16reflectionsonplanning.pdf

Reflections

on

Planning Education

at

UNC-Chapel

Hill

F.

Stuart

Chapin,

Jr.

As

the

Department

of City

and

Regional Planning

(DCRP)

atthe University ofNorthCarolinaatChapel

Hill nearsits50thanniversary,itistimelytolookback

on

itsorigins

and ponder

how

it

came

tobe

one

of the leading schools ofplanningin the country.

My

reflec-tions

examine

the first thirtyyears ofthe department.

They

describe

DCRP's

beginnings

and

identify

some

highlightsofplanning education

and

urbanresearchat

Chapel

Hill,

and

conclude with a fewobservations

on

thekeystrengthsof the

department

in thisperiod.

Planning

Profession

in

the

1940s

What

was

the

working environment

like incityhalls inthose days?

Where

planning

was

an acceptedpartof

local government,it

was

often outside the

mainstream

of decision-making.

But

asadvocated by

Robert Walker

in hisinfluentialstudy,1planning

was

increasinglybeing accorded departmental status with administrative re-sponsibilitiestothe city

manager

ormayor.

Even

with this

change

ofstatus,plannerscontinuedtomaintaina closerelationshipwiththeplanning commission.

With

the

members

often chosen by city council for their political sensitivity,the

commission

providedthe

plan-ningstaffwithaproving

ground

for

new

land develop-ment.

The

shift to a

department

status provided the

planning office with leverage to relate land planning

more

directly with

development

functions in other departments

and

toinvolve theplannerincapital budg-eting.

F.Stuart Chapin,Jr., is

Alumni

Distinguished Professor

Emeritus ofCity

and

Regional Planning

UNC-Chapel

Hill.

He

was

directorofthe

Urban

Studies

Program

ofthe InstituteforResearchin SocialScience, 1957-69,

and

in

1969founded

theCenterfor

Urban

and

RegionalStudies. Earlierthisyear,he

was

named

aPioneer of Planningby

the

American

PlanningAssociation.

He

now

livesin the PacificNorthwest.

How

usefulthis shiftinstatusprovedtobe

depended

notonly

on

theorganizationalchannelsavailabletothe

planning office, but also

on

the compatibility of the

planningdirectorwith thecity

manager

or

mayor and

theheads ofdepartmentspossessing

development

func-tions.

The

successof these relationships

depended

both

on

theabilityoftheplannertodealwiththepoliticsof

city hall,

and

theplanningstaffsskillinbringingabout

increased efficiency

and

cost-saving public improve-ments.

Beginnings

of the

Department

Frank

Porter

Graham,

thePresident of the University

of

North

Carolina,

was

akeypersonincreating the

new

departmentinthe 1946-7schoolyear.

Howard W. Odum,

founder

and

then retiredDirector ofthe Institute for Research in Social Science (IRSS),

and

Gordon W.

Blackwell,

who

succeeded

Odum

as Director of

IRSS

(andlater

became

President ofFlorida State University

and

then

Furman

University) also played important roles in

DCRP's

establishment.

DCRP

came

into

exis-tence notentirely

on

theinitiative of

Graham

and

the

enthusiasm of

Odum,

nor only

from

the skillful

guid-ance ofBlackwell;all

were

essential tothedepartment's genesis.

The

indispensablefigure

and

thecatalyst inthe

estab-lishment ofthe

department was

John

A

Parker,

known

fondlyto

more

than1,200alumnias "Jack."His founding

vision, hisimagination,

and

hisfirm

hand

guided

devel-opment

ofplanningeducationat

Chapel

Hill through-outhistenureasChair(1946-1974).It isa tributeto his

leadership that the University didnotchooseto institute

the practiceofrotatingthe chairin

DCRP

until after his

retirement.

The

title of the degree,as conferred bythe

depart-ment and

formally adopted bythe

Board

ofTrustees,

expectationby

Graham,

Odum

and

Blackwell that

re-gionalplanning mighteventuallybea

DCRP

emphasis.

