As a credentialed city planner, the most I’ve enjoyed so far are some extra initials to put after my name and the opportunity log some certification maintenance credits.

Jane Jacobs does not hide her distain for credentialed professionals. It’s not a matter of the people, it’s that the credential itself provides a shield under which professionals/researchers can hide from fruitful feedback through the course of scientific inquiry. She cites an example of where the work of 80 CDC researchers was trumped by one sociology grad student; the work of the former was given instant credence through academic journals, but was, in Jacobs’ view, worthless.

So, here’s where my profession fails - at least in keeping a scientific state of mind. This is going to take at least two days worth of posts.

As a reminder, here are the steps Jacobs outlines:

1. The fruitful question
2. Frame a hypothetical answer
3. Test that answer (or observe real world tests of that question, as in social sciences)
4. Ask more fruitful questions based on findings

The first failure is obvious: failing to ask a fruitful question.

Planners frequently become “zoners.” That is, those who deal with zoning, or, in the oxymoron of the profession, “current planners.” The question this subset most frequently asks: Does this proposal meet the zoning requirements?

Not fruitful.

Maybe it’s time I explained what Jacobs means by “fruitful.”

“Fruitful” means that the question must take into account, as far as possible, everything already known about the object, event, or process under scrutiny and, amid this richness of information, must single out a salient mystery or obscurity. “Science abandoned,” Dark Age Ahead (p66)

Most zoning regulations control land use, primarily, though it regulates other factors, such as performance, form, area, and density. Land use is the organizing principle. Some decry Euclidean zoning, named for a town in Ohio and not the geometry, for its separation of uses. For the sake of the non-credentialed reader I’ll avoid going into composite, pyramid, exclusionary or other such abstractions of this system.

This type of zoning arose in the early 20th century in response to a fruitful question: How can we separate uses to prevent conflicts or nuisances? Think of the public health, safety, and general welfare!

The hypothetical answer: What if we separate these uses in different districts?

For factory workers sans transit, living in walking distance of the factory gate was a must. You might debate the classist imposition of such a solution, but that’s beyond the point here (see posts on planning moralisms).

For those lamenting the high, possibly unforeseen consequences that arose from this solution, such as sprawl, that’s also beyond the point here.

The point here is that the system of inquiry stopped. There is little chance for proper feedback. The hypothetical answer becomes the untested solution. Zoners ignore real world feedback - the only on the ground testing.

Some are looking at the real world data in this case. There are some interesting solutions, such as form-based coding. But, the barriers to overhaul a zoning code are political and fiscal. The feedback does not have an easy path to travel.

More missteps tomorrow…

Forgive the legalese:

“Family” means a number of individuals related to the nominal head of the household or to the spouse of the nominal head of the household living as a single housekeeping unit in a single dwelling unit, but limited to the following:

(a) Husband or wife of the nominal head of the household.

(b) Unmarried children of the nominal head of the household or of the spouse of the nominal head of the household, provided, however, that such unmarried children have no children residing with them.

(c) Father or mother of the nominal head of the household or of the spouse of the nominal head of the household.

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) hereof, a family may include not more than one dependent married or unmarried child of the nominal head of the household or of the spouse of the nominal head of the household and the spouse and dependent children of such dependent child. For the purpose of this subsection, a dependent person is one who has more than fifty percent of his total support furnished for him by the nominal head of the household and the spouse of the nominal head of the household.

(e) A family may consist of one individual.

-Definition overturned in Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)

The above definition was too intrusive. For those keeping track, it has something to do with substantive due process (14th Amendment).

This Supreme Court decision still stands, allowing this definition:

One or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants. A number of persons but not exceeding two (2) living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption, or marriage shall be deemed to constitute a family.

-Definition upheld in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974)

The census counts both families and households, though the above definitions are attempting to force a narrow definition to restrict how many individuals can live at a given address in a single-family zoning district. Anything else would be considered non-family, despite possibly remaining a household, forcing such units to either: A) break the law, or B) find a district that allows “group living.” Typical group living uses: fraternities and sororities, halfway homes, assisted living facilities, and prisons.

History would not recognize these definitions. We’ve forgotten the role of the extended family while also losing our community backup.

The East Cleveland definition attempted to define, narrowly, a nuclear family. Culture has enshrined this unit above all others.

Two parents, to say nothing of one, cannot possibly satisfy all the needs of a family-household. “Families rigged to fail” Dark Age Ahead (p34)

Last week, I’d laid into planning’s intrusive moralizing RE: sidewalks. Jacobs has not forgotten this point between 1961 and 2004.

Think of all the responsibilities parents hold:

• first aid
• tutoring
• coach
• mentoring
• budgeting
• purchasing
• cooking
• home repair and maintenance
• banking
• acculturation of children
• much, much more

Who are the paragons that, unaided and unadvised, can earn a living and also provide all this and more? “Families rigged to fail” Dark Age Ahead (p34)

Certainly the unit defined by East Cleveland would not alone suffice.