects on the accomplishments and limitations associated with the all-Latina/o city council that arose in 2006, and the successes and losses of SACReD. Throughout Latino City, redevelopment models and theories are imbedded to help assert the author’s claims of a spatially alienating discourse.

Although the author diligently portrays SACReD’s community-based planning and their approach for encouraging community participation, further details of their techniques would be useful for readers interested in revamping their community meetings and increasing resident involvement. A list of explicit questions and techniques used to facilitate a deeper understanding of a community’s needs could serve as a useful tool for the reader. The purpose of an ad-hoc resident group was well explained, but additional information could include how SACReD ensured a shared decisionmaking process with stakeholders. SACReD’s outreach efforts and techniques surpassed that of consultants and developers because of their culturally competent organizers. Further reflection on strategic methods to ensure cultural competence among organizers could aid a professional’s understanding in this type of work. Latino City brings to the surface the importance and relevance of cultural competence integration in redevelopment work—especially in high density urban cores with Latina/o, working-class, and immigrant communities. This extensive case study of Santa Ana not only fills a gap in the literature, it also reflects how redevelopment efforts fail to address a Latinizing United States. Latino City serves as a tool for educating community residents, community organizers, city employees, consultants, and developers on how they can work by themselves and with each other in order to achieve a culturally competent redevelopment plan.

111


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

CL A S S O F 2 0 17 M ASTE R’S PROJ E CT T I T LE S

JONATHAN AHN KATHARINE BAUMANN-MITCHELL CHRISTOPHER BENDIX

ERIKA BRANDT DANIEL BULLOCK

Fair Housing Policy Effects on Housing Choice Voucher Holder's Spatial Integration Neighborhood Change Near Local Rail Service: Demographic Analysis in Four US Regions and Recommendations for Practice Staying Home: An Evaluation of North Carolina’s Urgent Repair Program A Closer Look: A Spatial Analysis of African American Mortgage Applications and Denials in North Carolina

ERIN CONVERY

Economic Impacts of Multi-Use Trails: Commercial Growth in Ohio Trail Corridors

PETER GORMAN

Developing A Data-Driven Tool for North Carolina Land Bank Acquisition Strategies

RACHEAL HAMMOND

A Paper Surveying the Distinctions Between Rural & Urban Communities, As Well As Protocol and Proposal for Evaluation of Housing Choice Voucher Program

SUMNER HANDY

SHATI KHAN MICHELLE KELLEHER

CARL KOLOSNA SHAMSA MANGALJI

KELLY MARCH

SARAH MARTIN

11 2

Management Practices and Policies for Transit Infrastructure Projects

Access to Transit and Unemployment Rates for People with Physical Disabilities in Baltimore City, MD BRT Installation and Localized Job Growth in Cleveland, Ohio The Public Realm, the Right to the City and Conversations with Residents of São Paulo about Public Space A Geospatial Assessment of Urban Tree Canopy and Policy Recommendations for its Equitable Distribution in Durham and Chapel Hill, North Carolina Exploring Financial Feasibility of Constructing Mixed-Income TOD in Houston, Texas Assessing the Farmland Conservation Prioritization Strategies of North Carolina’s Land Trusts Leveraging Community Engagement and Plan Quality for Improved Decentralized Stormwater Management

