Comment 74536

By jackson (anonymous) | Posted February 18, 2012 at 21:52:52

I see no reason to play 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' planning off one another. London, for instance, has Transport for London, which coordinates transportation infrastructure through a central agency. It includes extremely rigorous planning protocols that force, for instance, development to take into account transportation consequences and build accordingly. It offers developers best practices to follow and allows considerable citizen input. The Canadian system is based on discretion and fluffy language. The provincial policy statement, for example, describes a utopian place where farmland is saved, transit maximized, goods moved, aggregates mined, the economy flourished - and no one is ever unduly affected. The result is status quo. Same thing for the growth plans and most official plans. Politicians never want to actually restrain themselves from acting. The answer in part may be to take it out of their hands. The engineer-planners you describe are no doubt unelected. In London things are done by a combination of the mayor's office, citizen input, and the transportation authority.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds