Objectives: This course serves to introduce students to the principles of urban planning. The focus is on housing and land use regulation. Planning methods and analysis techniques are presented. Attention is given to a review of planning history, comprehensive planning, and planning agency issues.

Instructor: Dr. H.W. Bullamore

Dunkle Hall 309, 687-4413 (voice mail available)

Office Hours: 8:45-11:00 MTWRF

Text: Frank S. So and Judith Getzels, The Practice of Local Government Planning, 2nd Edition, International Management Assoc. Selected reserve materials as noted.

Evaluation:

20% First Midterm Exam (Feb. 28)

30% Second Midterm Exam (April 25)

20% Final Exam (May 21)

25% Independent Project (due May 5)

5% Short Homework Projects

The three exams will be entirely short answer. The final exam will not be comprehensive. Test will include materials from readings, class discussion, and independent work.

The independent project will involve developing a site plan for development or reuse of a real site. Although necessarily brief, the plan should include statement of goals, literature review, alternatives considered, a recommendation with site plan and cost estimates. Specific guidelines are attached. Both oral (time permitting) and written versions of the project will be graded. There will also be two short homework projects.

There is a required field trip for Geography 450 on Wednesday, April 30, 1997. This will be an all day trip. Our particular goal is to examine innovative planning efforts. Points to visit include:

1) The Kentlands, Gaithersburg, MD

2) Georgetown, MD

3) Adams-Morgan, D.C.

4) Greenbelt, MD

5) Columbia, MD

We will leave at approximately 6:45 a.m. Return will be in the early evening. Explanations will be provided to other instructors for trip participants.

Policies:

Students are expected to attend each class. A student with five or more absences (for any reason) will suffer loss of a letter grade.

Academic honesty is expected in all matters relating to this course. Consult Pathfinder, p. 115. Academic dishonesty on exams or the project will lead to course failure.

Class Schedule:

Part I: DEVELOPMENTS OF AMERICAN PLANNING

Jan. 31, Feb. 3 Introduction to Planning Chapter 1

Feb. 5, 7, 10, 12 History of Planning Chapter 2

Feb. 14, 17, 19 Comprehensive Planning Chapter 3

Feb. 21, 24, 26 District Planning Chapter 4

Feb. 28 Exam I

Part II: LAND USE REGULATION

Mar. 3, 5, 7 Urban Design Chapter 7

Mar. 10 Site Design Practice Reserve 1

Mar. 12 Building Codes Chapter 8

Mar. 14, 17, 19 Land Subdivision Reserve 2

Mar. 21, 31, Apr. 2 Residential Zoning Chapter 9

Apr. 4, 7 Non Residential Zoning Reserve 3

Apr. 9, 11 Housing Plans Chapter 12

Apr. 14 Redevelopment Plans Reserve 4

Apr. 16, 18 New Town Planning

Apr. 21, 23 Land Use Law

Apr. 25 Exam II

Part III: PLANNING PROFESSION

Apr. 28 Information for Planning Chapter 15

Apr. 30 Field Trip

May 2, 5 Planning Agencies Chapter 13

May 7, 9 Financial Management Chapter 14

May 12, 14 Planning Values & Ethnics Chapter 16

Final Exam: Wednesday, May 21, 2:30-5:00 p.m.

Geography 450

Spring 1997

1. Maryland Citizen Planners Association, "Improving the Design of Residential Communities," September 1988.

2. Michael M. Schultz and Richard Kelley, "A Model Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Guarantee," JAPA, Spring 1987, p. 259.

3. Maryland Department of State Planning, Article 66B, Annotated Code of Maryland, Zoning and Planning, June 1987.

4. James M. Rubenstein, "Relocation of Families for Public Improvement Projects: Lessons from Baltimore," JAPA, Spring 1988, p. 185.

Basic Requirements:

1. Original Research Paper

2. Presented as a formal planning agency report (neatly typed, documented, proofread, etc.)

3. Must deal with a site planning issue related to housing, development, or redevelopment.

4. Must focus on land use options for a specific, real site (the options you present need not be real)

5. Must have proper documentation (site map and bibliography)

6. The text must be at least 2,500 words, and the completed report must be 20 pages or less (including cover page, maps, and bibliography)

7. The written version is due May 5. Oral presentations will be scheduled during the last 2 weeks of class.

Paper Organization:

1. Cover page (name, title, date, etc.)

2. Description of the Situation (What is the problem to be solved? You may approach this from any perspective you choose. For example, you may be working for a developer seeking best use for a site. Or for a planning agency interested in redevelopment, or another approach to development for environmental or other reasons.)

3. Regulatory Situation (Is this land zoned? If so, for what? In what jurisdiction? How could your project gain approval?)

4. Review and Discussion of Appropriate Planning Literature (Has this type of problem been solved before?)

5. Alternatives Considered (What possible plans/land use approaches have been considered? You must present at least 3 viable alternative solutions to your problem.)

6. Recommendations (What do you recommend for this site? Justify your opinions. Consider cost and feasibility. Be as specific as possible. However, feel free to consult with your instructor to estimate feasibility or cost. I am not concerned with the numbers you see, but that you consider such issues.)

7. Site map(s) (You may need a site design for each alternative considered.)

8. Bibliography.

Topic:

Selection of type and location of the project under study is the choice of the student. Consultation with the instructor is not required. The location must be a real place. The proposal may or may not prove feasible.

Evaluation:

The evaluation of the paper is primarily in terms of comprehensive thought rather than detail. Specific concerns are 1) Did the paper fulfill its stated purpose? 2) Was advice and precedent sought in the planning literature? 3) Were alternatives seriously considered before a development recommendation was presented? and 4) Was care taken in the writing of the paper? Your grade will not be affected by 1) A simply prepared site map, 2) Unrealistic or undocumented cost figures, or 3) a project which proves not feasible.