Travels with Kerli Q: First Installment

This blog will deviate from the previous blogs somewhat to describe this blogger's recent trip to the New York area. Yesterday, this blogger had an opportunity to spend some time exploring a number of settlements in Connecticut and New York. The blogger did not take one of the quicker routes and instead opted for a more leisurely journey utilizing the Long Island ferry.


Kelo
Since there was an hour’s worth of free time prior to boarding the ferry boat, the blogger had the opportunity to visit portions of the waterfront area of New London. This shoreline community re-ceived a lot of publicity due to the recent landmark land use court case in the Supreme Court. The notable case of Kelo vs. City of New London is intriguing on a number of levels with reference to eminent domain taking of land. As a municipal planner involved in redevelopment, this case had a number of implications for future development in existing built up "grayfield" areas in suburia.


New London is a small port city of 25,671 inhabitants. Its history is rich with traditions, customs, and notable events. In the recent past, the economy of the area was greatly influenced by the defense related establishments that were involved in submarine development. Today, the emphasis has switched to more involvement in the tourist related industry including two large gambling resort establishments less than twenty minutes away along with high tech and office centers.

The city is attempting to improve its waterfront and adjacent areas as exemplified in the above picture. The question becomes whether eminent domain taking for economic development purposes was totally proper. The concept of urban renewal utilizing eminent domain taking conjures up of massive destruction of existing neighborhoods and the forced relocation of its inhabitants. The example of the demise of the West End of Boston is an infamous example of the social destruction of a neighborhood. Many of Jane Jacobs ideals were based on the need to need to preserve great cities such as New York from these catastrophes. On a suburban level, the implementation of eminent domain would be considered an “urban evil” and an anathema to the ideals of suburban living. The challenge will be changing this established process to possibly a more humane approach and yet accomplish the greater goal of improving the well being of the community by stimulating economic development .

The Elusive Butterfly

Upon landing on Long Island, it was this blogger's goal to find a rail transit stop area that epitomized proper land use development and intensity. The elusive butterfly was not caught on this trip. Starting of the end of the main line on Long Island, this blogger visited a number of sites and could not find a site that matched the scale and mix of development that would be an example for third tier suburban communities. A pleasant by-product of the trip was listening to two Long Island radio stations, one of which announced individual resident birth days while the other station was characterized by a talk show that discussed future development around one the below noted rail stops with a local government official.

Many planners talk about density of population around transit stops. Their mantra is "critical mass, critical mass, critical mass." Not one of them fully understands the implications of imposing a very high density of population in housing of over twenty dwelling units per acre in a community that has existing levels of .5 to 5 units per acre. Changes of this nature are considered earth shattering by many of these inhabitants and an affront to their well-being.

The blogger’s first stop was Greenport, New York. This community of 2,048 inhabitants is situated adjacent to the water and has a number of amenities including a picturesque downtown and a ferry boat connection to Shelter Island to its south.

The second stop along this Long Island Railroad line was Southold, New York. Southold has a population of 20,599. Its station has very limited parking any automated ticket machines. As you can see in the picture on the right, the appearance of the land uses was far from optimal.

The third stop was Mattituck, New York. Mattituck has a population of 4,198. It has a very nice compact downtown which is integrated with the rail station. The train stop is set next to a historic period center center with gas light and brick sidewalks. The scale is pedestrian oriented and of all the sites visited, this site comes closest to matching the goals of the blogger in terms of a model suburban train stop. The two pictures below depict the connection of train stop and downtown area.

Proceeding inland, the next stop was Riverhead, New York. Riverhead has a population of 27,680 and is characterized by its ethnic population, country government buildings, and its large outlet mall. The train station was notable and the station was situated near the downtown and the government buildings.





My next to last stop was Medford, New York. Medford has a population of 21,985. This community was less traditional than the other stops. The stop was somewhat difficult to access off the arterial roadway yet was was adjacent to a number of non-pedestrian oriented businesses. Of note was the sheltered station depicted in the picture.





The last stop was Central Islip. This stop was located in a community of 31,950. It is surrounded by intense one story development. This station is typical large regional park and ride stop with few amenities.




At this point, the blogger stopped examining other rail stations. On a positive note, many of the small stations had a well integrated system of intermodal linkages including buses, jitneys, automobiles, and pedestrian connections.