TAYLOR MCADAM

Shared Private Transit: An Exploration of Current U.S. Services and Trends

BLAKE MONTIETH

Build for Opportunity: Cases of Construction as Economic Development


D. CHASE NICHOLAS SARAH ODIO JOSEPH OMOZOKPEA

ELIZABETH PACKER

JONATHAN PETERSON

NIRANJANI RADHAKRISHNAN HANNAH RECKHOW

ASHTON ROHMER

DANA SCHOEWE JOSEPH SEYMOUR

TAYLOR SMITH

TREY TALLEY

Responding to Changes in Rated Risk: Incorporating Resilience in Dare County, North Carolina’s Coastal Floodplain Management Policy and Planning Dorothea Dix Hospital - Center Building Reuse Study Strategies for Downtown Revitalization Home Ownership and Neighborhood Quality: Examining the Outcome of IDA Program Participants Federal Policy Tools to Improve Food Access: Examining the Impact of the Healthy Food Financing Initiative Redeveloping J.H. Sampson: A Study on the Feasibility of Repurposing the J.H. Sampson School Building in Kinston, NC Evaluating Community Engagement in Planning: Utilization of a Public Health Evaluation Tool Transportation Planning in Support of Low-Income User Needs: The Case of Physical Access to Healthcare in Durham, North Carolina After the Flood: Exercising Best Practices in Property Acquisition Programs and Open Space Projects Beyond the Urban Fabric: Weaving Fiber into America’s Rural Communities An Analysis of Virginia’s Moped Safety and Registration Law on Collision and Injury Outcomes Sowing the Seeds to Grow a Local Economy: Local Food Systems as an Approach to Community and Economic Development Anticipating Mixed Use Water Demand: Chapel Hill and Carrboro, NC

PATRICK WELCH

Development Patterns and Municipal Finances: An Analysis of Sprawl and Spending in 82 U.S. Cities

RACHEL WEXLER

Catalyzing Social Change Through the Arts

ALLEN WOOD

SARAH WRAIGHT

YUN XIN

Potential Redevelopment Opportunities along the Duke Belt Line: An Analysis of Appropriate Site Location, Current Conditions, and Financial Considerations Native Nations, Climate Justice, and National Environmental Policy Act Reviews: A Policy Analysis Move on with Expectations and Challenges: Report for a Transportation Needs Assessment of Latino Immigrants in Lee County, North Carolina 113

STUDENT WORK

ABIGAIL MOORE


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

Y EA R I N R E V I E W An Update From New East

What a year it’s been at the Department of City & Regional Planning (DCRP). From conferences to publications to awards, DCRP students, faculty, and staff have been incredibly busy, with forty-two Master’s and nine doctoral students graduating in May 2018. Under department chair Noreen McDonald, DCRP welcomed thirty-five new Master’s candidates and two new doctoral students in August 2017. DCRP also launched a new website at planning.unc.edu in the Fall of 2017 thanks to the hard work for Master’s students Lisa Fiedler and Sarah Parkins, Information Specialist Udo Reisinger, and Student Services Coordinator Sandra Lazo de la Vega, and the leadership of Professors Noreen McDonald and Nikhil Kaza and Digital Solutions Manager Kim Vassiliadis. In other exciting news for this year, Planetizen ranked DCRP third on its prestigious biannual list of Top Ten Urban Graduate Planning Programs.

LEADERSHIP Student organizations in DCRP had a busy year, organizing weekly happy hours, resume workshops, brown bag lunches, and more. Planners’ Forum, chaired by Stephanie Watkins-Cruz and Ellis Johnson II, welcomed new 2018-2019 chairs James Carter and Matt Cohen-Price. Under the leadership of Hilary Pollan and Darien Alexander Williams, Plan for All organized a Fall 2017 Racial Equity workshop led by North Carolina’s Racial Equity Institute. The rewarding and transformational workshop was well-attended by faculty, staff, and graduate students and very much appreciated by all.

CONFERENCES Second-year Master’s student Charlie Stanfield presented research on rural transit systems in North Carolina that he conducted through his job at the 11 4

Institute for Transportation Research and Education at the Transportation Research Board Conference in Washington, D.C. in January 2018. Second-year Master’s students James Farrell and Alyson West presented at the International Cycling Safety Conference in Davis, CA in September 2017 and the North Carolina Bike/Walk Summit in November 2017 on injury severity and crash types for cyclists on rural roads in comparison to urban roads. Travis Crayton, who is a dual-degree Master’s student in City & Regional Planning and Public Administration, presented at the Health Law Roundtable on Current and Emerging Issues at the November 2017 American Public Health Association Conference. His presentation was titled “Autonomous Vehicles: Developing a Public Health Research Agenda to Frame the Future of Transportation Policy.” Doctoral student Mary Wolfe presented research on children’s exposure to air pollution during school commutes at several conferences: the International Conference on Transport & Health in Barcelona in June 2017, the ACSP Conference in Denver in October 2017, and the Transportation Research Board Conference in Washington, D.C. in January 2018. Doctoral student Kai Monast presented research at a number of conferences in 2017, on topics including transit system connectivity, intercity bus systems, methodologies for allocating public transportation expenses, and more. He also served as a member on the Orange County, NC Master Aging Plan development committee.

