planning process and skills paper
TRANSCRIPT
Elements of a Plan
URP 6101
Planning Process and Skills
Dr. Jaap Vos
John-‐Mark Palacios
Palacios 2 of 22
Table of Contents
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................3
Vision and Design...................................................................................................................................................3
Early Development...........................................................................................................................................4
Directing the Design.........................................................................................................................................5
Implementation.......................................................................................................................................................8
Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................................9
Legislation and Power........................................................................................................................................11
The Wellington Comprehensive Plan...........................................................................................................14
Vision...................................................................................................................................................................14
Implementation...............................................................................................................................................16
Public Involvement........................................................................................................................................18
Legislation.........................................................................................................................................................19
Bibliography...........................................................................................................................................................20
Palacios 3 of 22
Introduction
The art of planning has evolved over the past century. In the United States, planning has
gone from an occasional occurrence to a part of the normal development process. Through
trial and error as well as research, planners have worked out the details that should be
included in a plan. No plan is useful without vision, which could be in the form of a broad
vision or a detailed design. Actions and strategies must be provided in order to implement
that vision. The plan should incorporate broad public participation, and it needs legislative
support in order to give it the power to make a difference.
Vision and Design
At the beginning of the 20th century, concepts such as the Garden City, put forth by Ebenezer
Howard in England, and the City Beautiful movement in North America (exempliZied in the
Chicago Plan), enlarged the focus on urban planning.1 These planning efforts are known
primarily for their vision for the city and the form of the urban design. Hopkins states that
the goal of a vision is to visualize the city after the plan has been implemented. A design,
while still focusing on the outcome, narrows down the vision to Zlesh out the speciZic
details.2 Without vision or design, the plan has no real goal.
1 Daniels, “A Trail Across Time,” 181.
2 Hopkins, Urban Development, 39-‐40.
Palacios 4 of 22
Early Development
Ebenezer Howard's Garden Cities proposed a design for one aspect of the city. While his
intent was good and his ideas were good, the Garden City movement seems to have
contributed more to suburbs than to actually improving the city as a whole. The concept of
the Garden City was originally put forward by Howard as a solution to the problem of
urbanization. While today we accept urbanization as a fact and something to deal with by
improving conditions in the city, many in Howard's day wanted to Zind a way to keep people
in the country. He cites a newspaper that calls the increasing urbanization, people moving
from the countryside to the city, “one of the main problems of the day.”3 Many others
describe the evil of overcrowding in the city caused by the inZlux of people from the
country.4 In this context, then, Howard presents his idea for the Garden City. Instead of
trying to encourage people to stay in the country or discourage them from moving to the
city, he took a view more similar to current attitudes and proposed an improvement to the
city.
In 1910, C.H. Reilly suggests England was focused only on these garden city style suburbs
instead of having a vision for the whole city. He states that American cities such as Chicago
dreamt of being like Paris, with its wide boulevards, open spaces, monuments, and
expansive vistas.5 Hopkins calls the Chicago Plan of 1909 that proposed these European
3 Howard, Garden cities of tomorrow, 12.
4 Ibid., 11-‐13.
5 Reilly and Abercrombie, “Town Planning Schemes in America,” 54-‐55.
Palacios 5 of 22
visions a good example of a visionary plan. Abercrombie lauds the plans' attractive color
illustrations showing the proposed features;6 and Hopkins points out that these graphics, as
well as verbal descriptions, do an excellent job of communicating the vision.7
Directing the Design
Abercrombie summarizes the 1909 Chicago plan and offers several speciZic critiques. He
seemed to appreciate the plan to improve the waterfront with public parks,8 but he
criticizes the plan to maintain the grid street network and add diagonal streets later where
needed. He suggests instead a radial layout from the start, with diagonal streets like spokes
on a wheel providing access to the city center.9
More than 30 years after Howard's Garden Cities, Raymond Unwin touted some of the
concepts of the garden city. He used Letchworth, one of the few cities described as a proper
garden city, as an example. While the paper seems to be advocating for the same garden city
concept that Howard developed, Unwin focuses primarily on the aspects of density and
planning. He argues that a “town planned to reach a certain maximum size” is the only way
to achieve a good balance between the need for open space in the country and the need for
urban amenities.10 But within that scope he shows how doubling the residential density
6 Ibid., 56.
7 Hopkins, Urban Development, 39.
8 Reilly and Abercrombie, “Town Planning Schemes in America,” 57, 59-‐60.
9 Ibid., 58.
10 Unwin, “Urban Development the Pattern and the Background,” 52.
Palacios 6 of 22
does not halve the city's area, arguing that lower density is preferable to avoid
overcrowding since it has a minimal impact to area.11 While the lower density might have
few negative impacts in a perfectly planned garden city, planners in the post-‐World War II
era seemed to embrace the low density forms without the other aspects of a proper garden
city.
