都市發展：制定計畫的邏輯 Urban Development:The Logic of Making Plans

7/30/2019 Urban Development:The Logic of Making Plans

1/65


2/65


3/65

1

1990


4/65

2

I InterdependenceIndivisibility

IrreversibilityImperfect Foresight

I

I


5/65

3

RobustFlexibilePortfolio

Dynamic Adjustment

I


6/65

5

2001 10 Seymour

Mandelbaum

2001

;


7/65

6

effect

net benefits

internal validityexternal val-

idity

physical planning


8/65

7


9/65

9

1990

2001

1950 1970

1980 1990


10/65

10

Urban DevelopmentThe Logic of Making

Plans


11/65

11

I

effectiveness

Miller, 1987

IInterdependence

IndivisibilityIrreversibilityImperfect

Foresight


12/65

12

Cohen

1972

ag-

endaspoliciesvisionsdesignsstra-

tegies

I

effectiveness

effectnet benefit

internal validityexternal validity

I


13/65

13

robust

flexibleportfoliojust-in-time

voluntary group

collective goodscol-

lective actionsprisoners dilemma


14/65

14

private goodtoll goodcommon pool good

rightsregulations

plansauthor-

ityoriginenforcementexclusivity

transferabilityspatial extenttemporal ex-

tentCoase

positive poli-

tical theory

zoningofficial

mapssubdivision regulationsurban

service areasadequate public facilities ordinan-

cesdevelopment rightsimpact fees

values


15/65

15

intersubjective

collective choicethe logic of participation

aggregation of preference

Arrow

Impossibility Theorem

planning behaviors

behaviorstasksprocesses


16/65

16

critical theory

decomposition

re-

presentation

Urban DevelopmentThe Logic of Making Plans

paradigm

positivism


17/65

17

I

I


18/65

18

http://clep.ntpu.edu.tw


19/65

21

North American

in-

terdependentirreversibleindivisible


20/65

22

imperfect foresight

Build, Operate, and

Transfer

1950


21/65

23


22/65

25

Lakewood, Ohio

Riverside, Illinois 1905

Cleveland

Erieview

1960 University of

Pennsylvania


23/65

26

Brit-

ton Harris

Bruce MacDougall

Ian McHargRussell Ackoff

Klaus KrippendorfSeymour Mandelbaum

Tom ReinerAnn Strong

University

of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Downey BrillPeter

SchaefferDoug JohnstonAlex

AnasKieran DonaghyGerrit

KnaapVarkki George

Len HeumannAndy IssermanJohn

Kim Ken Rearden Louis

WetmoreAl Guttenberg

Clyde Forrest

Daniel SchneiderDick

KlostermanJon LiebmanZorica


24/65

27

Nedovic-BudicRob Olshansky

Eliza SteelwaterBruce Williams

Bob Riley

Shih-Kung Lai

Alexandra Ortiz

TaylorvilleMatt-

hew GebhardtAllison Laff

Sathya PonnuswamyPaul Hanley

Emily Talen

Ernest Alexander

Island Press

Heather Boyer

ChampaignUrbana

Lachlan BlairApril Getchius

Bruce KnightDennis SchmidtLib-

by TylerSteven Wegman

PhoenixJoy MeeJohn

McNamaraCassandra Eker


25/65

28

Lexington

Dijon Dun-

can

Tribhuvan University

Fulbright Senior Scholar

geographic information systemNepal

Mangal Siddhi Manandhar

Sudarshan Tiwari

Don MillerTim Nyerges

University of Washington 28,000

14,000

Buck Ridge Ski Club

Sheffield Ka-

thmandu

Lexington, Kentucky


26/65

29


27/65

1

5

9

21

25

1 1

2 21

3 43

4 73

5 103

6 133

7 175

8 211

9 233

10 269

309

311

327

347


28/65

4-1 76

4-2 77

4-3 79

4-4 84

5-1 120

9-1 247

10-1 1958 274 10-2 1963 275

10-3 1973 276

10-4 284

10-5 298

1-1 16

2-1 I 33 3-1 45

4-1 76

4-2 85

6-1 159

8-1 215

9-1 237

9-2 239

10-1 283

2-1 35

2-2 35

2-3 35

5-1 110

5-2 119


29/65

1

1

1

Allan B. Jacobs 2000


30/65

2

74

Mahomet

Chicago Associates Architects and Planners

Prescrip-

tions


31/65

3

1

leader-follower


32/65

4


33/65

5

1

Oregon 2040

Portland 2040 PlanMetro 2000


34/65

6

1909Chicago Plan of 1909

Ka-

thmandu, NepalSeattle, Washington

hu-

man settlements

democratic governanceregulation

collective

choicesrights


35/65

7

1

interdependent

indivisibleirreversible

imperfect foresight

complex system

natural


36/65

8

agendaspolicies

visionsdesignsstrategies