Afterall,

Chapel

Hill

was

widely recognizedatthetime for

Odum's work

in southern regionalism. Moreover,

thenearby

Tennessee

Valley Authority

(TV

A)

was

then at the

peak

of its

fame

as an experiment in regional

development

and had

provided consultation

on

the creationofthe

Department.

Even

though

there

was

a strong preference for a regionalfocus,JackParkerpersuaded

Graham,

Odum

and

Blackwellthatthe

program

shouldinitially

empha-size urban planning.2

As

a consultant to

TVA

in the

summer

of 1946, he had

made

a survey of planning

agenciesintheSoutheast

and

understoodthe potential of regional planning.

The

survey

made

clear to him, however,thatthejob

market

forgraduates ofaplanning

program was

primarily in an urban rather than a

re-gionalsetting.Stateplanningin thisperiod

was on

the

wane

asaresultof the

demise

oftheNationalResources Planning

Board

(NRPB),

which

hadpreviouslyfunded

most

stateplanningagencies.

The

stateplanning agen-cies that survived the loss of

NRPB

support,

concen-trated

on

localplanningassistance,thekindof

program

pioneeredundercontracts

between

TVA

and

Tennes-see

and Alabama.

Limitedjob opportunitiescontinued to existwith planningconsultant firms

and

urban-rede-velopment

agencies.

However,

theprimarymarket for graduates

remained

cityplanningagencies.

Structure

of the

Curriculum

One

goal of the

new

department

was

toprovidethe

student with the

knowledge and

analytical

methods

needed

tobeasuccessfulurbanplanner.

The

immediate

priority

was

to settle

on

thecoursesconsideredessential foron-the-jobeffectivenessofgraduates.

Nine

planning

courses

were approved

bythe

Graduate

Schoolforthe

startof theprogram, with otheruniversitycourses also available to

DCRP

students.

By

1949, the planning courselistings consisted ofa course

on

planning

and

government, aplanning legislation course, a planning seminar (the equivalent of the present-day course in planningtheory),courses

on methods

of landuse

plan-ning,transportation planning

and

infrastructure

plan-ning(then

known

as"municipalfacilities"),four

appli-cation courses, a

summer

internship,

and

a thesis. In

addition, acourseinstatistics

was

required of students

who

had

not taken

one

asan undergraduate.

The

re-mainingfourcoursesinthetwo-yearprofessional

mas-ter'sdegreerequirement

were

electives.3

In

many

respects, thecenterpiece ofthiscurriculum

was

theseriesof four applications courses.

These

pro-vided thestudentwith practicein applyingthe knowl-edge

and methods

learnedinthe lecture coursesto real-worldsituations. Inthefirstapplications course, a stu-dent designed a residential subdivision for a chosen

topographic site, developed cut

and

fill estimates for streets,

and

estimatedcostsofstreetimprovements.In the next course, the student designed a

new

town, ex-tendingthe principles

from

thesubdivision

problem

to anentire

model community.

Inthethird-term applications course,teams of

two

or threestudents undertook demonstrationstudiesinthe

preparationof a

comprehensive

planfordifferent

North

and

South Carolinacities.

These

studiesculminatedina public presentationincityhall in

which team

members

fieldedquestions

and

defended theirproposals.

For

the fourthtermapplications course,each student prepared a demonstration study of

neighborhood

renewal.

The

projectculminatedinpresentationstoresidents

and

city officials

which

included design proposals, general

esti-mates of costs,

and

information

on

grants

and

loans

underexistingfederal programs.

The

lasttwo applications projects not only

empha-sized planninganalysis

and

design butalso practicein

the

development

ofgraphic

and

oralpresentationskills.

Much

of the readiness of cities in the Carolinas to

develop

comprehensive

plansunder subsequently

avail-able federalfunding(the so-called"701

Program"

under

the

Housing

Act of 1954) can betracedtothese

demon-strationstudies.

Periods

in

DCRP's

Development

There

are

many

factors affecting the

way

a school

evolves,factorssuchasthetimeinhistoryitisfounded,

the resources available forfaculty

and

for student aid,

the visionof thefaculty

and

how

itistranslated intoan educationmission,

and

theintellectualsettingin

which

theschoolislocated.

