Topic: Land Use classifications

I'm not exactly sure what made me think of this, but the other day as I was pondering my future internship ideas for this summer and thought back to my prior internship experiences.  In the summer of 2008, I found myself working at the MPO (metropolitan planning organization) for the Grand Rapids metro area: an organization called Grand Valley Metropolitan Council.  My first crack at planning was really enjoyable even though the work placed upon me wasn't terribly demanding (it was during my undergrad; they probably didn't trust me with much more).  Either way, when the fall semester of my senior year at Grand Valley State rolled around, it was time to bid farewell and begin work on my thesis to graduate.

Luckily, I must've left a good impression as I was offered a job with a subsidiary organization under Metro Council called REGIS.  They specialized in Geographic Information Systems and performing mapping duties for all the local municipalities in the area who chose to pay for the service.

Enough with the lengthy background.  One of my first projects at REGIS was to make a land use map for the City of Hudsonville, a satellite city a few miles southwest of Grand Rapids that has taken on a largely suburban character since the 1960's.  The project was very interesting and slightly challenging as well.  Selecting an appropriate land use classification code can be difficult as some need to be tailored to a particular geography.

The current land use map used a classification code that seems, well, half-baked at best.  The codes and the numbers didn't seem to make much sense and there was no tiering of the code--all land uses were "equal."  Most classification codes are in levels as to place hierarchy on generality.  For example, "Commercial" or "Residential" may be adequate enough for a particular map when discerning where businesses are or where people live; however, if you need to know where multi-family residential dwellings versus single-family residential dwelling are, you'll need a more detailed, precise classification.

Being a part of an MPO created to coordinate planning and development strategies for a large geographic area, it would make sense to have everyone using the same classification system.  The system I was most used to from my undergrad experience was the State of Michigan's Land Use/Land Cover Classification System which is based off the USGS system.  To use a ubiquitous system which would allow for direct comparisons temporally and spatially would be very advantageous to the MPO.  For instance, a direct comparison could be made between single-family residential in Grand Rapids as Wyoming, Grandville, or any other municipality.  Unfortunately when I made this request to the planning and zoning administrator of Hudsonville, he said since Hudsonville is in Ottawa County (most of the GR metro area is in Kent County), they had to be sympathetic to their efforts and use their classification system.

I'm all for decentralization, but when it comes to an issue such as this, if one area is using a code created by the county, one area is using a code they developed themselves, and everyone else is using the state's code, it just makes for ambiguities and headaches when trying to compare them.  This could lead to poor planning decisions when formulating comprehensive plans for a region.  Land uses need to be clearly defined as to ensure each class or subclass is expressing the same thing.  High-density in Grand Rapids probably means something very different than high-density in Byron Township. This sort of leads into descriptive statistics and being able to use quantitative data to describe the character or changing character of a community.

Hello, my name is...

This blog is meant to serve as an outlet for all my rants, pontifications, and general convoluted ideas that come to light on the topic of urban planning.  Enjoy!

Upon arriving to Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, I have been given healthy doses of planning theory, self-taught principles of real estate development, and descriptive statistics. On top of that, I felt I had a pretty solid basis for planning after a few internships at Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, the MPO for the metro Grand Rapids (MI) region and REGIS (Regional Geographic Information Systems), an agency of GVMC.  However, there is a giant gulf in knowledge of where I'd like to be.  Consequently, I'm hoping this blog helps me sort various issues I encounter during this educational experience of mine.

Here's the disclaimer, I'm a pretty bias person, so I can already imagine most of these posts dealing with planning issues and dilemmas concerned my home state of Michigan.  I'm pretty fond of America's high five, and I feel I can provide much more thorough insight to some issues seeing as I'm familiar with the culture of the area.  As I'm learning more regarding this field of planning, I'm starting to see how crucial public involvement is and how to appease constituents of the area you (a planner) works for.  I can't imagine how receptive people of a community would be to a planner recently hired from several states away coming in and proposing changes or making decisions about a community's future.  I realize planning is a professional expertise, and a planner can go anywhere in the world and work, but how effective can he or she be coming in with an outsider's perspective only.

I realize an outside perspective is always healthy and a probably good idea.  Corporations will typically hire a third party to conduct evaluations on their performance.  Government should be no exception.  A planner coming in with an outside perspective can be very beneficial and this is typically the role of private consultants, but day-to-day operations are best handled the denizens of the area in a more decentralized environment.  Planning, especially it seems in smaller towns and cities, involves a greater amount of personal relationships/politics.  This is where outsiders coming in may not be well received and more likely to be criticized for their efforts.