Rural Contributions to Third Tier Suburbs

In a previous blog, this blogger mentioned the loyal followers of either the classical urban setting or the natural pastoral landscape. This blog will mainly describe the rural viewpoint and its relationship to the suburbs particularly the third tier settlements. In the mid 19th Century, a group of landscape painters known as the Hudson River School of Landscape Painters depicted idyllic view of the landscape. A good illustration of this pastoral depiction is the above picture entitled “Cider Making in the Country.”

A number of writers, planning individuals, and other visionaries elaborated on these visual depictions such as the noted transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson in his writing entitled “Nature” and Edward Hale in his writing entitled “Sybaris and Other Homes.” Hale stressed his vision of settlement as stated in the following: “all along now were houses, each with is pretty garden of perhaps an acre, no fences… [said] houses were of one story…this was a mere suburban habitat.” (Cited on page 33.) The actual communities of Litchfield, Connecticut and Concord, Massachusetts epitomized many of these ideals spelled out by these two writers.

Ebenezer Howard refined these ideals in his concept of the Garden City. This was followed by the outstanding work of Frederick Law Olmsted and others. In the classic “The Anglo –American Suburb” edited by famed architect Robert A.M. Stern, there is a direct reference to Olmstead and Calvert Vaux who designed Riverside, Illinois. Riverside was considered a prototype “suburban village” and followed “the principle that a suburban community could be planned as a unit and would retain its identity…protected by greenbelts, gates and other barriers. (Cited on page 24.)

At this point, it is necessary to further explain the concept of “village.” The use of the term “village” may also be misapplied to various planning type discussions. There are suburban villages, rural villages (as previously noted), urban villages, industrial villages, craftsman’s village, and political entities known incorporated villages. These phrases deserve further clarification. The classic historic village is a community set in a countryside setting. Examples of this are depicted in the document entitled “Hamlets of the Adirondacks: A Manual of Development Strategies”. Here, the local villages and hamlets “are unique physically and culturally” in terms of “landscape setting, history, people, spaces, buildings and districts.” (Cited on page 6.)

In an article in the May/June 1992 issue of Utne Reader, entitled “Rediscovering the Village” by Robert Gerloff, a more urbanized village is defined as “a compact gathering of houses, apartment buildings, corner groceries, Main Street shops and offices. A village is friendly to pedestrians, a place where you can easily walk to work or to the grocery.” Page 94) “It is also a community of diverse individuals and families.” (Cited on page 96.)

An industrial village s described the article entitled “Industrial Village Communities in the United States by John Nolan. (Cited in Garden Cities and Town Planning, 1921, vol 11 no 1, pages 6-9.) Indian Hill in Worcester, Massachusetts was considered an industrial village.
Said village must be “town planned”, must have no more than 12 houses per acre, must have social amenities including open spaces, must reserve the natural features of the community, and should have co-operative or public ownership of the site.

The Craftsman’s Village is designed “for living, working, and marketing, all in your own tri-level condominium unit. It is a haven for artists and trades folk who want to live simply and independently while going about their work and promoting their creative products” in shops that are small and the shopkeepers are friendly. An example of this is located in Oak Creek Wisconsin on four aces of “suburban-rural land next to a wooded area and a lake.” (Cited in promotional material on this village.)

The political term village is defined by the various states. For example, in New York, “a village is a general purpose municipal corporation formed voluntarily by the residents of an area in one or more town to provide municipal services.” There are 574 of these villages in the state which range in size from 50 to 50,000 in population. In Nassau County, Long Island several of these village are closer to the upper limits in population. (Cited from unreferenced sources.)

Getting back to the discussion on the rural influence of settlement patterns upon the suburban landscape, several new prototypes evolved after Riverside. Many of these communities were established in the outer edges of metropolitan areas. Two good examples are Radburn, New Jersey, and Greeenbelt, Maryland. Radburn was “conceived” by Clarence Stein as a “town for the motor age.” Radburn was “a combination of ideas derived from the Garden Suburb tradition with new strategies developed to deal…with the automobile.” Among its characteristics included the freestanding single family home with garage. (Cited in Anglo-American Suburb, page 84.) Other elements included: one, the superblock; two, specialized roads built for “one use”; three, “complete separation of pedestrian and automobile; four, “houses turned around …facing gardens and parks”; five, “park as backbone of the neighborhood.” (Cited on pages 41-44, “Toward New Towns for America” by C.S. Stein.)

