Plantizen — the planning & development network — made a list of its top 10 planning issues for 2005. Here’s what I think about them:

1. Kelo v. New London and Eminent Domain
Terrible, as I noted previously. Eminent Domain hurts the little guy 9 times out of 10. Its purpose is to facilitate land assembly for large-scale developers (non- and for-profit). The premise is that wholesale change is better than smaller, incremental change. The history of mega-development — even in the name of the public good — has been dreadful.

2. Hurricane Katrina
An important planning issue that has everyone in planning scrambling to get down to New Orleans to help. Perhaps I am cynical but where the hell were the social justice advocates before the hurricane? That it took a massive crisis to mobilize the planning profession seems to me to run counter to what planning is. Isn’t planning supposed to pro-active, not reactive? It should serve as a reminder to everyone of the importance of planning — that is, thinking into the future to head off potential disasters. Unfortunately, given the scale of disaster, those groups with a ready-made toolkit just waiting to be implemented will be the winners. And make no mistake — it is the New Urbanists who came to New Orleans ready to deploy. Somehow that troubles me…

3. America’s Failing Infrastructure
Nothing new here. As local budgets get squeezed further and further, the regular investments necessary to maintain infrastructure are not made — everything from bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, you name it. That’s one of the things government is supposed to do — figure out ways to make regular investments in critical public assets (either by direct support or user-pay). Donors don’t give money to fix potholes, so the problem usually isn’t with new ribbon-cutting initiatives, but rather with the everyday maintainence.

4. The McMansion Backlash
Well, there’s a backlash in certain circles, but to your average hard-working family, it is a symbol of pride and achievement to finally move into one of those hideously designed mega-houses in the suburbs. Certainly, it’s not my goal. But, until we find a way to even out land values across a metropolitan region, people will always be trading off location for space. It’s a values question — how much space do you really need? To me, I find it difficult to imagine a family of four requiring more than about 2,000 square feet + garage. Do the math: living room (250 s.f.), dining room (200 s.f.), kitchen (200 s.f.), den/family room (250 s.f.), master bedroom (200 s.f.), master bath (120 s.f.), walk-in-closet (60 s.f.), bedroom 2 (180 s.f.), bedroom 3 (180 s.f.), bath 2 (120 s.f.), laundry (60 s.f.), entry/powder (80 s.f. ), circulation (100 s.f.) = 2,000 s.f.

5. “Condofication”
Here, we are referring to the conversion of rental units into condos, often forcing people to relocate. To me, converting to condo ownership from rental isn’t the problem. The problem is when there aren’t enough condos on the market and prices are therefore exorbitant. We need to find a way to facilitate the construction of more housing units, rental and condo, period. Affordability problems are typically a problem of cities blocking what the market would otherwise be happy to provide. This is a morals question — current zoning prioritizes R1 (single family) above all else. Too much city land is zoned R1 and not multi-family. More multi-family housing (rental or condo) and the overall cost goes down.

6. Google Democratizes Mapping
I must say I love Google maps and Google Earth. The applications are vast. The Toronto Star, for example, uses Google to map the locations of homocides in the city, with pop-ups about each of the victims and, if known, the circumstances of their death. This is a powerful tool, and an honorable way of recognizing, in this case, the lives lost. Environmental groups can also use it to plot the location of the most polluting sites. There are thousands of applications - Google should be applauded for making this tool available to the public.

7. Wi-Fi Networks and Economic Development
This one bugs me. Sure, I would like to have wi-fi everywhere I go. But, it’s hardly a public good. Of all the basic things that governments still aren’t going well — like providing good schools, encouraging affordable housing, providing public security, etc — they feel it is important to spend millions on setting up a wireless network across the city (or downtown core). What a waste of taxpayer money. There are plenty of private companies that are all too willing to provide such a service for those of use lucky enough to have wireless devices. The fact is, this benefits only a small segment of the population. Government action should be to provide services that benefit the most number of people — things that are neither practical nor affordable if done privately. When we’ve created a more just society, then we can start worrying about making our toys work better.

8. The New Suburbanism and Creative Class Debates
This one boils down to the age-old battle of downtown vs. suburbs. But the debate is actually quite dumb. Richard Florida’s Creative Class is provocative and there is something to the idea that young professionals want to live in funky places. Likewise, one cannot debate the importance of suburbs in urban politics, as Joel Kotkin suggests. But, this isn’t a polar argument. The fact is, suburbs by necessity will be more dense (starting from the inner ring out). Urban areas will also by necessity become more dense. The issue isn’t suburbs vs. downtown, it’s the conflicts in both places over the need for higher density environments.

9. “Peak Oil” and Planning For Alternative Energy
This is also a debate for the ages. There’s no doubt that the cost of oil has entered into a new era — the days of $25/barrel are over for the foreseeable future. However, the forecasts that I have seen show the price of oil dropping over the coming years — still above $50, but not rising. At these price levels, areas like Alberta’s oil sands become feasible to develop. Which, in turn, will likely cause the price of oil to drop. So, yes, sustainability is vital — and we should be working towards that goal regardless, but until the Saudis issue a press release saying, “sorry we’re empty”, it is very likely that oil will continue to dominate. Cities (nations, even) would be smart, however, to think of the big picture, though. More sustainable environments is not just about a potential oil crisis. It’s about pollution and smog. It’s about wasted productivity (to this point, we’ve been lucky to have land to expand so that commute times remain the same, but the scarcity of land is quickly becoming a problem). It’s about the destruction of local food supply. It’s about parents not being home for their kids. It’s about kids playing video games and getting fat. It’s about a lot of things. We shouldn’t be fooled to think that the only reason why we should be more sustainable cities is because of oil.

10. The High Cost of Free Parking
Don Shoup is bang-on. Los Angeles is the worst offender. In Boston, parking is so scarce, it becomes very expensive. So, if given the choice between driving downtown and taking the T (subway), you take the T. A couple hours parking in downtown Boston can cost you $15-20. The equivalent in L.A. costs $2-5. Most places give two hours of free parking. Hell, even valet parking — something reserved for the uber-wealthy in Boston — is only a couple bucks more in Los Angeles. So, of course people drive in Los Angeles. The fact is, we have been subsidizing car use for decades. It is time that parking and those that drive pay its true cost. That means more expensive parking and freeway tools. You use it, you pay for it.