These critiques beg the question of what a design should include. In 1984, Kevin Lynch
proposed some criteria for planning that focused on the urban form, which he referred to as
“dimensions of performance.”12 He calls out vitality, sense, Zit, access, and control as the Zive
basic dimensions, then adds efZiciency and justice as “meta-‐criteria.”13 While at Zirst glance
some of these dimensions seem abstract, Lynch suggests that we use them in order to
determine the quality of a city or a project. Criteria such as these are well worth evaluating
when determining the direction of a plan. Planners are now beginning to incorporate more
of these dimensions, with criteria such as “livability” being added to federal grant programs
under the direction of Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.14
In 1949, Benjamin Higgins pointed out that planning, while incorporating various sciences,
was itself more of an art than a science. He wanted to see planning become a scientiZic
discipline, so he proposed various objectives that could be incorporated into planning and
11 Ibid., 50.
12 Lynch, “Dimensions of Performance.”
13 Ibid., 122-‐123.
14 Raphael, “Livability to Become Requirement in Federal Transportation Policy.”
Palacios 7 of 22
analyzed scientiZically. These objectives provide a quantitative method for solving design
issues. Many of these objectives are in use today, especially in the more scientiZic areas such
as transportation planning. Minimizing travel time15 is used heavily in transportation
planning and engineering. Maximizing social product16 is a concept that was used in
planning, especially with utilitarianism, trying to produce “the greatest good for the
greatest number” of people.17 The general concept of social product is still used, although
we focus on who gets the social product more than just a total increase.18 Another objective
that Higgins proposed, “optimum density,”19 is always a hot topic in planning and
development. It seems, however, that it is used primarily by private enterprise to optimize
the density for the developer's proZit. Planners tend to set maximums or minimums in land
use planning, but leave it to developers to decide the proper density. Outside of areas where
the local government planners meddle with the free market by imposing regulations such
as minimum parking requirements20, private enterprise planners optimize density based on
the optimal return-‐on-‐investment.21 This has seemed to work, at least where the planners
are accurately accounting for all the factors and not just chasing potentially overinZlated
markets.
15 Higgins, “Towards a Science of Community Planning,” 9.
16 Ibid., 11-‐12.
17 Brooks, Planning Theory for Practitioners, 64.
18 Ibid., 65.
19 Higgins, “Towards a Science of Community Planning,” 10-‐11.
20 Shoup, “The High Cost of Free Parking.”
21 Vos, “History and Planning Theory.”
Palacios 8 of 22
Implementation
A plan may have grandiose visions and detailed designs, but without a method of getting to
those goals it is rather useless. Hopkins proposes three methods that plans can include for
implementation: agendas, policies, and strategies.22
Agendas are little more than a to-‐do list that must be acted on in order to implement the
plan. Hopkins gives a Capital Improvement Plan as an example of an agenda, though he
points out that the 1909 Chicago Plan also used this method.23 Hopkins calls policies “if-‐
then” rules.24 In other words, do something only when something else happens.
Transportation concurrency would be one example, where development is only permitted if
a road is improved. Agendas and policies are both oriented towards more speciZic actions
that can be accomplished in the short term to achieve the overall goal.
Strategies look at the bigger picture of actions and their interrelations and provide the
sequence of decisions to follow. Hopkins points out that a strategy might come up with a
policy in order to achieve a goal, but it would do so while coordinating how other potential
policies or actions would work toward its goal. A strategy might also create or link policies
for different areas in order to implement a regional goal.25 Unlike agendas or policies,
22 Hopkins, Urban Development, 34-‐42.
23 Ibid., 34-‐37.
24 Ibid., 35.
25 Ibid., 41-‐42.
Palacios 9 of 22
strategies can include the bigger picture and might be able to include more long term
decisions needed to achieve the desired goal.