As

Ilookback

on

changesin the

department overthefirst30years,it

seems

clear that the interrelationship

between

research

and

teaching has played a veryimportantroleinshapingthe early yearsof

DCRP.

Although

Ihavenot

been

abletofollow

Depart-ment

developmentsin the past 15years, I

am

surethis

interdependence continues to this day. In anyevent, I

turn

now

to

some

distincterasofresearch

and

teaching

intheevolution of

DCRP.

TheFirstTenYears (1947-1957)

Though

there

were

fivegraduatestudentssigned

up

tobegintheirtwo-yearmaster's

program

in

September

1946

when

Jack Parkerarrived totake

up

residencein

Chapel

Hill,the formal approvalof the planning

cur-riculum

was

notachieveduntil 1947.

James

M.

Webb,

thesecond

new

faculty

member

arrivedinJanuary1947,

andIarrived inthefallof 1949.

Although

faculty

from

otherdepartments taught several courses for the

De-partment,

DCRP

consistedof onlythreefaculty

mem-bers for the next

dozen

years or so.

Over

this period, studentenrollmentinthe

program

increased gradually

In the first ten years, an un-stated mission of research

was

to

examine

knowledge

available

from

planningpractice,identify weaknesses,strengths

and

gaps,

and

develop approaches for improvingthisknowledge.

Dur-ingthisperiod,theInstitutefor

Research

in Social Science

(IRSS)was animportant resource

to

DCRP,

not only counseling

the

department

on

policy

and

practicesofthe University,but

alsosteeringthefacultytoward

funding opportunitiesinresearch

andproviding research

assistant-shipsduring

DCRP's

leanyears. In the first couple ofyears,

research centered

on

develop-ing material for courses in the curriculum, oftenwiththe help of student researchassistantswith

financialaid

from

IRSS.

As

out-side funding

became

available,

more

ambitious

work

was

un-dertaken. Several studies

were

funded undercontractswithfederalagenciesintheearly

fifties.

A

Housing

and

Home

FinanceAgency-supported

studyfocused

on

theurbanizationof theruralarea sur-rounding the

Atomic

Energy Commission's

Savannah

Riverfacility thenunder construction in

South

Caro-lina.Also undertakenat thistime

were

twoprojectswith

U.S. Air

Force

funding,

one

concerned with daytime/ nighttimedifferentials inthe distribution ofpopulation

inmetropolitanareas,

and

theother withthetheory

and

practice of city

and

regional planning in the Soviet

Union.

IRSS'sweeklyluncheonsessionswereespeciallyhelpful to

DCRP

faculty in

opening

up communication

withthe University's social science faculty.

An

Urban

Studies

Committee,

consistingoffaculty

from

planning,

politi-calscience,

economics

and

sociology

was formed

outof thesesessions.Inthecourseof atwo-year periodof

fort-nightlyseminars,this

committee

developed an

interdis-ciplinary research

schema

on

urban processes,

which

subsequently

became

the basis fora researchproposal submittedtothe

Ford

Foundation.

In 1957,

UNC-Chapel

Hill

was awarded

the

Founda-tion's first

major

grantinitsnewlyestablished

program

in urbanaffairs.

One

partofthefive-yeargrant

was

to

focus

on

urbanizationprocessesinthe

Piedmont

Indus-trial Crescent extending

from

Raleigh,

NC,

to

Green-ville,SC;asecondpart

was

toadvance

communications

between

universities in the

South

engaged in urban

research.

These two

parts

were

administered through

StuartChapindiscussesone oftheDepartment'sfirstresearch projects withhis students.

IRSS.

A

third part,

under

theauspicesoftheInstituteof

Government,

concernedresearch interpretationfor local

actiongroups.

While

these

developments

were

evolvinginresearch,

planning education

was

also

making

notable strides.

Early research inland-use planning

went

directly into

thecourseinland-useanalysis aswellasintothethird term applications course. Studies

on

the role of the

plannerin urban

development

providedcase material

forthecourse

on

planning

and

government.4

Facultyinvolvementin the

Urban

Studies

Commit-tee

and

subsequent

work

on

the

Ford Foundation

grant, demonstratedtheimportance ofinitiatingstepstoward

offering a doctorate in planning.

