Planners as Knowledge Assemblers, Disseminators and Translators (August 18, 2023)
... Legible Knowledge Transfer is at the Core of the Role of a Planner
Vlog Overview
This free parks and urban planning vlog is intended to share my 30+ years of parks practitioner experience married with my recently completed (2019) Phd exploring park and urban planning decision-making processes. The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone. They are not intended to be the definitive answers or positions, but instead suggest hopefully engender reflection on your own practices.
For more information about my vlog, and why you should subscribe, please read the vlog entitled “The Use Case for Parks Are Like Icebergs Vlog.,” March 5, 2023. In this vlog, I ask the following questions. Are we sharing information in land use change processes that are legible to the community, or do they appear to be another language like the sign above? How do we assemble, disseminate and translate knowledge in our processes? Can and how can we do this as we seek to expedite development approval processes?
Todays Ice Sculpture:
Planners as Knowledge Assemblers, Disseminators, Translators in Managing Processes
Urban planning processes operate simultaneously at two scales - the macro (policy) and the micro (site). The macro is described in legislation, municipal development plans and strategic plans, all designed to create high level directives that by their nature are very broad with overlapping high-level statements (i.e., economic, social, ecological well being). Those documents are crafted with extensive, public engagement including state and non-state actors. The documents are useful as the starting point for implementation actions (i.e. area plans, zoning bylaws, plans of subdivision, engineering drawings, etc) and have specific site (micro) implications.
At the micro level local residents are physically present, more directly impacted by land use change, and are the source of knowledge with respect to the lived experiences of the local setting. In this setting applying macro statements is not an abstract concept. Each neighbourhood is physically, demographically, socially, environmentally and economically different.
The planner (and administrators and elected officials) are integral in terms of information assembly, dissemination and translators in managing both macro and micro processes.
Definitions/Terminology
We often define the role of urban planning in terms of high level goals or outcomes (i.e., city builders, place makers, etc.). Job descriptions detail the specific technocratic tasks they must undertake (i.e., policy development, plan reviewers, subdivision officers, etc.) However, the role of the planner is much more fundamental than even those terms imply.
Planners as knowledge assemblers. Strategy, policy and land use change processes assemble knowledge of the past and present from multiple sources specific to the issue or file at hand. Knowledge assembly extends beyond these written documents and includes community information gathering. Community itself is an integral source of knowledge in addition to our processes that are significantly influenced or privileged by internal and external professionals (i.e., planners, engineers, social workers, police, fire, etc.)
Planners as knowledge disseminators. Planners are charged with telling a story of the future, in the present, informed by the past, using the assembled knowledge within processes. It matters what information is shared, when, with whom and how.
Planners as knowledge translators. Given that urban land use planning and governance more broadly is full of legalese and jargon embedded in our legislation, policy, practices and processes we must interact with internal and external social actors to explain the words we have used in processes.
I will use a recent example land use change process (Aster Neighbourhood July 10, 2023) to highlight our use of language.
Aster Neighbourhood Plan Amendment (approved July 10, 2023)
The information provided below are what the general public could touch or see.A landowner came forward to develop housing and ask for zoning changes to the existing area plan. No information is provided that shares why this was initiated or by whom. The first community notice was mailed to selected residents. Its not clear who received this, but its likely within 60m.
Initial Public Notice (April 14, 2023)
Site Sign (posted April, 2023 in the. community)
Behind the scene, an internal review occurred. This is normal as the proposed change is reviewed for compliance with policy, practices, standards, etc. As part of this, the file planner collected outstanding community concerns (6 calls) generated by the sign and notice. Some minor changes were made. The Administration determined they would support the application, and the original community notice residents were once again sent a notice of an upcoming public hearing.
Public Hearing Notice (June 15, 2023)
It was determined internally that no public meeting to share the file was necessary, because in part the information shared did not raise concerns with internal or external stakeholders. The application public hearing was advertised in local newspapers on June 23 and 30.
Council Agenda (posted mid June 2023)
A resident or otherwise interested party would need to access the city web site, locate the agenda, find the file, and download to read the report. There were 21 Bylaws under consideration on that same day, some that would be combined together, meaning about 10 separate public hearings. The council meeting started at 9:30AM and was to adjourn at 5PM. (The entire agenda was 505 pages long. Aren’t you glad you are not a councillor?)