Public Involvement
In the middle of the 20th Century, Jane Jacobs began writing on the subject of planning and
urban form from the perspective of a normal citizen. In 1958 she published “Downtown is
for People” in The Exploding Metropolis, an article that would form the basis for her book
Death and Life of Great American Cities. Jacobs spent time observing streets that worked,
and commented on those aspects she felt planners needed to include in order to create
vibrant cities. For instance, she talks about a “two-‐shift city” that has ofZice space to keep it
functioning through the day, plus residences and hotels and entertainment to keep going
through the night. She says that this makes the space inviting to restaurants for both the
lunch and dinner crowds, plus opens up opportunities for basically any other kinds of
shops or venues.26 Jacobs criticizes the dull, boring, and sterile government projects that
were popular with planners in the 50s and 60s. She advocates that the city have a variety of
entertainment venues and amenities, plus a mix of uses, and sums up the qualities we
should look for by suggesting that we (citizens, not just planners) ask “will the city be any
fun?”27
26 Jacobs, “Downtown is for People,” 129-‐130.
27 Ibid., 131.
Palacios 10 of 22
Authors such as James Howard Kunstler28, as well as a myriad of bloggers on sites such as
Streetsblog.org29, The City Fix30 and TransitMiami.com31 and others have taken up Jacobs'
mantle of citizens criticizing planning issues. These vocal citizens highlight the demand and
need for public input into the planning process. The Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS)
movement within transportation planning and engineering is an example of one response
from professionals to try to accommodate citizen's wishes32, but the process is relatively
new and not yet fully integrated into government agencies' culture and processes. An
example of the issues can be seen at the Florida Department of Transportation, which has
an ofZicial CSS policy at the statewide level33, but has received criticism lately at the local
level for not including the desires of local citizens in its normal project development
processes.34
Conroy and Berke concur that a good public participation effort is important to making a
plan sustainable. They scored sustainable development plans and found that a broader
28 Kunstler, The Geography of Nowhere.
29 “Streetsblog New York City.”
30 “TheCityFix.com | Sustainable Urban Mobility.”
31 “Transit Miami.”
32 “What Is CSS?.”
33 Kopelousus, “Context Sensitive Solutions.”
34 Azenha, “FDOT is Broken. How Do We Fix It?.”
Palacios 11 of 22
public participation effort led to a more sustainable plan.35 No plan should be completed
without a thorough public input process.
Legislation and Power
Bogotá is lifted up as an example for the world to follow, with their Ciclovía, Bus Rapid
Transit, and overall transformation of their public spaces. In 2010 Rachel Berney wrote
how this transformation came about over the past two decades through the efforts of some
good mayors and their planning staff. From 1995-‐2003, two different mayors, Antonus
Mockus and Enrique Peñalosa, made some major changes in the capital of Colombia. In the
years leading up to their terms, national legislation had strengthened the government's
ability to use public space.36 Although these mayors were elected, the techniques they used
focused more on experts deciding the best direction to take the city than on public
participation and involvement.37 They even used their projects in what Berney calls
“pedagogical urbanism,” teaching the citizens how to behave as part of the urban
redevelopment process.38 Despite lack of involvement in the planning, these techniques
were accepted by the city, and they began to see the public spaces as their own.39 It stands
35 Conroy and Berke, “What makes a good sustainable development plan?,” 1392.
36 Berney, “Learning from Bogotá,” 539.
37 Ibid., 544-‐545.
38 Ibid., 550-‐551.
39 Ibid., 551-‐554.
Palacios 12 of 22
quite in contrast to the models used in the Unites States, but demonstrates what can be
accomplished with more power to a visionary government.
The government's power to implement planning has been developed through the 20th
century. In 1910, the United States was interested in urban planning but suffered from a
lack of legislation to back it.40 California became the Zirst state to adopt a local planning
mandate in 1937, but this was not very strong. Other states passed legislation requiring
local plans in the 1970s, with further strengthening in the 1980s. Different studies
evaluating plan quality have shown that these state mandates are somewhat effective in
making quality plans.41
As World War II was winding down, Schaffer discusses a solution proposed in Britain's
parliament to the issue of sustainability. While it was not referred to as “sustainability” in
that day, the problem being addressed was that a town suffered when one industry on
which it relied heavily declined. The proposal under discussion at the time was to grant
some planning authority at the national level, to let the Board of Trade have input on
whether a large factory could go into a particular city.42 Since that day, several state and
national level agencies have been created to provide input into local plans. The US federal
government required locals to prepare a general plan in order to be eligible for many
40 Reilly and Abercrombie, “Town Planning Schemes in America,” 54.
41 Berke and French, “The InZluence of State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality,” 246-‐247; Conroy and
Berke, “What makes a good sustainable development plan?,” 1394.