The origination of the Greenbelt towns was initiated by the two Federal Acts: one, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act and two, the National Recovery Act in 1925. President Hoover then established the Resettlement Administration and appointed Guy Tugwell as Director. Under Tugwell’s influence the Federal government became interested in the production of new towns. Greenbelt towns were experiments in combining the Garden City ideal, the rRadburn idea, and the neighborhood unit together. Greenbelt, Maryland, which is located on the outer fringes of both Washington and Baltimore, became one of these communities. Key elements of this Greenbelt community included the walking system, underpasses, individual gardens, the use of open spaces, the shopping center and the “related community center” and the integration of the development with the natural features of the site particularly its development on the curved plateau utilizing a crescent roadway network. (Cited in Stein, pages 136-150.)

In the past seventy years or so, other communities have evolved such as the post war and “sit com” suburbs. The main stay automobile suburb blossomed into production after World War II due to two major underlying factors: one, the Federal government creating new mortgage instrument which made the purchase of single family homes more attractive; two, the major improvements in the highway system which made connectivity between the urban fringe areas and the central city easily accessible by automobile.

A good example, of the post-war suburb are the Levittown settlements created on the fringes of Philadelphia and New York which were characterized by long superblocks dominated by mass produced single family homes, long and wide streets, and pod type developments with little integration of land uses. (Cited in the book entitled “Yard, Street, Park” by Girling and Helphand, page 82.) These type of suburbs were labeled “sprawl” by many in the planning field, despite their unique positive qualities of providing affordable housing to large segment of the population.

In 1969, Ian McHarg’s classic work entitled “Design with Nature” was published which added a more holistic approach to physical planning on the landscape. New “greenfield” type developments would be designed utilizing an overlay method analyzing the various natural features such as hillsides, wetlands, and soils. This was exemplified in his conceptual plans for Staten Island which at the time was considered a suburb of Manhattan.

This was further refined by the concept of open space development design that was popularized by Yaro, Arendt, and others in the book entitled “Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley.” For example, the community of Hadley, Massachusetts which is located on the far outer edge of the Springfield metropolitan area, was studied for potential development by depicting “net usable land area” by deducting floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes…publicly owned lands, and parcels protected by permanent conservation easements” from the total land mass in the community. More creative developments were illustrated in concentrated locations that preserved the unique natural features and scenic vistas of the community. (Cited in “Rural by Design” by Randall Arendt, page 250.)

A more livable form of development for suburbs has evolved that pursues “an environmentally sensitive sustainable lifestyle. (Cited in “Yard, Street Park” page 173.) Good examples of these “ecoburbs” are the communities of Woodlands in Texas and Village Homes in Davis, California.
The former settlement is indicative of the expansive “Greenfield” development of master-planned communities, while the latter is much more modest in scale. In the Village Homes concept, the open space design has been further refined to utilize the open space in a more productive manner including harvesting home grown crops.
The rural contribution to the development of third tier suburbs will evolve further as time marches on. The need for renewable sources of energy will create situations that will make these third tier suburbs more self-sustaining and refocus community concepts within its citizenry.

A Toothache Critique of Planning Buzzwords

First of all this blogger wishes to apologize to the great thinkers of our time, for the interpretation of the following buzzwords: community, neighborhood, smart growth, and new urbanism. This blogger recognizes the outstanding contribution from these architects, planners, allied professionals, and commentators including but not limited to Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Peter Calthorpe, Daniel Soloman, Shelly Poticha, Sim Van der Ryn, Philip Langdon, James Howard Kunstler, Michael Corbett, Robert Cervero, Hank Dittmar, Randall Arendt, and others. These individuals collectively are part of a historical movement for town and city planning that are equal to the likes of Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Daniel Burnham, Louis H. Sullivan, Ebenezer Howard, Camillo Sitte, and others.

The first key word misused is the term “community.” Community means different things to different people at various spatial levels. John Winthrop, the first governor of Massachusetts stated in 1630 “Consider that wee shall be as a City [community] upon a Hill, the eies of all people are upon us.”. President Ronald Regan inferred upon the entire country (community) as that “shining city upon a hill.” The President spoke of a “tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans…teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace…and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.”