The

increase in the

number

of student applications for admission to the

planning

program

overthe ten-yearperiod

and

theneed foradditionalcourseofferings

showed

that

DCRP

was

ready for expansion in faculty, classroom space

and

otherfacilities.

Takeoff (1958-1968)

The

Ford Foundation

grant provided resources for majorinterdisciplinaryurbanresearchinvolving20faculty inplanning,politicalscience,

economics

and

sociology

and

included

new

fundingforresearch assistantshipsin

these

same

fields. It provided an unparalleled

experi-enceforfaculty

and

researchassistantinterchangeinthe

vari-ablesofurban growthintheCrescent; (2) political

and

business leadership patterns in

community

decision-making,including the roleofthe planner, various inter-est groups

and

African-Americans in political action; (3)the attitudesofpeopleliving inCrescentcitiesabout urban growth,their perception ofproblems,

and

their

participation in politicalaction

aimed

atsolving

prob-lems;

and

(4)studiesofthespatialextentof growth

and

factorsassociatedwiththe direction

and

intensityofcity

expansioninto the countryside.

Inretrospect,

DCRP

may

have

been

agreater

benefi-ciaryofthe

Urban

Studies

Program

thananyof theother

fieldsrepresented.

Not

onlydidthis

program

represent a

quantum

leapforwardin

DCRP

facultyresearchbutit

had

many

otherbenefits.It

drew

many

visitorsto

Chapel

Hill

from

each ofthe fields involved in the program.

Some

were

inquisitiveaboutthescope ofthe

program

and

came

because they

were

initiating their

own

pro-grams

inurbanaffairs

and

were

interestedinevaluating the strengths

and

weaknessesinsuchan ambitious

inter-disciplinary program. Others

came

as consultants to

variousstudies. Visitorsofspecialinterest toplanning such as Martin

Meyerson, Harvey

Perloff,Jack

Dyck-man,

Richard Meier,

Norton

Long

and

AllenFeldt,gave seminarsforthedepartment.

The

land

development

researchconducted duringthe

period of

Ford Foundation

support

became

thebasis for

future grants

and

contractsextendingthis

work

further.

From

1962to1965, a

model

forsimulating thegrowth of residential areas in a city

was

developed

and

tested

underfinancing

from

theU.S.

Bureau

of PublicRoads. Residual funds

from

the

Urban

Studies

Program

sup-portedastudy oflivingqualityinthecityfortheelderly.

Other

researchfundedundera seriesof grants

from

the U.S. Public Health

Serv-ice, studied the roles of

various agentsaffectingthe

supplyside ofresidential

development and

house-hold activity in time

and

space, essentially consid-erations affecting the

demand

side of

residen-tial development. Also during this period, five

DCRP

faculty

members

carriedout anationalstudy

of residential

moving

behaviorunderacontract

from

the National

Coop-erative

Highway

Research Program.

The

advent of the

Ur-ban

Studies

Program

pro-vided a clear

demonstra-tion ofopportunities for a doctoral

program

in

plan-ning.

With

coaching

from

Graduate

School

Dean

Alex-ander

Heard

(later to

become

Presidentof Vanderbilt

University),JackParkershepherdedthePh.D. proposal through

UNC-Chapel

Hill's approval process

and

the

ConsolidatedUniversityreview

where

negotiationswith otherunitsof the Universitysystem

were

finallycleared.

The

Ph.D.

program was approved

bythe

Board

of Trus-tees in 1961.

With

theavailabilityof research

assistant-ships inthe

Urban

Studies

Program and

fiveNational Defense Education Act fellowships, the first doctoral students entered the Ph.D.

program

in the following

year.

The

basicmission ofthis

program

came

tobe

much

asitistoday: to traintop-quality

and

highlymotivated

teachers

and

research scholarsinplanning.

Besides being the launching period for the Ph.D. program, the first half of the sixties

was

a period of

change in the master's

program

as well.