42 Schaffer, “Britain's Plan to End the “One Industry” Town,” 28.
Palacios 13 of 22
federal grants.43 Florida's Department of Community Affairs is tasked with enforcing the
state mandate for local plans by reviewing the plans to ensure that the legally required plan
elements are present.
Charles Haar wrote about the legal aspects of a master plan in 1955. He compared it to a
constitution, because it can become law through adoption by the local legislature. If it
becomes law, it controls other laws in much the same way a constitution does. The chief
difference between it and a constitution is in how it can be amended. A constitution must
be amended by signiZicant majorities, such as a 61% or 75% vote; however, the master plan
can change with a simple majority, as easily as any other law. Haar suggests that planners
yearn "for an absolute principle, and a master plan that truly answers all questions,"44 with
the implication that a master plan that requires a more signiZicant vote to change it would
be more absolute. With the legislative situation in Florida becoming quite controversial,
perhaps a less Zlexible master plan would help appease the citizens fed up with
commissions who tweak the plans too often. This might require the overall vision of the
plan to remain constant for a longer period of time, while speciZic strategies or policies
could be reviewed on a regular basis.
43 Kaiser and Godschalk, “Twentieth Century Land Use Planning,” 368.
44 Haar, “The Master Plan, an Impermanent Constitution,” 147.
Palacios 14 of 22
The Wellington Comprehensive Plan
The Village of Wellington, Florida, developed a comprehensive plan in accordance with
Florida Statute.45 It consists of an introduction and eleven different elements, including land
use, transportation, housing, infrastructure, conservation, recreation and open space,
intergovernmental coordination, capital improvement, education, public school facilities,
and equestrian preservation. Most of these elements are present to fulZill a state required
mandate. Each element has one goal (with the exception of the public school element, with
two), followed by a series of more speciZic objectives with policies to implement them. The
overall gist of the comprehensive plan is that Wellington wants to be a low density
residential city with a good number of parks and open spaces as well as equestrian
facilities. It's not particularly widespread and probably not much different than the city
already looks, but it is still a vision in the strictest sense.
Vision
The goals are essentially the overall vision for the element. For example, the goal for the
Land Use element is:
Ensure that the future land-‐use pattern “preserves and protects the distinctive
characteristics of the individual communities” which makes up Wellington and maintains
a low-‐density residential character, enhances community economic opportunities,
45 “Wellington | Planning & Zoning | Comprehensive Plan.”
Palacios 15 of 22
discourages urban sprawl, promotes energy efZicient land use patterns, maintains an
aesthetically appealing and safely built environment, respects environmental
constraints, and provides services for all citizens at the levels established herein.
Wellington’s Land Development Regulations at all times shall remain consistent with
Wellington’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Zirst part is more or less a vision for what the land use should look like. It is a bit
contrary. For instance, how do you discourage urban sprawl while maintaining a low
density residential character for the whole area? The last part of this goal is more of a
policy than a vision.
The plan reads more like something designed to fulZill a requirement than a vision for the
city. For instance, Objective 1.11 under the Transportation element states that Wellington
will meet the requirements of Florida Statue 163.3177 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
then states that the strategies are contained within the other objectives and policies.
Presumably the statutory requirements were met without having this objective, but it was
probably put in to keep the city from being sued or to make sure reviewers could check off
a box that the requirement was met. Even the introduction supports this goal, with the Zirst
four pages discussing state requirements, then the remainder discussing the Village's
existing population and land use as well as the services provided by the city.
Palacios 16 of 22
The plan does include some maps, such as the future land use maps and the equestrian trail
master plan, that show the vision for the city. While the plan contains a number of other
maps, they all show existing features such as parks or water conservation areas. What is
lacking are any renderings or drawings to show what the proposed land use densities might
look like or what the equestrian trails might look like. Unlike the Chicago Plan with its color
pictures and maps, the Wellington Comprehensive Plan presents the majority of its vision in
words. It seems to Zit well into what Kaiser and Godschalk called the “verbal policy plan.”46
Some of the goals read more like strategies than visions. While the Education element has a
nice sounding goal talking about education improving the quality of life for the citizens, the
Public School element has one of its goals to meet a level of service standard, and another
to coordinate school siting. Those may be effective strategies to improve the education and
quality of life for the citizens, but they are no vision. The organization would have made
more sense with the Public School Facilities element combined under the Education
element.