37/65

9

1

Capital Improvements

Program

Urbana, Illinois

1970


38/65

10

contingent

net benefit


39/65

11

1

collective good

institutional forms

regulations

zoningsubdivision ordinances

property taxesimpact fees

assignment

2040


40/65

12

authority

social normssocial regulation

prescrip-

tions


41/65

13

1

collective choiceparticipation

Arrowimpossibility theorem

representati-

veness

Portland, Oregon induced

participation

1929


42/65

14

1929 Regional Plan of New York and Its EnvironsJohnson

1996sub-

division plan

prescriptions

views

consequences

deliberation


43/65

15

1

ExplanationPrediction

JustificationPrescription

Miller 1987, 135


44/65

16

ef-

fects

1-1

1-1


45/65

17

1

evidenceargument

Mandelbaum

1979settingspro-

cessesoutcomes

general the-

ory

67covering law

Miller 1987, 140

coherent

140 1


46/65

18

1950 1970

1980 1990


47/65

19

1


48/65

20


49/65

347

Action commitment to, 34 consequences linked to, 294-300 effects of plan on, in assess-ment, 59 error-controlled, 24-27 event-driven, 96 expected value, 74-81, 99 generation tasks, 190-191hedge or combination of, 94 lack of, 64 in natural systems, 21-23

opportunities for, 36-39 plan-based, 26-27 prediction-controlled, 26-27 role of design prior to, 51-52 system-challenging vs.system-maintaining, 195

Agenda, 44-46, 276, 286 control of order of voting by, 214 definition, 44-45 vs. objective, 46 scope of plan and, 293-294 vs. target, 51

use of plan as, 9, 57, 115

Allocation efficiency, 143-147 assumption of mobility of resources,151 definition, 143 exceptions to, 148-149

Allocation of time, 280

Alternatives

creation by voluntary groups, 105 irrelevant, 213 primary, and bracket, 250uncertainty with respect to, 81-82,97

Amenity protection, 158-159, 165

AICPAmerican Institute of Certified Planners (AICP),219

American Planning Association, 287

AIDAAnalysis of interconnected decision areas(AIDA), 291-292

Anchoring and adjustment bias of a problem,188, 193

Annexation, 2, 4, 10, 153, 215

Approval voting, 214

Arizona, Phoenix, 161, 246, 296

Arrows impossibility theorem, 212, 214, 216

Assembly line problem solving, 192

Assessment, 57-69 characteristics of good plans, 68 comparison tables, 252 diagnostic evaluation, 259-262

different approaches to, 59 four criteria for, 57-58 three observable phenomena in,64

Attention span, 39, 186, 200-201

Austinplan process, 256

Authority, 12, 135-143extraterriorial jurisdiction,142

within institutions, 211 multi-jurisdiction plans, 2-3 within organizations, 203, 257 plan decomposition and, 241-244

Availability bias, 189

Behavior alteration by intersub-

jective knowledge, 181, 183of construction material suppli-


50/65

348

ers, 91 counterregulatory, 117 equilibrium-seeking, 240 loyalty, 202 plan making, 57, 231, 234-235 rationality, 232-233, 236-241 reaction to signals, 116-117, 310n.7 signals of commitment, 111 too optimistic or pessimistic, 189

Beliefs, 60, 63, 212, 220, 254

Benefit. See Cost-benefit analysis; Net benefit

Bernoulli principle, 91

Brainstorming, 192-193

California Petaluma, 92, 168 progressive administration, 255 San Francisco, 258

San Ramon Valley andBishop Ranch, 275 state-mandates for local plans,67 use of plan as toll good, 121

Capital. See Financial aspects

CIPCapital improvements program (CIP), 46, 279

Census Bureau, 90-91

Citizen participation, 203, 204, 217, 219-227,252, 259

Cognitive capacity, 12, 13, 303 group, 190-194 individual, 184-190 for memory, 184-186, 268 six biases in problem solv-ing, 187-190, 206

Cognitive interpretation, 211-212

Collective choice. See also Coordination; Sta-keholders, 14, 190, 209-227 formal and informal institu-tions, 300-302 how participation works, 223-227 logic of commitment, 109-115 logic of participation, 219-223 the possibility, 210-215 principles for institutions, 215-219 vs. urban plans, 209-227