HONORS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS Doctoral student Mary Wolfe and Master’s student Charlie Stanfield both received Dwight David Eisenhower Fellowships from the Federal Highway Administration/U.S. Department of Transportation. Mary was also selected as one of eight Lampley Graduate Fellows in the UNC College of Arts and Sciences for 2018-2019.


DCRP Master’s students present their design concepts for the Fall 2017 Site Planning course

Matt Norchi, who is a dual-degree student in City & Regional Planning and Law, was selected as the 2018-2019 Daniel J. Curtin, Jr. Fellowship, awarded by the Planning and Law Division of the American Planning Association. Doctoral student Amanda Martin received a 2018 Impact Award from the UNC Graduate School for her research on post-disaster buyouts and redevelopment in Eastern North Carolina. Amanda was also selected to be a 2018-2019 Dean’s Graduate Fellow in the College of Arts and Sciences. Travis Crayton co-authored an article in a 2017 issue of the Journal of Transport & Health, titled “Autonomous Vehicles: Framing a Public Health Research Agenda for the Future of Transportation Policy.” Doctoral student Allison Forbes and Associate Professor Nichola Lowe co-authored a January 2018 editorial in the News & Observer titled “North Carolina Can Build a Better Place for Auto Makers.” Katey Mote, a dual-degree student in City & Regional Planning and Health Policy, second-year Master’s student Carly Hoffmann, and Travis Crayton were selected as Presidential Management Fellows for the Class of 2018.

Sixteen Master’s and doctoral students from DCRP (listed below) became Road Safety Scholars with the Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety (CSCRS) in Spring 2018. The Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety (CSCRS) is a national universitybased center focused on advancing research and creating cutting-edge tools and resources to improve transportation safety and practice. The CSCRS is based at UNC and involves five universities. The CSCRS “Roads Scholars” program aims to cultivate future leaders in transportation safety and injury prevention, ready to tackle critical and emerging challenges in roadway safety. These scholars participate in a biweekly seminar series, receive mentorship and academic support from a team of experienced transportation and public health researchers, and may engage in CSCRS projects.

Alyzza May Mike Dolan Fliss Katy Lang Lisa Fiedler Ally Clonch

Charlie Stanfield Alyson West Jenna Shouse Matt Cohen-Price James Farrell

Sakshi Handa Hilary Pollan Margaret Keener Will Leimenstoll Claire Hansen Mary Wolfe

115


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

11 6


CA R O LI N A P LANNI NG JO U RN AL

VO LUME 4 4 CALL FO R PAP E RS The Carolina Planning Journal is now accepting abstracts for case studies, practical applications, criticism, research, and analysis related to the following planning techniques: C H A N G I N G WAYS, MAKING CHANGE

Our nation is facing pressing problems: a widening wealth gap, social inequities, systemic racism, climate change, gun violence, sexual assault, and more. How can planning engage in new ways to address today’s critical problems and advocate for needed radical change? TOPICS MIGHT INCLUDE, BUT SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO:

Unlikely partnerships in planning

Planning cities for women

Uses of big data in planning

New outreach, education, and community engagement strategies

Climate adaptation and resilience planning

Planning in the sharing economy

Equitable and inclusive placemaking

Creative financing for affordable housing

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

By August 15, 2018, authors should submit a one to two page proposal for their articles. Proposals should include the title, a short description of the topic or case, the background and significance, preliminary implications, citations, and, if an academic proposal, a summary of existing literature on the subject including the title and thesis statement of a maximum of five relevant papers. Final papers will not exceed 3,000 words. Proposals should be submitted via e-mail to CarolinaPlanningJournal@gmail.com. By September 15, 2018, the Committee will make a decision on all proposals. The Committee will contact authors regarding their proposals. Authors will work with the editors to monitor the paper’s progress and provide general guidance in completing the paper within the specified timelines. Authors should expect to work through two or three drafts with the editors. The print volume will be published in the Spring of 2018. Carolina Planning editors reserve the right to edit articles accepted for publication, subject to the author’s approval, for both length and content considerations.

Bridging Planning Theory and Practice Since 1974 117


Carolina Planning Journal : Volume 43 / Planning for Uncertainty

CAROLINA PLANNING JOURNAL

11 8


119


Carolina Planning Journal: Volume 43  
Carolina Planning Journal: Volume 43  
Advertisement