Core

courses

were

improved-the

courseinplanning theory

was

over-hauled,

and

the

Department

introducedits

own

course

in quantitative methods, including both statistics

and

mathematical modeling.Because

many

studentslooked towardjobsinmetropolitan planningagencies,thethird termapplicationscourse focused

on

a large

metropoli-tanarea: the surroundingareas ofWashington, D.C.6

During

thisperiodthe master'sthesis

was

replacedbya

Departmental

Paperand,whilethe internship

contin-ued

to be

recommended,

it had

been

dropped

as a

requirement.

The

mid-sixties

was

a transitiontimeinotherwaysas well.It

was

atime

when

thealmostexclusiveemphasis

on

urban planning

was

giving

way

to agrowing

number

of

new

concentrations

which

required additionstothe

faculty.

With

new

faculty

and

resulting

need

for

tional office

and

classroomspace,

DCRP

went

through

a seriesof

moves which

eventually resulted inthe

De-partmentsettling in renovated space in the

New

East

Building.7

From

1965to1969,

DCRP

nearlydoubleditsfaculty.8

In1965

George

Hemmens,

who

had been

on

thefaculty earlier, returned

and was

pivotal in establishing the

Department's

computer

laboratory,

made

possibleunder

the University's"Centers of Excellence"grant

from

the

National Science

Foundation

(NSF).

He

alsoprovided

leadershipinreorganizing offerings inplanning theory at both the

MRP

and

Ph.D. levels.

The

NSF

grant

enabledthe

department

tohire

Emil

Maliziain1969to develop courseofferingsin

economic

development.

The

same

grantprovidedsupportforapositionin transpor-tationplanning.

Inconnection with

an Environmental

Health Train-ing

Program

ofthe U.S. Public Health Service, it

was

possible to bring

Maynard

Hufschmidt

tothe

Depart-ment

in 1965.Hiscoursesinpublicinvestment theory

and

techniquessubsequently providedthebeginnings of

aspecializationinregionalplanning

and

resource

man-agement.9

With David Moreau's

additiontothefaculty in 1968

and

his interest inwaterresources,theresource

management

option

became

a full area of

concentra-tion.

Edward

Kaiser joinedthefacultyin1966

and

became

a key contributor to the core course in quantitative

methods and

courses in land use planning. Michael

Stegman was

brought to the

Department

in 1968 to develop anarea ofconcentrationinhousing.

New

Directions(1969-1978)

Socialandpoliticaldevelopmentsinthesixtiespushed planningschoolsinnewdirections.

The

outbreakofcivil

disturbancesincitiesacrossthecountryfired interest in social policy as

new

attention centered

on

inner city

issuessuchasjobcreation,urban renewal

and

housing.

Earth

Day

in1971further

expanded

thefield,eventually including air

and

water quality

and

concern for the protectionofwetlands, riparianareas, wildlifehabitat

and

coastaldunes.

Although

new

specializations in regional

and

envi-ronmental

planning

and

resource

management

were

alreadyinplaceat

Chapel

Hill,it

was

notuntil1969that

the

department was

abletoobtain resourcesfor anarea

ofconcentrationinsocial policyplanning.

A

National Instituteof

Mental

Health Training

Grant

financedtwo

new

faculty positions

and

several non-service

fellow-ships,

and

by 1970socialpolicyplanning

became

a part of thecurriculum.

The

required coursesforthis

concen-tration

were

the

same

asallothers,but the applications courses

emphasized

servicedelivery

and

preparationfor

work

ininnercity

community

actionprograms.

As

the specialization evolved, students often took courses in

otherareas,especiallyurban planning

and

housing.

During

this period the

Ford Foundation expanded

the financialsupport availabletominoritystudents by fundinganon-service fellowship program.

The

depart-ment

also receiveda

Mellon Foundation

grantenabling supportfor

new

faculty

and

studentfellowships.Inthe

period 1969 to 1970,

David Godschalk

joined the

fac-ulty,focusing

on

participatory planning,environmental

planning,

and

landuseplanningincoastalareas.In1970, Shirley Weiss

moved

from

the Center for

Urban

and

RegionalStudiesto

head

theDepartment's

new

under-graduatehonors

programs

inurbanaffairs

and

toteach coursesincentralbusinessarea

and

new

towns.