Collective goods characteristics, 120 commitment to investment in, 111-115,125, 128-129 examples, 109 exclusion from, 121 government inducements tomake plans, 124-129 inividuals issues with, 113, 143-145 investment cost-benefit analy-sis, 109-111 use of plan as, 118-121

Collective rationality, 213

Colorado Boulder, 168 Snowmass, 134

Commercial Club of Chicago, 108

Commissions, planning, 126, 204, 257

Commitment, 34

to action, 34 an agenda as, 44-47 emotional traits, 111-112 incremental and sequential, 81-83 with Integrated Action Planning,248 to investment in collective goods,110-111, 114, 128-130 precommitment strategies, 184-185

Common good. See Public interest


51/65

349

Common lands, 153

Communicative rationality, 14, 192, 235, 236-238

Community annexation. See Annexation

Complex systems, 7, 303 inertia, 30, 36 memory capacity for, 185 natural selection that led to, 29-30 stream model for, 36-40

Comprehensiveness. See Scope of plan

Consequences linked to actions, 294-300

Conservation easements, 168-170

Constitution, U.S. Fourteenth Amendment, 157 right-of -way and, 166

Consultants. See Planners, professional

Contingent circumstances, 8, 75 in sewer plant construction, 124 strategy as a path, 45, 51 use in forecasting, 23

Coordination. See also Collective choice; Sta-keholders advantages of collaboration, 192 advantages of parallel processing,

191-192 among organizations, 201-202for the common good, 2, 3, 11, 120 group cognitive capacity, 190-194 group formation and commit-ment, 111-115 implications and un-certainty with multiple groups, 103-130 selection of leaders, 113, 224-225

Cost-benefit analysis 2020 Atlanta 2020 visioningproject, 65

leapfrog development, 86 regulations, 155

Creativity, 190-192

Cultural aspects, rights defined by, 138-139

Daily calendaring, 280

Data collection and analysis, 233, 277-284

Decision analysis to calculate best strategy type,92-94 collective choice, 213-214high- vs. low-densityhousing, example, 74-81 informed vs. uninformeddecisions, 119-124

Decision making.See also

Imperfect foresight;Indivisibility; Interdependence; Irreversibility analysis of interconnected de-cision areas, 291-292 characteristics of decisions, 7-8 cognitive biases, 186-190, 206 collective. See Collectivechoice forecasts in. See also Predic-tions, 88-92 group processes, 190-194 implications of multiple groups,103-130 informed vs. uninformed,

115-117, 119-124 keeping sight of the purpose during, 1-17 prioritization. See Agenda repeat. See Policy rights to. See Authority sequential

flexibility, 92-93, 99 irreversibility of, 85-86 and uncertainty, 9-10, 81-85, 99

stream model for, 36-39, 40 views of plans for, 14, 277-284

Decomposition of plans, 241-247, 256, 288-289


52/65

350

Deed restrictions, 156

Delphi process, 212, 319n.4

Demand for housing, 85-86, 162-163

Denmark, Aalborg traffic reduction scheme, 62

Design, 276, 286

assessment, 63, 65 definition, 45, 49 evolution, 50 mechanism, 45, 49-50 scope of plan and, 293 use of plan as, 7-8

Developers focus of, 152 regulations which advocate, 155-157 role as stakeholder, 105 vs. speculators, 122 use of plan as collective

goods, 119-124

Diagonstic evaluation, 259-262

Diversity advantages in changing en-vironment, 29, 95 among decision-making groups,1-2, 190, 193 vs. portfolio strategy, 93-94

Downtown Chicago, IL, 108-109 commercial interests, 105, 151-153 plans, 67-68, 252 strategy for growth, 87 Urbana, IL, redevelop-ment, 104-108, 109

Dynamic adjustment, 30-32 vs. collective choice, 210 externality zoning and, 160 insufficient, 188-189

Economy of scale infrastructure investments, 53, 54 regional planning commissions,126 sewage treatment plant, 92, 290

Effectiveness of plan. See Assessment

Empowerment planning, 128, 253-254

Enforcement, 136-137, 140, 155-156

England, 127, 222, 317n.2

Environmental aspects conservation easements, 168-170 effects on land development, 158 intrinsic values, 176-180 natural hazards. Seestochastic processes runoff, 142 social regulation, 140

Equilibrium analysis, 27-30, 32, 39 behaviors seeking, 240 in natural systems, 27-29 between rights and regulations, 147

Error-control, 24-27

Ethical considerations. See also Social equity, 9,37 intrinsic value, 176-180

in outcome assessment, 68 of professional planners, 196-200, 253 public perception, 219, 226 zoning, 158

Evaluation. See Assessment

Evolution, 7, 24, 25, 28, 39, 237

Exclusivity, 137, 140


53/65

351

Expected value of an action, 75, 79-80, 99

Externalities, zoning for, 159-162

Fairness. See Social aspects

Federal government funding, 68, 124, 127-128 Model Cities Program, 128-129,226

right to call on service, 141 subsidization of transportation plan-ning, 129

Feedback, 24-27

Fees impact, 158, 170 for a professional planner,198

Financial aspects. See also Cost-benefit analy-sis; Economy of scale; Taxes capital improvements program, 46,279 of dynamic adjustment, 30-31, 161 federal government funding, 68,124, 127-128 fundraising through bond issues,151, 169 maximum return. SeeAllocation efficiency mobility of capital, 151-152sharing the costs, multi-

jurisdictional plans, 2

zoning, 158-159, 162-164

Flexibility, 10-11, 92-93, 99

Flooding. See Stochastic processes

Florida requirements for local plans, 128 Sanibel Island, 134

Forecasts. See Predictions

Forums. See Participation

Framing bias of a problem, 186-187

France, 31-32

Freeways. See Transportation systems

Game theory, 34-36, 110-112, 119-120

Geographic aspects, robustness and scope ofplan, 92

GISGeographic Information System (GIS), 295,323n.7

2020Georgia, Atlanta 2020 Project, 49, 65

Goal-directed behavior, 25-27

Government authority over individ-ual land ownership, 136-137 as coercive group, 113-114 councils, 217-218 division of authority amongbranches, 212 federal. See Federal govern-ment inducements to make plans,

124-129 legislation from higher and im-plementation by lower, 53-54 local, incorpo-rated to take land use actions, 133-134 multi-jurisdiction plans, 1-2municipal. See Municipalgovernmentrelating to, character-istics of a good plan, 66-67 relationship with commer-cial interests, 151-152 requirements to plan, 126-127 rights captured from pub-


54/65

352

lic domain, 139 role in Urbana down-town redevelopment, 105 state. See State government

Greenfield development, 161

Group processes. See also Collective choice,184-190, 205, 206, 209-210, 227

Growth control

1970 initiatives of 1970s, 92 Oregon, 128, 157, 167-168, 218, 288 state government oversight, 128, 157 urban service areas, 158, 159,167-168, 271-275

Harrison, Carter, 152-153

Highways. See Transportation systems

Historical background

1909Chicago Plan of 1909, 108-109 construction of infrastructure, 1411970 federal funding of 1970s,1241900 garden city of 1900s, 921970 growth control initiativesof 1970s, 92 land ownership rights, 138 Native Americans, 133, 135, 138, 140 progressive reform, 199 Prohibition, 140701 701 plans, 67, 91-92, 128 urban planning, 210

Historical districts, 170

Housingcouncil subsidized, 222 decision analysis, example,76-81, 84-85, 314n.4 high- vs. low-density devel-opment, 85-86, 162-163 replacement costs, 85-86 revenue generated by, 162-163single-fam-

ily, buffered from multifamily, 162-163 supply and demand, 91 voucher program, 56

1954701Housing Act of 1954, Section 701 plans, 67,91-92, 128

Illinois annexation, 2, 4, 10, 151-152, 215-2161909 Chicago Plan of 1909, 6, 45,49, 108, 259

1964Chicago Plan of 1964, 244-2461966 Chicago Plan of 1966, 2441967 Chicago Plan of 1967, 45 Dupage County, 125 East St. Louis, 154, 226 Hickory Creek watershed, 298 IntergovernmentalSolid Waste Disposal Agency, 215-216Mahomet Corridor Plan, 2-5, 9 Savoy, solid waste dis-posal, 215-216 Taylorville, 282Urbana, downtown redev-elopment, 104-109, 165

Urbana-Champaign Sani-tary District, 8-9, 215, 216, 287-288, 290-291 Urbana-Cham-paign solid waste disposal, 149-150, 215-216

Impact fees, 158, 170

Imperfect foresight, 7, 23, 33, 36, 40

Implementation of plan, 267-268

Index of the plan, 278-280, 283-284, 323nn.1-2

Indicative planning, 31-32

Indivisibility, 7, 23, 36, 39-40, 54, 161

Inertia, 30, 36

Information asymmetric, 115-124, 163, 315n.1


55/65

353

computing tools, 285 new

ignoring, 189 insufficient adjustment to, 188-189 revisions due to, 97-98, 269

presentation of.See also Maps; Models; Tables, 277-284, 294

Infrastructure capacity, zoning for, 162, 169 as collective goods, 121-122 decision analysis, example,

