12towardsasustainable.pdf

J.

Gary Lawrence

The

City of Seattle is trying to shape a future

which is

more

sustainableona varietyof

mea-sures.

We

want

to sustainourenvironmentalquality

for both health and soul.

We

want to sustain our

economic

prosperity and

maybe

even obtain

more

clarity about the differences between standard of livingandqualityoflife.And,

we

want

tosustainour society— preserve

what

isbestabout usand maintain

civility.

Cityofficialshavedonea

number

ofthingstoward

thisend.

We

havespentmillionsofdollarsonwaterand

airqualityimprovements.

We

haveinvestedheavilyin

education.Significantportionsofourtaxdollarsgointo

social programs designedto help people help

them-selves.

We

haverecyclingprogramsthatare theenvy

ofthe nation.

We

have focused on remedying the

problems

we

create.

And

yet, most of these things

have been

done

without

community

agreementabout

what

ought tobe Seattle's preferred future.

When

the Planning Department began doing our required

Comprehensive

Planin 1990,

we

thought

we

could get to agreement about a preferred future by

means

of"normalplanning stuff"Sustainability has,

after all,

many

technical attributes. If

we

couldjust

describe the problems clearly enough,

we

thought,

logic

would

prevail and people

would

be willing to

sacrificeself-interestforthepublicinterest.However,

as

we

engaged in this effort, it

became

clear that for

J. Gary LawrencehasbeenDirector_oftheCityofSeattle Planning Department since 1991.

He

is a native of

Bremerton, Washington. Lawrence holdsa Bachelors of

Arts degreefrom Central Washington University anda Masters ofPublic Adminstrationfrom the University of

Georgia. PriortohisworkinSeattle, hewaschief

admin-istrativeofficerofRedmond, Washington.

Seattle,at least,sustainabilityisnot so

much

aproblem of

knowledge

orskillorresourcesasitisaproblem of

wisdom

andpolitical will.

Therefore,

we

rethoughttheproblem andstartedto focusonvaluesandaspirations,hopesandfears,and

all sorts of

messy

human

stuff, ratherthan the

more

logicalandsafertechnicalplanningactivities.Through

amajorpublicinvolvementeffort,

we came

tohavea

much

betterunderstanding of

who

we

are in Seattle

and

what

might

make

us happy.

We

then used this informationtodefineavisionof

what

Seattle'sfuture

couldbe.

The

PlanningDepartment brought forward

strategies based on that vision that tried to resolve

some

ofour conflicting values.

The community

has

largelyacceptedthe vision.

The Washington

State

Growth

Management

Act

(GMA)

also alteredthe discretionand

decision-mak-ing powers oflocal governments(including special

districts)inWashingtonState.

Under

GMA,

theCityis required to adopt capital facility plans

which

are

consistentwiththe

Comprehensive

Plan.Further,no

otherCityexpenditures can be inconsistentwiththe

City'sadoptedplan.PoliciesadoptedbytheCityareno

longeradvisory or statementsoflegislative intent;they

createlegalobligationsenforceablethroughthe courts.

Once

adopted,theplanscanonlybe

amended

onceper yearand

amendments

aresubject to the

same

internal

andexternal consistencytests.

The

requirementsof

GMA

were

significant,but not

exclusive,inshapingtheCityofSeattle'sdevelopment

ofits

Comprehensive

Plan.Indeciding

upon

ascopeof

work

andresource

commitment,

Seattle's

Mayor

and

City Council decided that the State's requirements, whiledifficult,

would

notprepare ustoaddressthefull

range ofproblems

we

now

face or can forecast as

VOLUME

20,

NUMBER

1

13

elements ofthis physical plan not as ends in

them-selves, as

we

traditionallyhavedone,but, instead,to

focus

them

as

means

toward broadersocietal goals.

We

setoutto usetheelements ofour physical plans,

incombinationwith otherinitiatives,to

move

us

away

from an undesirable but probable future, including

spiralinggrowth,unchecked suburbansprawl,lossof

open space, and traffic congestion. Instead,

we

are

moving

towarda preferredfuture fortheCityandthe

region.

Our

challenge

was

to get agreement on a

preferred futureandthen focusthevariouselements

oftheplantowardthat end.