Edward

Bergman

joined the faculty in 1972, sufficiently

aug-menting

thecourseofferingsin

economic development

to

make

thisa

new

areaofconcentration.

The

earlyseventies

was

aperiod offlux inthe Depart-ment.10

Each

new

DCRP

catalogoutlined a

new

mix

of concentrations availableto

incoming

students.

Between

1967

and

1969, students could choose

between

three

concentrations-urbanplanning, regionalplanning

and

housing/social policy.

By

1973-75 fiveareasof concen-trations

were

availabletomastersstudents-urban

plan-ning, regional planning, environmental planning, so-cial-policy planning,

and

economic

development.

Ur-ban

design

was

brieflyofferedasanoption,as

was

envi-ronmental-healthplanning

under

ajoint

program

with

the Schoolof PublicHealth.

Another

reflectionof the

department's flux

had

to

do

with the content of core courses.

During

the 1969-70

academic

year, an

inte-grated two-semester course

was team

taughtasan

ex-periment. Inthefollowingyear,the original theory

and

quantitative

methods

corecourses

were

reinstated.

The

transitiontoarotatingChair ofthe

Department

in1974

went

smoothly.

By

thistimeagreatdeal of the

Department's

work

wasdistributed tothefacultythrough committees.

To

stabilize both the faculty

and

masters and doctoral programs,

George

Hemmens,

the

new

Chair,usedtheexisting

committee

system.

During

his

four-year tenure, severaljoint

programs were

created, including thejoint

program

inlaw

and

planning.

Faculty research

grew

duringthisten-year period.In

1969, the

Urban

Studies Program, previously

admini-steredbyIRSS,

became

theCenterfor

Urban

and

Re-gional Studies

(CURS),

an independententity report-ingdirectlytothe Provost. Inresponsetourban prob-lems beginningtosurface incitiesacross thestate, the

1969sessionof the

North

Carolina

General Assembly

appropriated fundstothe ConsolidatedUniversityfor urban research

and

extension services.

The new

line itemin the

UNC-Chapel

Hillbudget provided

CURS

firm funding

and

allowed recruitment of a

permanent

staff. Jonathan

Howes

was

brought to

Chapel

Hill in

1970asthe

new

CURS

director.

development and

urban issues

the original focusofthe depart-ment. ShirleyWeissand

Edward

Kaiser

completed

their widely

respected studies of entrepre-neurialdecisionsinthe

residen-tial

development

process by

landowners, real estateagents,

financial intermediaries, land developers,andhomebuilders.11

With

helpinthefield

from

par-ticipant-observers

and

survey-researchassociates,Icarriedout

a study

on household

activity

patternsinmetropolitan

Wash-ington, D.C..12

Edward

Kaiser,

with

Maynard

Hufschmidt

and

others, prepared a widely

dis-tributedstudy

on

how

urban plan-ning

and

land use regulations

contributed to environmental

protection.13

Inthe early seventies, Shirley The 1960sand1970ssawthe

Weiss,with

Raymond

Burby,

Edward

Kaiser

and

others,

undertook

the first

major

evaluation of

new

towns in America.14

David

Brower

participatedina

major

review

ofurbangrowth

management

forthe

Urban Land

Insti-tute,

and

with a

team

of planning

and

law students,

followed this witha studyof

development

timingas a

means

of

managing

urban growth.15

Brower and David

Godschalk

went on

to

examine

constitutionalissues in growth

management

withthe assistance ofanother

team

of students.16

Researchin the

Department from

1946to 1978has

been

especially useful for teaching urban planning, particularly in providingcase studies

and

demonstra-tionsof

methods

ofanalysis.

But

teaching

and

research are interdependent.

Lack

ofcase materials, inadequa-cies inmethods, or simply gapsinapproachesavailable

forclassroom usehavealsospurred

new

research.

For

instancethestudy

on

thedecision-making behavior of entrepreneurs

and

the investigation ofhousehold activi-ties

and

moving

behavior providedthe

means

of explain-ing in theclassroom the behavioralfactors at

work

in residentialland usemodels.