76-81, 84-85, 314n.4 investments in, 54-55leapfrog development issues,30-31, 86-87 for new retail technology, 165 zoning and, sizingand timing, 158-159, 165, 169, 290-291

Inheritance, 142, 149

Instrumental value, 176, 177, 179-180

Integrated Action Planning, 45, 248-249, 294

Interdependence of actions, 7, 23, 26, 33-34, 39, 269 contingent, 45 and decomposition of plans, 241 of infrastructure and develop-ment, 122-123 within organizations, 201-202 scope of plan basedon, 95, 287, 289,292 strategy and, 51-52

Interest rates, uncertainty, 81

ISWDAIntergovernmental Solid Waste Disposal Agency(ISWDA), 215-216

ISTEAIntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA), 129

Intrinsic value, 176-180, 205

Investments collective goods, logic analy-sis, 109-111 incremental, and uncertainty,82-83 in light-rail system planning,129 use of plan as, 94-98

Irreversibility allocation efficiently with, 151

of plan, 7, 23, 30, 33, 36, 39 sequential decisions and, 81-98, 285

Isolation error, 189

Issues definition, 37 solutions lookingfor, in stream model, 38

Jurisdiction. See Authority

Justifications, prescriptive, 15-16, 17

Kentucky, Lexington, 13, 45, 167, 271-275, 299

Knowledge intersubjective, 180 objective, 180, 182 subjective, 180

Land ownership acquisition, 121 authority implied by, 137-138 by commercial interests, 151-152 communal, 153 historical background of rights,138 in historical districts, 170 inheritance strategies, 142 sharecropping, 145 social status and, 149-150 stewardship, 149


56/65

354

Landslides. See Stochastic processes

Land use deed restrictions, 156 goal-setting and prediction-control, 25-26 indicative planning, 31 maps, 247 plan decomposition and, 243, 244, 246 plans for regulation.See also zoning, 157-170

ski slopes, 134, 153 spatial extent of a right, 137,142 timing for development, 158, 159, 165,168 vacant holding for the future,85-88

Leadership, 113, 223-225

Leapfrog development, 30-31, 86-87

Learning rate, and plan revision, 96-98

Light-rail systems, 123, 129, 165, 250

Logicof commitment for collective goods,109-115 in decision analysis, 74-81 of making plans, 65, 69, 302-304 of participation, 210, 219-223 of regulation, 154-155, 159 use of plan as collective

goods, 118-119

Malls, 106-107, 163-164

Maps, 247-248 vs. models, 247-248 official, 158-159, 166 for presentation, 278, 282-283, 295-297 urban service areas, 271-272

Market-based system of rights, 146

Marketing the plan. See Promotion

Maryland Columbia, 88, 121Montgomery County, 167, 169, 170

Massachusetts, Boston Redevelopment Author-ity, 258

Mechanisms of a plan. SeeAgenda; Design; Pol-icy; Strategy, Vision

Memory, 184-186

Merit goods, 319-320n.2

Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Council,217-218, 225-226

Mobilization of bias, 184

Model Cities Program, 128-129, 226

Models, 10, 247-249, 297-299

Monitoring dynamic adjustment, 30-32 individual effort for col-lective goods, 143-144

need for continuous, 22 role of independentvs. dependent trends, 59

Moody, Walter, 108

Moral considerations. See also Ethical consider-ations, 10

Motivation, 135, 143-144, 194


57/65

355

Muir, John, 178

Municipal government annual review, 204mayoral term and long-termdevelopment, 258 multi-jurisdiction plans, 2, 3 organization of planning function,203-205

Natural hazards, 60, 163, 298, 318-319n.1

Natural selection, 24, 28

Natural systems, 303 dynamic adjustment, 30-32 equilibrium, 27-29 examples, 7 instrumental value, 179-180 intrinsic value, 176-179, 180 plan-based action in,21-40, 309n.1

Nature Conservancy, The, 169

Negotiation, 190

Neighborhood coalitions, 152-153, 220-223, 227

Neotraditional development. See New Urbanism

Nepal Integrated Action Plans, 45, 248

Kathmandu, 64, 226 Kipat system, 147 tourism, 154

Net benefit, 58, 69 difficulty in measurement, 65, 95 lack of estimates, 99

New Urbanism externality zoning, 159 retail location, 31 as solutions in search of

issues, 38 transit and pedestrian trips, 108

New York Ramapo, 168 Regional Plan of NewYork and Its Environs of 1929, 13-14, 61, 96, 240,259