Taking

the

Lead

The

City'sMayor,

Norman

B. Rice, instructed the

SeattlePlanningDepartmenttobethe leadagencyin

developingthe City's plan. In doing so, he gave us

broad powerstocoordinatetheplanningactivitiesof

otherdepartments within the City.

He

described the

process of developing a

Comprehensive

Plan as"a

moral

campaign

for the future of our City." His

definition ofa successful planning effort

was

very

conciseandvery challenging.

The

performance ofthe

PlanningDepartment,hesaid,

would

bejudged onour abilityto

"make

good

planninginto

good

politics."

We

started by thinking about what

makes good

planning. Previous Seattleplanningefforts,

many

of

which

have been ignored or were irrelevant

when

completed,havetaught us

some

valuablelessonsabout planningin Seattle.

The most

importantofthose les-sons

seem

tobe:

(1 )

Itisverydifficulttotrytoanswerthequestions

"what ought

we

do" and

"how

ought

we

doit"atthe

same

time;

(2)

To

actually solveproblems you must not just

reacttopeople's behaviors but, instead,you must

understandthevalues andbeliefs thatare the basis forthebehaviors;

(3) Itisnotparticularlyusefultoproposesolutions to problemsthat others do not believe need to be solved;and

(4)

Having

"experts" involved can be a very

mixed

blessing.

The

Strategy

Takingtheselessonsto heart,

we

divided

develop-ment

of ourcomprehensiveplanintothreecomponents

withastrongemphasis on engagingabroad

commu-nity spectrum in the dialogue.

The

firstcomponent,

startedin 199

1,consistedofthePlanningDepartment

staff settingouttolearn

what

Seattle's citizensvalued

abouttheircommunities andwhattheyconsideredthe

mostimportantissuesinpreservingtheirqualityoflife.

The

next step

was

for city officials and staff, with

publicinput,todevelopa visionofa preferred futurefor

the City; thevision

was

designedtosolvethe

commu-nity-identified problems in a

manner

that

would

be

consistent with theirvalues.

The

final step

was

the

development ofspecific implementation strategies,

which

includeevaluationtools toensurethe

commu-nityis

movingtoward

thepreferred visionandprovide

benchmarks

by whichSeattle's citizenscanmeasure

ourcollectiveprogress.

The

first step, value identification,

was

accom-plishedthroughthemostextensivepublicinvolvement

process theCityhadever undertaken.Inadditiontothe

traditionalsteeringcommitteesand

community

meet-ings,

we made

extensive useoffocus groups, radio,

TV,

directmail,telephone surveys,newspapers, and

otherforms ofoutreachto try toengagethosepeople whodonottraditionallyinvolvethemselvesinplanning.

Inpastplanningefforts,

we

havehadlittledifficultyin

reachingthat small group of"professional citizens"

who

seem

to be involved in everything.

We

have,

however,struggledtoreachrepresentativesof minor-itycommunities,theyoung,single parents,renters,and

thepoor. Therefore,

we

undertook special effortsto

gainparticipationofthesegroups, includingthe

trans-lationofourdocumentsintosevendifferentlanguages

(87 different languagesor dialects are spoken inthe

Seattle Public School system) and recruitment of

community

representativesto

work

withinindividual

communities.

We

went so far asto hire high school

studentstodooutreach withintheschoolsaswellasto

translatetheplan into"teenspeak."

Itisimportanttonotethatthe valuesexpressed by

Seattle'svariouscommunities confirmed

some

things

we

thought

we knew

but also opened our

minds

to

some

surprises. Forexample,cityofficials

knew

that

withinour

community

"environmental stewardship"

was

highly valued.

We

weresurprised,however,atthe

extenttowhichtheenvironment

showed

up

more

like

a religiousvalue ratherthanasanattributeof

commu-nity.