Robert Nisbet states that community “goes far beyond mere local community.” It “encompasses all forms of relationships which are characterized by a high degree of personal intimacy, emotional dept, moral commitment, social cohesion, and continuity in time. Community is founded on man conceived in his wholeness…it achieves its fulfillment in a submergence of individual will that is not possible in unions of mere convenience or rational assent. (Cited on page 2, The Search for Community in Modern America, edited by E. Digby Baltzell.)

Further, “community is the product of people working together on problems, of autonomous and collective fulfillment of internal objectives, and of the experience of living under codes of authority which have been set by…persons involved.” (Cited on page xvi, The Quest for Community by Robert Nisbet.

Nesbit decries the “suburban horde” because there are “no common problems, functions, and authority.” He states that community “thrives on self-help..[people]come together to do something that cannot not be easily be done in individual isolation.” (Ibid)

Many considered suburbs a pejorative term below the standards and dignity of city and countryside communities. Others feel that these suburban communities are being undermined by a number of forces including apathy, subversion of power, family breakdowns, technology, work ethic, and host of other influences.

In 1991, a number of the above referenced individuals got together and created a series of community concepts known as the Ahwahnee Principles. These community principles help “define a community where housing and all the things needed to meet the daily needs of residents are located within walking distance of one another. They call for returning population densities around transit stops to provide a critical mass of people and activities in these areas needed to make transit economically viable.”

Many of these individuals helped organize a movement in planning known as “New Urbanism.”
One of the key principles of new urbanists is the concept of neighborhood as defined by Clarence Perry in his writings cited in the Regional Survey of New York and Its Environs dated 1929 (Cited in the Practice of Local Government Planning, 2nd edition, page 42). There were several key parts to the neighborhood unit principle: one, an elementary school at its center; two, an easy walking distance to that school; three, elongated blocks with no through traffic within the blocks and commercial uses on their perimeter; four, the area be owner occupied single family detached homes with backyard playgrounds.

This neighborhood concept evolved into more modern adaptations including the “transit
planning area” which is characterized by a walk time corresponding “to approximately ¼ mile to ½ mile” with an area ranging from 125 acres to 500 acres. According to some, this area has to have a critical mass of population.

In the State of Massachusetts, there is growth management legislation entitled “Smart Growth Zoning and Housing Production”, under General Laws Chapter 40R. Under this law, “smart growth” is defined as having a “housing density in the proposed [zoning] district …of at least 20 units per acre for multi-family housing on the developable land …8 units per acre for single family homes…and 12 units per acre for 2 and 3 family buildings.”

This blogger happens to live in an established urban neighborhood in a central city with nearby shopping and elementary schools. Yet my neighborhood would not meet Perry’s definition today nor would it meet the density requirements of Chapter 40R.. The elementary school may be within walking distance, but school zoning districts and school choice allow children to attend schools other than those geographically closer. Also many of the house lots in the neighborhood are bigger than 7,000 sq.ft. and therefore would not meet these density thresholds.

Basically, the new urbanists and smart growth advocates in Massachusetts have defined an urban type model for future development in these zoning districts. Many third tier suburbs can not absorb that Kind of density. The implications on schools and infrastructure in the respective communities are staggering. In the suburb of Ashland, Massachusetts, there is two hundred acre site that is being “master-planned” as a transit friendly development near an existing railroad line; however the parcel of land exclusively dedicated to multi-family development does not have the density required to meet these requirements in the state legislation. Said density is only 17 units per acre despite the project size of 500 units on the site. In other words, does this project qualify as “Dumb Growth” since it does not meet these design thresholds?

To briefly sum up, this blogger has issues with the definitions and application of many of the concepts elaborated in this blog. It is time to adapt new terminology and implementation techniques to meet the demands of these third tier communities and other growth centers.

Planning Organization in Third Tier Suburbs-Second Installment

In the first installment on “Planning Organization in Third Tier Suburbs”, this blogger described a staffing comparison of eighty-five communities. What was neglected or not clearly specified, in the first installment, was the connection between staffing levels and the workloads, responsibilities, and formal functions of the individual planning offices.

The staffing level of a particular department does not necessarily coincide with the individual planner workloads and responsibilities within that community. To back up this comment, this blogger will mention an anecdotal story about a town planner in a first or second tier suburb in Central Massachusetts. In observing this planner, it appeared that he had a lot of dead time. In order to make himself appear to be busy, he assisted the town administration in answering phones and meeting with the general public on non-related planning issues, other free time was used to study for an additional advanced degree. His planning work load, therefore, was significantly dependent upon the limited activity of new development within the community in terms of both subdivisions and commercial site developments.

On the other hand, in this blogger’s community, there are times where a customer needs to take a ticket in order to stay in the queue for a response to their questions by the Town Planner. It is these times that the Town Planner pulls his hair out.

The above instances highlight the need to study a generic job description for a Town Planner and compare it to individual positions of Town Planners in other representative communities.

Generic job descriptions of Planning positions are available from the Local Government Institute in Tacoma, Washington. Eight key highlights of a generic job description for Town Planner are as follows.

One, “supervises the development and implementation of growth management, land use, economic development…or other plans and codes.” Administers “community development programs and services pursuant to adopted rules, regulations, and budgets.”

Two, “supervises the evaluation of land use proposals for conformity to established
Plans and ordinances; and evaluate proposal development impacts.

Three, oversees enforcement of local codes where applicable.

Four, oversees the permitting functions of developments including application, fee
Assessment, plan review, inspection, and occupancy.

Five, provides staff support to the Planning Board and other boards as needed and assigned. Also serves as a member of various task forces and committees.

Six, prepares and writes grant applications including maps and plans.

Seven, “develops and maintains a data base of information for planning.”

Eight, “monitors inter-governmental decisions and legislation actions.”


This generic job description has a different emphasis in more mature communities such as in first or second tier suburbs. For example, there are a number of communities that are heavily involved in redevelopment activities. In many instances these communities administer the Community Development Block Grant program. For example, the community of Greenfield runs a CDBG program which includes its downtown and surrounding residential neighborhoods. Its planning staff spends considerably less time on subdivision type issues. In the blogger's working community, a time allocation study was conducted several years ago and it was determined that over 44% of the planner's time was spent on developer type tasks including subidivisions, commercial developments, and land platting.

It should be pointed out that there are three categories of communities that benefit from CDBG funds in the State of Massachusetts: one, entitlement communities that are guaranteed funding directly from the Federal government; two, min-entitlement communities that are guaranteed funding through the state based on meeting the national objectives; three, discretionary communities that are selected in a highly competitive basis as determined from an elaborate scoring system set up by the state.

In other words, discretionary communities can not rely on obtaining these funds on a yearly basis and should not anticipate these funds for their respective planning activities. Many communities such as an Ashland or Hopkinton are considered relative wealthy communities by CBDG standards and therefore should not waste their time applying for these funds.

Other deviations from the generic job description include items such as supervision of engineering consultants and attendance at numerous committee meetings. In the former case, communities such as Blackstone Southborough and Fox borough use independent consultant companies for peer reviews and on-site inspections. In the latter case, the organizational structure of the community and the lack of professional staff create situations for increased volunteer efforts administering government functions at evening meetings that require the planner’s attendance.

Planning Organization in Third Tier Suburbs-First Installment

In a recent post on Cyburbia, Vagaplanner referred to a one-person department as possibly having too much influence. He was concerned with being a “’one man show’ when it comes to making recommendations on new development and planning related issues within the community.” It got this blogger thinking about one man departments including who they report to, responsibilities, workloads, and formal functions. This blog is the first of series of comments on one person departments and will primarily deal with the staffing of such a department.

In the third tier suburbs, the staffing of a planning office is essential in the successful implementation of land use controls and land use planning. In Massachusetts, the size of a community sometimes dictates the amount of staffing for planning functions. For example, the City of Worcester with a population of over 172, 000 (2000 Census) had over forty planners in both municipal staffing positions including the Office of Planning and Community Development, Bureau of Land Use Control, Informational Systems and GIS operations office, along with quasi independent agencies such as the Housing Authority, Redevelopment Authority, and Community Development Corporations. In the meantime a third tier suburb such as Ashland, Massachusetts (which is this blogger’s working community) has a population of 14,674 (2000 census) with only one planner on staff. In a large staffing situation, planning functions are segmented out to various staff members, while the one person staff has to be a jack of all trades.

There are 351 incorporated communities in Massachusetts; however the organizational structures of these local government units vary depending on their communities home rule charter. For example, the Town of Brookline which is an inner ring suburb of Boston has a population of 57,107 (2000 Census). This community is basically totally build-out with very few areas primed for “greenfield development.” At the same time, the City of Leominster which as a population of 41,303 (2000 Census), still has a number of “greenfield sites” available for development. Nevertheless, the staffing for the two separate planning departments are relatively similar in size; however, the organizational structure of the community has a bearing on which items are prioritized and completed for implementation procedures. In Brookline there are bi-annual town meeting votes while the City Council in Leominster meet on a bi-weekly basis. For example, zoning amendments and map changes can occur throughout the year in Leominster , while in Brookline the timing of these actions are much more limited in scope.