Nominal Group Technique, 192

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 125

NIMBYNot in My Backyard syndrome (NIMBY),220-221, 223, 225, 254

Observed plan making, 231-263

Official maps, 158, 159, 166

Ohio

Cincinnati Planning Guid-ance System, 278 Cleveland Policy Report of1974, 45, 253-254 Cleveland to Sha-ker Heights rapid transit, 129

Oligopoly, 113, 119, 125, 221

Opportunities to use plans, 269, 270-284

Oregon growth management program, 128,157, 167, 218, 288 Portland light-rail system,123-124, 165 Portland Metro council1,218 1996 Portland 1996 planningstudy, 2492040Portland 2040 Plan, 5, 11, 45, 49,246, 249, 288 requirements for local plans, 128


58/65

356

Organizations dynamics, 200-203, 205-206garbage can model, 37 line function of departments,258-259 municipal government as, 203-205 roles, 257-259

Outcome. See alsoAssessment; Uncertainty, 58,61-62, 65, 249, 294-300 causal relationships to the plan expected value

of an action. See Decision analysis fully worked out. See design in performance approach to as-sessment, 58 probabilities in decision making,89-91, 189 relationship to design, 63 relationship to objectives, 44 robustness in a wide variety of,92 tracking, in assessment, 60

Parallel processing, 191

Pareto principle, 213

Parks, 60-61, 209, 243

Participation ad hoc, designedsystems for, 255-256 formal and informal institu-tions, 300-302 how it works, 223-227

the logic of, 210, 219-223Pennsylvania Philadelphia long-term devel-opment plan, 258 Pittsburgh right-of-way, 166

Performance approach to assessment, 59

Pipeline processing, 191

Plan horizon. See Time horizon

Planners, professional. See also Stakeholders ethical considerations, 197-200, 253 expertise, 12, 176, 181-182, 183,195-200, 205-206 limited attention of, 39, 186-187 with neighborhood groups, 221 private investors as, 129 on retainer, 125 Urbana, IL, down-town development, 106

Planning, continuous, 241

Planning commissions, 126, 204, 257

Plans ability to makeand articulate. See Cognitive capacity action based on, 26-27, 171 alternative. SeeDecision analysis; Decision making characteristics of good, 66

vs. collective choice, 209-227 as collective goods, 118-124 decomposition, 241-247, 256, 288-289 dynamic adjustment, 30-32, 161 effectiveness. See Assessment five implications of, 22-23I four I conditions of.See also Imperfect foresight; Indivisibility; Interde-pendence; Irreversibility, 7-8, 33-34 focus on physical development,66, 278 and natural systems, 40

in observation planning, 239 and scope of plan, 289 government inducements to make,124-129 how they are made, 231-263 how they work. See also Agenda; De-sign; Policy; Strategy; Vision, 44-45, 312n.1 incomplete implementation, 62 index to, 278-284, 323nn.1-2 opportunities to use, 268-276 organizations and, 200-203 vs. regulations, 11-12 regulations and, 135-138


59/65

357

revisions. See Revisions scope. See Scope of plan six prescriptions for, 14 theory vs. reality, 4-5, 15 views for decision situations,227-284 why and how, 1-17

Policy, 47, 52, 276, 286 assessment, 62-63 causal relationships, 58, 61-62, 65, 249,294-300

defintion, 45, 294 mechanisms, 44-46 progressive, 119, 253-255 vs. regulations, 135 vs. strategy, 51-53

Political aspects, 210 democracy, 211-212, 219-220, 227, 301,320n.7log rolling, 217pork barrel projects,217 responsibility of elected legisla-

tor, 217-218

Polls, 182

Population projections. See also Growth control,31, 89-91, 232, 297

Portfolio strategy, 92-94

Predictions, 15-16 accuracy, 97 assumption of perfect foresight, 50 based on equilibrium, 29 of behavioral response, 117 as collective goods, 125 in decision situations, 88-92 imperfect foresight, 7, 23, 33, 36, 40 intentions becoming, 32-33 isolation from historical re-cords, 189lead time or hor-izon for. See Time horizon in natural systems, 22-23, 29 population. See Population

projections prediction-controlled action, 25-27 use of plan as, 91what if scenarios, 297

Prioritization of decisions. See also Agenda, 44

Prisoners dilemma, 110, 316n.4

Private sector. See Downtown; Retailers

Problem solving brainstorming, 190-192 parallel processing, 191six cognitive biases in, 187-190, 206 specialization, 191-192