Among

theNative

American

groupsindigenous

to the Pacific Northwestern area of the U.S., the

environment

was

referredtoas a"thou" ratherthan an

"it." It is

much

likethat forthe existingpopulation. Attacks on the environment are perceived to be the

same

asattackson the person ratherthansomething

thatisdisassociatedwith the self

We

werealsosurprised atthe extenttowhich the

community

feels thatthe

"American

Dream"

hasbeen

betrayedand

how much

our

community

wants issues

Whatthe

community

values

Political

Themes

developed

from Values

Continuity

DJvarstty

EconomicSeouritjf

Sciuaatton Environment

Freedom

Good

Oovernrnent

Opportunity

PhysicalSecurity

f»ro^gr«s»

('aluesexpressedbySeattlecitizens.

beenraisedtobelievethatanythingispossibleforus,

if

we

just decide to do it.

We

believe that resource

limitations are something that others need to worry

about,andthatour childrenwill,ofcourse,enjoythe

same

high standard ofliving that

we

have had.

The

notionoflimits,and,therefore,theneedto

make

some

hard choicesforourselvesandour

community

isvery difficulttoaccept.

Another surprise

was

how

often peoplewanted to talkabout"freedom."_{Differentgroupslinkedfreedom}

toavarietyofissues.

One

concept offreedomrelates

to fear ofcrime and personal harm. Concerns thata

neighborhoodisn'tsafe

makes

peoplefeeltrapped in

their

homes

or

makes them

feelasthoughpartsoftheir

community

are offlimitstothem.

Women

inparticular

often

make

choices about the use of public transit

based

upon

theirperceptionofriskinthewalk fromthe

busstop to

home.

Iftheycan't afford a carandifthey

are afraid tousetransit,theirfreedom of

movement

is

effectively diminished.

More

explicitwere freedom

issues relatedtotheautomobile.

The

advertising

indus-tryhas

done

avery

good

job ofconvincingmostpeople

in this

community

thatthere is a directrelationship

between being able to drive

where

one wants

when

one wants and being free.

The

processofexploringthe

community's

values ledcit>'officialstodevelop "The

Framework

Policies."

These policies are grounded in the core

community

values of environmental stewardship, social equity,

and

economic

security,andtheyestablishgoalsforthe

community

to

work

towards in a

manner

consistent

withtheirvalues.

The

nextstep

was

to identifywhichspecific

prob-lemsneedtobesolved.Cit>'officialsandstaffused a

variety of

mechanisms

to identify the issues to be

addressed.Seattle

was

thefirstcityinNorth

Amercia

todoafulIComparative EnvironmentalRiskto

Human

Healthanalysisbased

upon

theU.S.

Envi-ronmental Protection

Agency

model.

Through

thisanalysis,

we

learnedthatthe

number

one environmentalissueour plan

neededtoaddress

was

airquality

degrada-tionassociatedwithvehicleemissions.

The

second

most

serious problem

was

water

quality degradation associated with auto

related pollutants and increased surface

water run-off created by sprawl. Noise rankedthirdalong with indoorairquality.

We

also utilizedsurveys,focus groups,

random

sampling, and

community

meet-ingstofindoutwhat

was

botheringSeattle'

citizensthemost.

Lack

ofqualityintheschoolsystem,

trafficcongestion,concerns about crime,loss of"fam-ily

wage"

jobs, and environmental decline

were

the

most

oftenmentioned,with schoolsandtrafficbeinga

focusatevery meeting.

As

istrue forany urbanarea,

many

problemswereidentified. These werethe

most

prominent.

We

finallyhadthe

two

productsnecessarytodefine

apreferred future for theCity—

knowledge

of

what

the

community

values and which problemsthey believe

needtobesolved.Thesearecriticaltounderstanding

what broad-based political agreements are possible.

Without the broad-based political agreements, i.e.,

community

ownership ofthe vision and the related

goals,theplan

would

havelittlerelevanceovertime.

Values

inConflict

To

continuetostimulate

community

conversation

andinvolvement,toencourageconstructiveconflict,

andtosee ifagreement

was

possible,

we

engagedthe

community

ina

new

debate.Whiledevelopingthedraft

planandstrategy in 1993,

we

helda seriesofforums

with the

community

andthe region. It

became

very clear,notonlytousbut also to the citizensofthe region,

thatconflictsinthe

community's

values created

sig-nificantbarriers toproblemsolving.