DCRP's

Strengths

and

a

Final

Note

In putting together this review of the

Department

during the period of

my

nearly thirtyyears at

Chapel

Hill,Ideveloped

some

veryclearconclusionsaboutthe

strengths of

DCRP.

I list

them

without elaboration.

Whether

they have validity for charting future direc-tionsislefttothereaderclosertothe

Chapel

Hillscene.

Number

one, the

Department

hasbeenveryalertto

Departmentexpanditsdiversity.

changeinthefieldand, indeed,haspaced

change

asthe

curriculum has evolved. Second, the

Department

has always closely

monitored

thejob

market

and

has kept

thecurriculum abreastof the requisite

knowledge and

skills necessaryfor studentsto qualify in that market.

Number

three,

DCRP

has assiduouslysearchedout

and

pursuedprivate

and

governmentalresearch

and

training grants

which

consequentially

enhanced

both teaching

and

research.Fourth, the

Department

has given close attentiontostudent recruitment

and

has

been

aggres-sive in searching out sources ofstudent financialaid.

Number

five, the collegial

atmosphere

that has pre-vailed

among

the faculty has

been

a hallmark of the

Department

-

no

fiefdoms,

no

dissident wings. Finally,

department

chairshaveplayed a strong leadership role

inbuildingeachof theabovelistedstrengths.

Now

let

me

note

what

I consider to be the great

challengetothe

Department and

theplanningfieldin

thefuture.

For

some

timeithas

been

clearthatadvances

inscience,technology

and

medicine haveprolongedlife

expectancythe world over,

and

agricultural

improve-ments

have

made

itpossibletofeed

more

people.

The

global increasesinpopulation,particularly in

develop-ing countries,

and

risingexpectationsforan

improved

qualityoflifeincreasepressureforaccessto abetterlife

througheconomicopportunities -pressure thatcan break throughnationalboundaries.

The

magnitude

ofpopulation growth

and

migrations

and

the scale of

economic

expansion that will be

re-quired to

accommodate

this growth, will have a

pro-found impact

on

afinitelandsupply

and

on

allresources.

protec-tive layers ofthe

atmosphere and

its implications for

global

change

inthe

environment

forallliving things.It

may

be that the planning field can have very limited influence

on

these matters.

Despite the apparent intractability of these

prob-lems, I

hope

the planning field will

"make

no

little

plans." In preparing students forjob opportunities,

planning education

must

alsoprepare

them

forthe great challenges already

upon

us.It is

my

hope

that

DCRP

will beconstantlyaddressing the bigissues ineach

round

of

curriculumreview,not onlyinthedesign ofcorecourses, butalso in the selectionof areas of concentration

and

coursesthatgo with them.

DCRP

must

choosecarefully

where

itallocates its resources

and

selectoptions

and

courses

which

are not only uniquely appropriate in a

planning curriculum today but

which

also

emphasize

the creativeuse ofplanning theory

and

method

in address-ing

monumental

changesto

come.cp

Notes

1

RobertWalker(1941).The Planning FunctioninUrban Government.

Chicago: University ofChicagoPress.

2_{For an}excellentsource of informationonParker'snegotiationsinthe establishment of theDepartment,see FrancisH. Parker (no rela-tion),"Genesis of theDepartmentof Cityand RegionalPlanning," amanuscript datedApril12,1974.Parkerdidnotrejectout ofhand

thisgreat interest in regionalplanning atChapelHill. In 1947,

jointlywithOdum,Blackwelland

TVA

heorganizedasymposium

toexplore thepossiblityofdevelopingacurriculuminregional plan-ninginthenewDepartment.Withthehelp ofpoliticalscientistJohn

Gaus,thepreeminent authorityatthattimeonregional

govern-ment,thestateof regionalplanningwasdebated.Theconclusion

was that the fieldwas not yet well enough defined and it was

prematuretoundertake suchaprogram.

^Inthese earlyyears,JackParker'sconstant attention toenhancing courseofferingsbroughttoChapelHillsomeof the leadingpeople

inthefield atthattime includingLewisMumford,HughPemeroy

(then Westchester County planner), Hans Blumenfield (then a

planner with the Philadelphia CityPlanning Commission)andSam

Zisman(aplannerfrom SanAntonio).