Processesbreakdown into tasks,See Tasks early questions, 1-17 group, See Group processes logic in the, 13-15, 17, 66, 69, 232

progressive deepening, 250 stochastic, 59, 163, 298, 318n.1

Professional planners. See Planners, profes-sional

Progressive reform, 119, 253-255

Promotion, Chicago Plan of, 108

Psychological aspects. See also Behavior; Cog-

nitive capacity attention span, 39, 185-186, 200-201 beliefs, 211, 220, 254 creativity, 190-191 memory, 185-186 motivation, 143-144, 194 principal-agent relationship,202

Public domain, 138-139

Public facilities ordinances, 158, 159, 166, 168


60/65

358

Public interest coordination for the, 2, 3, 11, 121 planners allegiance to, 198 use of term, 183-184

Public participation. See Participation

Public perception, 6, 17

Public transit. See also Light-rail systems, 54, 59

Purpose of plans, 1-17

Quality of plan. See Validity, internal

Rationality standard, 14, 232, 236-247

Reactive action, 24-27

Real estate lobby, 156

Regional planning commissions, 126, 204, 257

Regulations. See also Zoning, 57-58 clarification of rights through, 135 coersive factor in, 114 for collective goods, 114 by develop-ers. See Subdivision regulations enforcement, 135, 136, 140, 155-156 factors in effectiveness, 57

as incentives to create plan,127-129 incentives to regulate, 155-157 logic of, 155-156 plan revision triggered by, 98 vs. plans, 52, 11-12 vs. policies, 47 signaling in, 116 zoning. See Zoning

Replicability of observations, 183

Representation in collective choice, 13, 222 of data. SeeMaps; Models; Tables definition, 175 intrinsic value and, 176 objectivity of professionalplanner, 197-198 of a problem, bias toward, 187

Residential density, 31, 85-86, 162-164

Resilience, 48

Retailers. See also Downtown big box, 164 vs. housing, revenue from,162-163 impact of anchor store, 106 relationship with local govern-ment, 151-152 role as stakeholder, 105 shopping malls, 107, 163-164store siting and asymmetr-ical information, 120 strip centers, 164

Revisions, 97-98, 269, 285

Right-of-way, 160

Rights capture from public domain,138-139 characteristics, 136-137 charification through regulation, 135,

145 to decide. See Authority de jure. See Regulations development, 159 exclusivity, 136, 139 origin of, 136-139 spatial extent, 136, 141 temporal extent, 136, 141-142, 167 transferability, 136, 139-141 transferable development, 158,169-170 vested, 142 voting. See Voting rights


61/65

359

Risk aversion, 93, 124, 179, 314n.1 distribution of, 150 intrinsic value and, 176of social isolation or exclusion,222

Roads. SeeTransportation planning; Transporta-tion systems

Robustness, 92-93Scope of plan, 13, 269 based on interdependence, 94, 269 and comprehensiveness, 4 most efficient, 287-294 rate of forecast and, 23 six implications to choose,292-293

Scott, Carson Pirie, 105-106

701701 plans, 91-92, 128

Sewage treatment planning economy of scale, 92, 289 infrastructure investments in, 56 intradependence of plantdesign, 242 lag time to residential con-struction, 124 Lexington, KY, 270-275 plant siting, 288-289 role in total plan, 204-205

scope, 94 strategy involved, 8, 122 uncertainty, 81Urbana-Champaign Sani-tary District, 8-9, 215, 287-288, 290, 291 use as a collective goods,121-124 zoing for infra-structure capacity, 162

Shopping malls, 106, 163-164

Signaling, 115-117, 310n.7

Social aspects, 12 community labor, 141-142 government and social justice,114 interactions among residents, 187 of regulatory enforcement, 140 social choice mechan-ism for collective choice, 212 social intelligence, 218 status and rights, 135, 147-150 status and zoning, 162 vision and utopias, 48

Social equity, 56, 60, 68, 147-149, 199, 253-254

Social programs, 56, 114

Solid waste management. See also Not in MyBackyard syndrome, 148-150, 215, 226

Specialization, 192

Speculators vs. developers, 122, 123 timing of development, 165

Spiritual aspects, 178, 179

Stakeholders. See alsoDevelopers; Representa-tion; Retailers; Utilities, Voluntaty groups asymmetric information among,114-116 coordination for the common

good, 1, 2, 11, 121 implications of multiple groups,103-130 repeated interaction, 112, 114

Standards of rationality, 14, 232, 236-247

State government, mandates for local plans, 67,128

Stewardship, 149


62/65

360

Stochastic processes, natural hazards, 59, 163,298, 318n.1

Stores. See Retailers

Strategy, 277, 286 assessment, 63 definition, 45, 51 flexible, 92-93, 99 just-in-time, 92

mechanisms, 45 portfolio, 92, 94 robust, 92-93 uncertainty and, 85 use of plan as, 7, 52-53, 57, 85-88,96-99, 274-276