Forexample,giventhe region'sdevelopment

pat-ternsoverthe past

two

decadesand

econom

ic

restruc-turing,whichhas

moved

us

away

fromdependence on

resourceindustries,

employment

isnolonger

concen-trated in the central city.

The

result of sprawling

residential development, increases inmultiple

wage

earnersperhousehold, andan increaseinthe

number

ofcareerseachofuswillhaveinourlifetime,hasbeen

thattheautomobileistheprimarysourceofmobility

andiscriticaltothe individual'sability togaineconomic

security.

However,

as

much

as

we

value

economic

security,

we

alsovalueenvironmentalpreservation.

A

VOLUME

20,

NUMBER

15

presentlymaintainindependence and

economic

secu-rityisalsothe principlecauseofenvironmentaldecline.

However,

we

also realizedthatenvironmental

pres-ervation

may

in fact be the key to future

economic

security.

AccordingtoFO^rLW^magazine's

survey

ofthe bestplaces in

America

forinternational

busi-ness, theCityofSeattleandthe central Puget

Sound

region's advantages in a global

economy

are: our environmentalquality,ourtransportationsystem(good

port, rail accesstotherestofthecountryanda

good

airport),anda skilled

work

force.Continued

degrada-tionoftheenvironmentwillcauseourregiontoloseone ofitscompetitive advantages.

Thiscombinationofvaluesandproblems,like

many

other combinations,creates

some

veryvexing dilem-mas.If

economic

security

means

we

must

focusupon

environmentalpreservation,andifenvironmental

pres-ervation

means

we

must

reducetheuseofthe

automo-bile,andifreducingtheuseoftheautomobile

means

reducing

economic

security,

how

do

we

proceed?

Working

throughthispuzzleand

many

more

Iikeit,with

individualsand

community

groups, ledthe planning

departmenttodevelopacomprehensive plan forthe

city entitled

"Toward

a Sustainable Seattle."

More

commonly,

thepressandthepublicreferto thisplanas the

"Urban

Village Strategy."

Urban

Villages

The Urban

Villageconceptisthekey

component

in

shaping future growth in Seattle. It identifies the

neighborhoodasthebasicbuildingblockofthecity.

The Urban

Village strategy proposes to direct

new

development to create focused, mixed-use,

pedes-trian-friendly, and transit-connected centers or

vil-lages. Specifically, it isdesigned tofocus growthto

reinforce existingneighborhoodcenters,enablingpeople

to live near shopping, transit stops, and where they

work,reducingtheirdependence onthe private

auto-mobileand meeting housingneedsforadiverse

popu-lationbycreatinghigher densityoptions.

The

strategy

also directs public investments into amenities that

create a sense of neighborhood and are shared by

neighborhoodresidents,protectsneighborhoodsfrom changesthat

would

changetheircharacter,andseeks tocontinuelarge-scalepublicinvolvementbycitizens

inshapingtheirenvironment andfostering a liveable region.

The

UrbanVillagestrategy,the basisforour

Com-prehensivePlan,isalsoabout behavioral change.Atits

core aretwo objectives: one is to

make

it easier for

people tochangetheir behaviors by providing

them

alternativeswhich doless

harm

butappealtotheircore

values,andtheotheristoinfluencethemarketplaceso

that people

make

more

money

doingthings that are

good

forsocietyandless

money

doingthingsthat

harm

us.

Ithas

become

quiteapparentthroughthisplanning processthatnosetoflaws orregulations willcureour

ilis.Attherootofeachissue,beitsocial,

econom

ic,or environmental, are the discrete choices each of us

makes

ona dailybasis.

Achievingmassbehavioralchangeisdifficultunder anycircumstances.Givenourvalues,propertyrights

laws,andpoliticaltraditionsemphasizingthe rightsof

the individual, forcingpeopletochangeisout ofthe

question.

When

pushed, people here believeitistheir

job to push back. Ifpushed too hard, they will put

someone

inoffice

who

won't push

them

atall.

For example, using

knowledge

we

have learned about our

community's

values,

we

now

know

why

peoplegetsoupset

when

we

tell

them

theyshoulddrive

less ornotat all.

They

don'thear us asking

them

to

incur

some

inconvenienceonbehalfofsocietal

envi-ronmentalgoals, insteadtheyhear ustelling

them

that the

government

istaking

away what

they considerto

beabasicfreedom.Ifpeopleinthis

community

are to

change their behaviorsto

meet

their environmental

values,then

we

need tofindsubstitutes for the sense

offreedomtheygetwiththeir cars.

Gettingthemarketplacetochangeitsbehavior

may

be even

more

difficult. In the housing market, the

developersextrapolatefromexistingtrendsand con-clude that the housing product people want is the

productthattheyarealreadybuilding.

Even

though

we

have

good

housingpreference studiesdemonstrating

that thisisnot necessarilytrue,theregion'sfinancial

and development interests continue

down

the

same

path.Unlessthegovernmentcanaffectprofits,either

bywriting

down

the costofdevelopmentthatachieves

our goals and/or increasingthe costofdevelopment

thatdoesn't,themarketwi1 1notchangeitsbehavior.In

our country, the needs ofthe market almost always

overwhelm

public policy.

And

inourregion,a lackof

changeinhousingdevelopmentpatterns

means

contin-uedenvironmentaldecline.

So, whatare

we

doing aboutthis?

We

createdthe

Urban

Village Strategy—a setofpolicies, strategies,

andinvestmentpracticeswhichshouldresultindenser,

more

walkable neighborhoodswith

more

flexibleand

personalizedpublictransit.

As

outlinedabove.

Urban

Villages focus on

making

more compact

and less

consumptiveliving

more

attractivebyprovidingbetter

amenities like parks, libraries,

community

centers, transportationfacilities,culturalamenities,and

educa-tion infrastructure.

We

areincreasingthe densities for

DesignatingUrbafi

Villages

Urban

Villagesare identifiedanddesignatedat

threescales

of

development:

Urban

Center Villages

These

areintendedto

accommodate

a broad

mix

of activity

and

will receive

most

ofthe future

residentialand

employment

growth. Thus, theywill

bethe

most

densely developedportions

of

thecity.

Hub

Urban

Villages

These

follow

Urban

CenterVillagesinintensity

ofdevelopment,with concentratedmixed-usecores,

diverseresidential areas,

and

excellenttransit

ac-cess.

Residential

Urban

Villages

These

areprimarily

compact

residential

neigh-borhoods with asmall, locallyoriented business

district.

Withintheremainingareas ofthe city outside

Urban

Villages, locations identified as

Neighbor-.hood

Anchors

aredesignatedtoprovide atransit

and

service focus for surrounding, low-density

residential areas. In the long-term future,

some

additionalconcentrationoflow-densityresidential

developmentmay

bedesirableinthesesurrounding

areas,but provisionsforsuchchanges

would

only

occur throughaneighborhoodplanningprocess.

reducingthe development capacity outsidethe

cen-ters.

We

are

making

the environmental assessment

process a publiccostwithinthe villagesanda private cost outside the villages.

We

are changingthe uses

allowedwithinthe villagessothat,likeit

was

30years

agoorso,housingwillbe aboveshops.

And

fmally,

we

are increasing the public share ofthe cost ofbasic infrastructureinthe villagesandincreasingthe private

shareoutside.

Planning or Anti-planning?

Some

refer to our

Comprehensive

Plan as

"neo-traditional"planning.1preferAndres

Duany's

refer-encetoour plan as"anti-planning."

He

refers toour

effortsthat

way

because

we

areattemptingtocounter

at least 30 years ofpractice that has devastated our citiesand

spawned

destruction of

much

of our once abundant environmentalquality.

And

we,plannersand

community

alike, have

done

this with the best of

intentions as

we

work

to"givepeople

what

they want." InSeattle,

we

were

respondingtoeveryproblem

by

giving people

more

of

what

theysaidthey

wanted

(and often

more

than

what

theyhave askedfor).

When

the

roads

were

fullandcitizenscomplained ofcongestion,

we

built wider roads rather tlian talk about

what

alternatives might

meet

mobility needs.

When

we

were

outofwater,

we

seldomquestioned

how

much

water

we

shouldbeusing;

we

just builtanother

dam

or

drilledanotherwell.

When

we

started tofeela little

cramped,

we

investedinfreewaysto

open

up

new

land

fordevelopment.

As

planners,

we

have

compartmen-talized our thinking, focused

on

specialization and

expertise,and,asaresult,havepossiblylostsightof

life'scomplexities.

We

riskforgetting theimportance ofunderstanding therelationshipsbetweenthe

physi-calform(land-use, transportation,housing,

community

facilities,utilities,anddesign)andthekinds

ofbehav-iorsthatform encouragesor discourages.

We

seemed

tohave lostsightofthereasonscitiesexist—toserve

the needs ofpeople.

We

feltthis

was

notthe

good

planningthatourcity

needed.

Which

brings us backto thecharge

Mayor

Ricegaveus

when

we

startedthe

whole

comprehen-siveplanning process:

"make

good

planninginto

good

politics."

How

does

good

planning

become

good

poli-tics?1

am

stilltrying to figurethisout.Itisunlikelythat

1will everbe abletosay withconfidencethat1

know

"the answer."

However,

some

ofthe keyingredients

have

become

clear.

They

are:

(1

Good

planningisabout people, notthings. Ifit

isn'tdirectedtowardgiving peopletheopportunity

tolivefullerand

more

satisfyinglives,then

we may

be missingthepointofallofthis.

(2)

Good

planning isabout ends, not means. For example,planning atransitsystem(a

means

toward

mobility) withoutconsideringthe societalendstobe served

may

notleadustowardincreasingthequality

ofoursociety.

(3)

Good

planning addresses

what

is,not

what

one

might wish

were

true.Inorderforplanstobeusefiil guidestowardproblemsolving,they

must

bebased

ona clearunderstandingofthenatureofthe

com-munity,both

good

andbad.

(4)

Good

planning

must

be focused onsuccessfor thesociety,notwinningforthe individual. Recogniz-ingthatself-interestdrives

much

ofourindividual

behaviors isnotthe

same

thingasabandoningthe

notion of a higher public interest to be served

through our plans. Alexander Hamilton, in The

Federalist Papers, gave definition to our role.

"Why

has

government

beeninstituted atall?" he

VOLUME

20,

NUMBER

1

17

conformtothe dictatesofreasonandjusticewithout

constraint."

(5)

Good

planningembracescomplexity,itdoesn't

avoid it.

Most

people

want

problems andsolutions

discussed withclarityand

common

sense. That is

not the

same

thingasbeingsimplistic.People'slives

arevery

complex

andtheyknow,intuitively, thatthe

rest of the world is pretty

complex

as well.

The

short-termbenefit tobe gainedby framing problems andopportunitiessimplisticallyarefaroutweighed by the long-term costs associated with a loss of

confidence in

government

institutions as people

realize

we

have"sheltered"

them

from thetruth.

(6)

Good

planning

must

recognizethatmyths and

beliefsare

much

more

powerfulthan facts. I have

never encountered a fact that could stand up to a

really

good

myth,atleastinthe short-term.

As we

attack theproblemsinourcommunities

we

needto

thinkaboutcreating

myths

thatencouragepositive

behavioral change if

we

are to

compete

with the

myths

createdbythose

who

are profitingfromthe

status quo.

HereinSeattle,the State

Growth

Management

Act gave us a

new

impetus to revitalize the planning

process.

As

noted by

Mayor

Norman

B. Rice in his

letter at the beginning of

An

Issues Guide to the

Mayor

's

Recommended

Comprehensive Plan, "the planning process has

become

avehicleforusto

make

basic choicesabout

how

we

can achieve our

funda-mental goals."

The

Seattle City Council adopted a

comprehensiveplan,

"Toward

aSustainableSeattle"

on July 25, 1994. There is not unanimity over the

preferred future

we

have chosenoroverthe strategies

we

are goingto useto achievethat future, but a vast

majority supportthe decisions made.

We

know

that

things willchange andthe planwill need toadaptto

thosechangesas

new

information

becomes

available. But,

we now

haveagoalofsustainabilityand,withthat

goal,

we

can harness our resources to help

make

Seattlean even bettercity, cp

Formoreinformationpleasecontact:

J.

Gary

Lawrence, Director PlanningDepartment 6004th

Avenue

-

Room

200

Seattle,Washington 98104