Implementation
The plan makes good use of strategies in what it terms “objectives.” The objectives have
multiple policies underneath them that are more speciZic, and in general the objectives
provide a strategy for reaching the goal or vision.
46 Kaiser and Godschalk, “Twentieth Century Land Use Planning,” 372.
Palacios 17 of 22
The strategies can be a little redundant at times due to the way the plan is set up with
separate elements splitting up the overall vision. A strategy that might be able to
encompass multiple policies to achieve the overall vision gets repeated under the individual
element goals. For instance, school siting is discussed as Goal 2.0 of the Public School
Facilities element and Objective 1.4 of the Education element and Objective 1.9 of the Land
Use Element. It would be much easier to follow the entire school siting strategy if it were in
one location instead of three, but it seems the intent of the placement is to show the land
use portion of the school siting under its element, the city's funding interests under the
Education element, and the tasks required to work with the county school district under
the Public School Facilities element. A less confusing way that would still have the required
elements would be to place all the school siting strategies in one place under one element,
and then utilize modern document capabilities to place a hyperlink under the remaining
element sections linking to the related objectives or policies.
The policies in the comprehensive plan are not all policies in the sense of the “if-‐then”
rule47, as some are simply action items. For instance, policy 1.1.4 in the Capital
Improvements element states, “Wellington shall regularly schedule inspections of all capital
facilities to monitor and record conditions.” There is no real condition to that policy, it
merely requires that an action be done on a regular basis. Other policies do fall under the
“if-‐then” rule, such as policy 1.1.14 in the Transportation element, which states: “Wellington
shall install bicycle lanes if feasible when collector roadways are expanded.” Simply
47 Hopkins, Urban Development, 35.
Palacios 18 of 22
understood, if a collector roadway is expanded, then bicycle lanes should be installed. (It is
perhaps not as strong as it could be, leaving an easy out with the phrase “if feasible.”
Anyone who does not want to include bicycle lanes on their project will not Zind it feasible.)
Clearly the plan uses a mixture of agendas and policies in order to achieve the desired
results. Some of these items could be made more speciZic or stronger to achieve the goals
more readily; but, given that the overall vision is not that different from the existing
condition, perhaps that would be pointless.
Public Involvement
Wellington's Comprehensive Plan does not discuss the public involvement process used in
its development. The introduction mentions a public participation effort connected to the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), but that document is nowhere to be found on
Wellington's multiple websites or in the comprehensive plan. One can only assume, then—
especially since everything else in the plan is so quick to point out how it meets state
requirements—that the public involvement was limited to the statutory requirements. This
seems to consist primarily of public hearings at certain points in the process where
members of the public can speak out or submit written comments. Given the growing
dissatisfaction with the process as discussed above, as well as public support for
amendments such as Hometown Democracy requiring a vote on any comprehensive plan
changes in Florida, it would seem that public participation that merely meets the statutory
requirement is not sufZicient.
Palacios 19 of 22
Legislation
The Comprehensive Plan appears to meet all the state mandates, and it gets adopted by the
city commission, so it would seem to be in good shape from a legislation viewpoint. The
version reviewed in this document does not have an adoption date listed, however. It needs
to be made clear somewhere in the plan that it has legislative support. Throughout the plan
are references to Florida Statute and administrative code, so it seems to have support there
for individual strategies or policies. Statements in the introduction about Senate Bill 360
indicate that even this is in a somewhat unknown state. The plan indicates that changes to
the plan may be required due to the passage of Senate Bill 360.
Looking at this from Haar's wish to see the master plan as a constitution, this
comprehensive plan falls short. As mentioned in the plan's introduction, state requirements
require an evaluation at least every seven years. While a constitution could be updated at
any time, it does not have a forced update period. Knowing that the comprehensive plan
will likely be changed so often makes it easier for planners to get too speciZic and less
visionary. If at least the goals of the plan had to remain constant for a longer period of time,
perhaps the city would put forth the effort to produce a visionary plan that they, their
children, and future residents would appreciate.