The Aster application file name, pulled from the agency is highlighted below.
The Council reports for the two Aster files are included as well on the web site along with detailed site information, totalling 60 pages including multiple maps and graphics.
Council Reporting Review (July 10, 2023)
At the hearing, there was a presentation from administrators, two elected officials asked questions about the files and nobody from the public asked to speak. Below are excerpts from the Aster Files.
Space does not permit showing all 60 pages. This is pretty pro forma in terms of land use change process, council reporting and public engagement, consistent with the legislation. I know some of the planners handling these files and always found them to be ethical.
Process Overview Summary (not part of shared information)
This graphic appears on the city web site. I have tracked this particular file based on the information gathered.
Parks Nerd Concern
The entire school and park site is zoned US, or Urban Service. Urban Service zoning allows as a permitted use “supportive housing.” The zoning was applied to the entire site park site. This application to the entire site has been a change in practice since I retired from the City in 2014, and was changed in 2020 to expedite approvals. When pressed on this subject, I was told that there is no “intention” to use the site for housing, and if it did occur, it would require a zoning bylaw change to housing, including reserve removal. Moreover, I could not find an easily accessible and understood definition of supportive housing. I was told supportive housing was originally intended to address homeless populations. Its not clear to me why supportive housing was included in the US zone in the first place when applied to an entire park site. In this case, the verbiage in the council reports and agenda refer to only school and park uses for the area designated US.
Is this problematic? Bad community park land review processes has been an issue for the community in Edmonton in the past that has resulted in a law suit (i.e., Blue Quill). There is currently a park site undergoing a land use change process in Ogilvie Ridge where the community is engaged on the site design only after the decision to decommission park land was made administratively absent pre-consultation. So is the inclusion of a housing zoning on a designated park like Aster ok…maybe no, maybe yes…
So What?
The above summarizes the information shared. Do our communication practices provide the community access and agency to influence decision-makers in land use change process… My opinion… Maybe and Hell No.
In terms of access to information, the information is voluminous. The assembly of information “box” was “ticked” and likely could not be challenged in court. The City also provided ta city contact person and web site address to explore the issue … if the information engaged them.
In terms of agency to effect change, I would suggest otherwise. Community agency requires engaging, timely, accurate and non-ambiguous knowledge assembly and dissemination. This box, the most important of the two to me, is clearly not ticked. Some examples of concerns:
How does a resident not familiar with planning language follow the bread crumbs and the file story? For the vast majority of the public, unban planning is not their day job. Alternatively, who does follow this language and process (i.e., developers, councillors, administrators)? An asymmetrical power relationship is created between those that do and don’t understand the language. Moreover, the ability of the community to interact and engage in meaningful discussion is limited.
The “meat” of this information for this file review was circulated to the community in June and July, at times when the community is otherwise engaged.
Terminology. What is a bylaw? Why are there two bylaws? What is the difference between the two bylaws? What is zoning? What is US, AG, RLD, PU and RA7, beyond titles? What is top of bank policy? What is a neighbourhood structure plan?
What is ground orientated housing? Are these one story or two? How big are the individual lots? How much private outdoor space is provided? What will they look like? Who would live in these homes in terms of age, income, low income or other special need populations? Are they one two or three bedrooms? How easy is it for the community to find definitions to all these terms and information? (spoiler alert… its not.)
The site sign showed a list of potential uses for the site, with a tag on the end saying… the list of uses is not exhaustive. The is a legal CYA. In addition, approximately 75% of the land area of the amendment is US for the park. There are two lines on the site sign that says...public park and public education purposes, neither of which imply housing. Moreover, there is no site plan for the park site provided, nor a sense of the type of schools.
What opportunity was there for groups to organize and support or not support the application if they were aware that supportive housing was allowed on the entire US zoned park site, or about how much of the site, where on the site, or what type of process and consultation would occur if that happened?
My take - this process told the (legalistic) technical planning process file story, but not a community story. The file process and associated information did little to invite the community into the dialogue. The planners engaged in this file, some of whom I previously worked with and respect, followed legislation, standard city processes, as well as politically and management driven initiatives to enhance the speed of planning approvals. Such processes and associated knowledge assembly, dissemination and translation, create an environment to approve infrastructure quickly, but do not foster community building.
My obligatory Taschia take… just because