JackParker'sworkontheroleof theplannerinlocalgovernmentwas

promptedby the lack of objectiveknowledge about whatfactors

governthe effectiveness of plannersonthejob.

My

ownresearch

interests at that time were stronglyinfluenced by the relatively

underdeveloped state ofland use planning methods I found in

planningpractice.There wasaclearneedtoreplace thedependence

onsubjectivitywithmoreobjectivemethodsinplanninganalyses.

Thiswasaprimarymission of thefirsteditionofUrbanLand Use Planning(1957).

New

York:Harper

&

Brothers.

5

F.StuartChapin,Jr.,andShirleyF.Weiss,eds.(1962).UrbanGrowth

Dynamics,

New

York:JohnWiley

&

Sons.

° These field studieswere dropped soon thereafter. In 1967, the

DepartmentpetitionedtheGraduate School andreceivedapproval

todropaspecfiedlistof sevencoursesasprerequisitesfor

gradu-ation,among themthe applications courses.These changes reduced

theregistration in field-relatedcourses which, as electives,were

refocused intoexerciseswithouttime-consuming field investiga-tions.

By1965,afterseveral years of pressureontheUniversity

Admini-stration for morespace to house theDepartment, Jack Parker

succeededinarrangingfor amovefromAlumniBuildingtomore

amplequartersin

New

East Building.Then,a

NSF

Research

Facili-tiesgrantandaState appropriationprovidedfundstoremodel

New

East,andformorethan ayear

DCRP

"campedout"in

New

West

while

New

Eastwas remodeled.

° Facultywhowerewith

D

CRP

forshortperiods oftwoor three years are notidentified in thisaccount.Mostof thefacultynamedfrom

hereonarestillwith theDepartment.

9Duringtheacademicyear 1965-6,asymposiumonregionalplanning

wasorganizedby Hufschmidt. SeeMaynard M.Hufschmidt,ed.

(1969). RegionalPlanning: Challenge and Prospects,

New

York:

Praeger.Insomerespectsthisrevisited issuesraisedinthe sympo-siumheldduring thefirstyears of theDepartment.Inthe

interven-ingperiod,anewarea ofconcentrationhadbecomeapparent,one

focusingonregional planningandresourcemanagement.

10_{FrancisH. Parker's "PlanningEducation}

atChapelHill-ADecade

ofIncremental Progress,"amanustriptdatedApril30,1974,

dis-cussedwhat he termed"anidentitycrisis"amongfaculty inregardto

specialization issues and core courses. Some of thesources of

fomenthe attributedto "aformofqualifiedopportunism"intheway

majorgrants were acajuired. He observed, however, that "the

Departmentas awhole nevercollectivelydecidedonnewdirections

topursueornewareasinwhichtoseekgrants."But healsopointed outthattherewasalwaysafullcommitmentamongthefaculty to

"eachnewgrantandprogramtobuildtheDepartmentratherthan

fragmentit." 1

TheseStudieswereissuedina seriesofresearchmonographsand

memorandafrom 1963to1969 undertheUrbanStudiesProgram,

IRSSandreissuedby theCenterforUrbanand RegionalStudies,

University ofNorthCarolinaatChapelHilt

l^F.StuartChapin,Jr.(1974).HumanActivityPatternsinthe City,

New

York: WileyInterscience,JohnWiley

&

Sons.

"

EdwardJ. Kaiserand others (1974).Promoting Environmental

QualityThroughUrbanPlanningandControls,Report No.EPA-6001

5-73,Washington, D.C.:U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.

14 _Raymond

J.BurbyandShirleyF.Weisswith others (1976).

New

Communities USA,Lexington,MA:LexingtonBooksof

DC.

Heath andCompany.

A

seriesoftopicalreportscomingout ofthisworkby

membersof the researchteamarepublishedinaresearch

mono-graphseriesbyBallingerPublishingCompany.

15_{DavidJ.Browerandothers (1996). UrbanGrowthManagement}

ThroughDevelopmentTiming,

New

York:Praeger.