Palacios 20 of 22
Bibliography
Azenha, Felipe. “FDOT is Broken. How Do We Fix It?.” Transit Miami, November 23, 2010.
http://www.transitmiami.com/2010/11/23/fdot-‐is-‐broken-‐how-‐do-‐we-‐Zix-‐it/.
Berke, Philip R., and Steven P. French. “The InZluence of State Planning Mandates on Local
Plan Quality.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 13, no. 4 (July 1, 1994):
237 -‐250.
Berney, Rachel. “Learning from Bogotá: How Municipal Experts Transformed Public Space.”
Journal of Urban Design 15, no. 4 (2010): 539-‐558.
Brooks, Michael. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago: Planner's Press, 2002.
Conroy, Maria Manta, and Philip R Berke. “What makes a good sustainable development
plan? An analysis of factors that inZluence principles of sustainable development.”
Environment and Planning A 36, no. 8 (2004): 1381 – 1396.
Daniels, Thomas L. “A Trail Across Time: American Environmental Planning From City
Beautiful to Sustainability.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75, no. 2
(2009): 178.
Haar, Charles M. “The Master Plan, an Impermanent Constitution.” Law and Contemporary
Problems, 1955, In The Urban and Regional Planning Reader, edited by Eugénie Birch,
140-‐147. New York: Routledge, 2009.
Higgins, Benjamin. “Towards a Science of Community Planning.” Journal of the American
Institute of Planners 15, no. 3 (1949): 3-‐13.
Palacios 21 of 22
Hopkins, Lewis D. Urban Development: The Logic Of Making Plans. 1st ed. Washington:
Island Press, 2001.
Howard, Sir Ebenezer. Garden cities of tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Ltd.,
1902.
Jacobs, Jane. “Downtown is for People.” The Exploding Metropolis, 1958, In The Urban and
Regional Planning Reader, edited by Eugénie Birch, 124-‐131. Routledge, 2009.
Kaiser, Edward J., and David R. Godschalk. “Twentieth Century Land Use Planning: A
Stalwart Family Tree.” Journal of the American Planning Association 61, no. 3 (1995):
365.
Kopelousus, Stephanie. “Context Sensitive Solutions.” Florida Department of
Transportation, November 20, 2008.
http://www2.dot.state.Zl.us/proceduraldocuments/procedures/bin/000650002.pdf
.
Kunstler, James Howard. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-‐
Made Landscape. New York: Free Press, 1993.
Lynch, Kevin. “Dimensions of Performance.” A Theory of Good City Form, 1984, In The Urban
and Regional Planning Reader, edited by Eugénie Birch, 118-‐123. New York:
Routledge, 2009.
Raphael, Craig. “Livability to Become Requirement in Federal Transportation Policy.” Project
for Public Spaces -‐ Placemaking for Communities, January 29, 2010.
http://www.pps.org/livability-‐to-‐become-‐requirement-‐in-‐federal-‐transportation-‐
Palacios 22 of 22
policy/.
Reilly, C. H., and P. Abercrombie. “Town Planning Schemes in America.” The Town Planning
Review 1, no. 1 (April 1910): 54-‐65.
Schaffer, Gordon. “Britain's Plan to End the “One Industry” Town.” Journal of the American
Institute of Planners 11, no. 1 (1945): 28.
Shoup, Donald C. “The High Cost of Free Parking.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 17, no. 1 (Fall 1997): 3 -‐20.
“Streetsblog New York City,” November 24, 2010. http://www.streetsblog.org/.
“TheCityFix.com | Sustainable Urban Mobility.” The City Fix, n.d. http://thecityZix.com/.
“Transit Miami.” TransitMiami.com, November 27, 2010. http://www.transitmiami.com/.
Unwin, Raymond. “Urban Development the Pattern and the Background.” Planners' Journal
1, no. 3 (1935): 45-‐54.
Vos, Jaap. “History and Planning Theory” presented at the Planning Process and Skills, Fort
Lauderdale, FL, August 30, 2010.
“Wellington | Planning & Zoning | Comprehensive Plan.” Wellington, n.d.
http://www.wellingtonZl.gov/html/Departments/PlanningZoning/comprehensive_
plan.php.
“What Is CSS?.” Context Sensitive Solutions.org -‐ A CSS support center for the transportation
community., n.d. http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/topics/what_is_css/.