A few years ago, this blogger worked on a staff comparison of 85 of the 351 communities in the state. This study utilized the Massachusetts State Department of Education’s categorization of the “Kind of Community” for comparison purposes. The community categorization were based on seven sub-classes of communities: one, economically developed suburbs; two, growth communities; three, residential suburbs; four, rural economic centers, five, urban centers; six, retirement/artisan areas; seven, small rural communities.

Of the 85 communities studied, forty two were economically developed suburbs, eighteen were residential suburbs, twelve were rural economic centers, eleven were growth centers, one was a urbanized center, and one was a small rural community. Population ranged from 3,939 (1999 esimate) in Boylston, a residential suburb, to a high of 66,910(1999 estimate) in Framingham, an economically developed suburb. Of these eighty-five communities fifty seven had a Town Planner on staff. The information on the remaining communities was somewhat lacking, however these communities may rely on volunteers and other assigned from regional planning agencies. Also many of these communities had additional staff in allied positions including Conservation Agents, Town Engineers, Assistant Planners, and GIS professionals. Twenty two communities had Conservation Agents, twenty-eight communities had a Town Engineer, and thirty other communities had staff planners or technicians in GIS. Some of these communities doubled up functions such as the Community of Oxford which has its Town Engineer serving as Town Planner as well.

Twenty two communities were examined in more detail for their respective planning activities.
Where there was available data, the category of subdivision plans including cluster developments and frontage lot developments (ANRS in Massachusetts) ranged from a low of three to a high of fifty-four. Next, the category of processing commercial site plans ranged from a low of four to a high of nineteen. Three contiguous communities of Ashland, Holliston, and Hopkinton had subdivision activity totaling 73 items, while only two communities outside of the Interstate 495 belt area had that much activity. As for zoning changes, these same three contiguous communities had thirty-six zoning amendments and map changes. Only a few other communities within this study group matched these types of activities, namely Middleton, and Tewksbury for zoning changes, and Charlton, Oxford, and Sudbury for subdivision activity.

Looking at the staffing levels of these three communities: one community namely Holliston had a Building Inspector who served in a dual capacity for a short times as the Town Engineer. The other two towns had no Town Engineer. All three had one person planning staffs and each had allied assistance with a Conservation Agent.

Six towns, which were all located in the Metro West section of metropolitan Boston, were examined in terms of reporting authority by the planning staff. Of the six towns, the Town Planner reported to the Town Manager in only one town, in all other communities the Town Planner reported directly to the elected Planning Board of that community.

In summation, the amount of staffing has a direct relationship on the workload of the Planning Office. If a community is growing or has a lot of development activity, this planner will be extremely busy in his or her workload.

Mission Statement for Suburban Planning Blog

This is the initial post of this blog. The mission of this blog is multi-faceted. One, suburban planning represents a particular challenge. Many planners and others wax over the greatness of city places and rural retreats. Suburbia offers its own unique challenges. Suburban locations need to create their own niche upon the landscape. Suburban areas can be differentiated by their respective location near city centers and their respective age of their individual municipalities. This blog shall concentrate on the "third tier" suburbs which are not mature suburbs nor are they located near the central cities. These suburbs also are not necessarily exurban communities on the edge of the metropolitan fringe that characterized by large tracts of vacant lands primed for greenfield development.
Two, local government staffing for suburban planning is generally limited in its personnel and organizational set ups. One person shops are typical and will be interesting to cite reports on this subject. Three, many planning oriented individuals have spoken on the concept of new urbanism, transit oriented development, and sustainable development. How these different concepts work in suburban settings will be critical to the understanding of current and future planning. Four, this blog will not be limited to North American examples but will explore European Planning and its impact on the landscape of the United States. Five, this blog will also examine social planning. Physical planning is important; however striving for a sense of community is essential for well being of these suburban locations. In this category, the blog includes the need for planning for handicapped and special need populations within the second and third tier suburbs. In the recent past, efforts have been made to concentrate programs and activities for special needs populations in central cities and mature inner ring suburbs.