Subdivision regulations , 157-159, 167, 244

Supply and demand, 91, 145, 163-164

Switzerland, 153

Systems of rights, 138-140, 144, 147, 148, 171,317n.2

Tables, comparison, 251

Taiwan, 129

Target, vs. agenda, 51

Tasks diagnostic evaluation, 259-262 plan making, 232-235 types, 124, 234

Taxes coercive nature, 114 inheritance, 149 Pigovian, 146, 161

Time horizon, 88-89, 95-96

information on collective goods,121-122 plan decomposition and, 246

Time management, 280

Toll goods, 110, 120-121

Tourism, 134, 153

Traffic. See Transportation planning

Transferability of rights, 137, 140-142

Transferable development, 158, 169-170

Transportation planning Aalborg traffic reductionscheme, 62 commuting cost, 86 federal subsidization, 128 for infrastructure investments,53-55 portfolio strategy, 94 by private investors, 128-129 role in total plan, 204-205 trips per unit of land, 31, 186

Transportation systems collective good limitations, 109-110 highway, interchange loc-ation, 2 light-rail, 123, 128-129, 165, 250 right-of-way, 166 streetcar, 129

Trusts, public or community, 139, 154

Uncertainty, 10, 103, 303 in infrastructure investment, 55 learning rate and plan re-vision, 296-297Mahomet Corridor plan, 9 predictions, 15-17 relationship of plan actionsto outcome, 59, 74


63/65

361

with respect to alternatives, 82, 96,106-108 with respect to the environment, 81,96 with respect to values, 82, 96 and sequential decisions, 9-10, 81-85,96

UIDCUrban Investment and Development Corporation(UIDC), 125

Urban plans. See Plans

Urban service areas, 158, 159, 166-167, 271-275

Utilities, 104

Validity external, 73, 68-69 internal, 66-69, 72

Values difficulty to express, 184 instrumental, 176-177, 179-180 intersubjective, 180-181 intrinsic, 176-180, 206 objective, 180 subjective, 180, 182 three ways they arise, 182

Vehicles. See Transportation planning

Venezuela, 187

Virginia Reston, 87Williamsburg, 192

Vision, 47, 254, 276, 286 assessment, 63, 261 2020 Atlanta 2020 Project, 65 definition, 45, 47 mechanism, 45-48 scope of plan and, 293 use of plan as, 9, 57, 115, 313n.2

Voluntary groups. See also Citizen participation citizen boards, 203-204 community labor by, 141-142 creation of alternatives by, 106 effects of size, 112-114 government inducements tomake plans, 124-129 local government in, 134-135 logic of commitment among,109-115 neighborhood coalitions, 152-153,220-222

selection of leader, 113, 223-225

Vote trading, 214-215, 220-221

Voting preferences and collective choice,

213-214, 220-221

Voting rights, 134, 141, 150-151

H.

Wacker, Charles H, 109

Washington growth management program, 167 requirements for local plans, 128 Seattle, 168, 207, 257

2000Washington, DC, 2000 Wedges and CorridorsPlan, 45, 96, 169

Waste management. See Not in My Backyardsyndrome; Solid waste management

Wedands, 179-180

What if scenarios, 297

Wilderness. See Natural systems

World Wide Web, 286


64/65

362

Zoning for amenity protection, 158, 159,165 Empowerment Zones, 129 for externalities, 158-162 for fiscal objectives, 163 hierarchical, 160 implementation, 56 industrial vs. residential, 2for infrastructure capacity,162, 169 lot sizes. See Sub-

division regulations to manage supply, 164-165 prediction-controlled actionin, 26 real estate lobby advocacy, 156 review and proposals, 126 rezoning, 275-276 role in plans, 12 seven ways landdevelopment issues are addressed, 158 for timing of development,158-159, 165, 168


65/65

Lewis D. Hopkins; .

., 2005 [ 94]

.

:

I S B N: 978-957-11-4054-4

Urban development : the logic of making

plans.

1.

545.1 94014085 5T04

Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans

Lewis D. Hopkins

106 339 4

(02)2705-5066 (02)2706-6100

http://www.wunan.com.tw

[email protected]

01068953

/ 6

(04)2223-0891 (04)2223-3549

/ 290

(07)2358-702 (07)2350-236

都市發展：制定計畫的邏輯 Urban Development:The Logic of Making Plans

Documents

Transcript of 都市發展：制定計畫的邏輯 Urban Development:The Logic of Making Plans