The practice of city planning

Another Dave raises an interesting point in relation to Amateurs as discussed here on CC Blog a few days ago. In a comment he suggests:

"An amateur what? City planner? I'm not sure how one can practice city planning other than as a professional."

Well that's interesting. If by "practice city planning other than as a professional" he means that one has to be employed by a public planning agency, what about, to start from the top, Jane Jacobs? Her influence on thinking about American cities and even on cities themselves is, I think, without peer in the past 50 years (except perhaps for her wicked twin, Robert Moses.) And to my knowledge she never ever worked for a public agency.

And then there is the activist who emerge from time to time in his/her respective community and wields enormous influence (if perhaps mainly through populist veto) on the planning/zoning codes of their towns.

Or what about Donald Trump? Certainly he primarily reacts to what he sees as economic opportunities. But I believe --- and put the merits aside for the moment --- that he has been involved with zoning changes? There is an enormous residential development on the west side of Manhattan which involved changing the plan for the area. It is (or was) a Trump project. So Trump too is an urban planner; his vision helps form the actual physical reality of Manhattan.

So I wonder whether if it is only the professional who can "practice city planning."

Comments

[Brian Miller]

As a "professional" "city planner," I, believe it or not, share your skepticism that there is no "room" for amateurs in planning. My only caveat is that such "amateurs" are often purely motivated by self interest, classism, and even racism (look at the ridiculousness of the NIMBY movements in many communities). Professional planners are at least supposed to provide a broader perspective. That doesn't mean that many of the best cityscapes etc. are not in fact produced outside the bureaucratic process typical of "planning."