The Role of the Development Management Framework in the Implementation of Flexible Planning Tools: Insights from a Tale of a Local Planned Unit Development Project
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2022
The Role of the Development Management Framework in the Implementation of Flexible Planning Tools: Insights from a Tale of a Local Planned Unit Development Project
Flexibility sets planned unit developments (PUD) apart from conventional planning and zoning. Using a case study of a PUD project in Ann Arbor, Michigan, I deconstruct the impact of flexibility on the planning process. I find that flexibility emphasizes negotiated decision making in an unconducive institutional setting, results in uncertainty for all actors involved, makes public interest a moving target, and replaces bureaucratic procedures with politics. Although PUDs provide reprieve from local codes and plans, my findings highlight how important it is for municipalities to ensure that the underlying development management framework is of good quality for effective PUD implementation.
AbbottJohn. 2005. “Understanding and Managing the Unknown: The Nature of Uncertainty in Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research24:237–51.
2.
AhrensClifford. 1970. “Planned Unit Development.” Missouri Law Review35:27–38.
3.
AlexanderErnest R.2001. “A Transaction-Cost Theory of Land Use Planning and Development Control: Towards the Institutional Analysis of Public Planning.” The Town Planning Review72 (1): 45–75.
4.
American Planning Association. 2009. “Understanding Planned Unit Development” (PAS Quicknotes 22). Chicago: American Planning Association.
5.
BoothPhilip. 1995. “Zoning or Discretionary Action: Certainty and Responsiveness in Implementing Planning Policy.” Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (2): 103–12.
6.
BoothPhilip. 1996. Controlling Development: Certainty and Discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.
7.
BoothPhilip. 2007. “The Control of Discretion: Planning and the Common-Law Tradition.” Planning Theory6 (2): 127–45. doi:10.1177/1473095207077585
8.
BuitelaarEdwin. 2004. “A Transaction-Cost Analysis of the Land Development Process.” Urban Studies41 (13): 2539–53.
9.
CatneyPhilipHenneberryJohn. 2012. “(Not) Exercising Discretion: Environmental Planning and the Politics of Blame-Avoidance.” Planning Theory & Practice13 (4): 549–68. doi:10.1080/14649357.2012.728002
10.
ChristensenKaren S.1985. “Coping with Uncertainty in Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association51 (1): 63–73.
11.
CullingworthJohn Barry. 1993. The Political Culture of Planning: American Land Use Planning in Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge.
12.
DaltonLinda C.1985. “Politics and Planning Agency Performance Lessons from Seattle.” Journal of the American Planning Association51:189–99.
13.
DaltonLinda C.ConoverMarkRudholmGaryTsudaRandalBaerWilliam C.1989. “The Limits of Regulation Evidence from Local Plan Implementation in California.” Journal of the American Planning Association55:151–68.
14.
DavidNina Palmy. 2015. “Factors Affecting Planned Unit Development Implementation.” Planning, Practice & Research30 (4): 393–409.
15.
DavidNina PalmyDuMouchelLeah. 2012. “PUD Approaches 50: A Snapshot from Michigan.” The Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference Cincinnati, November 1, 2012.
16.
de ChapmanGail Marie Hansen. 2008. “Design Codes for Healthy Communities the Potential of Form-Based Codes to Create Walkable Urban Streets.” University of Florida. http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0021938
17.
ElliottDonald L.2012. A Better Way to Zone Ten Principles to Create More Livable Cities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
18.
Fox-RogersLindaMurphyEnda. 2014. “Informal Strategies of Power in the Local Planning System.” Planning Theory13 (3): 244–68. doi:10.1177/1473095213492512
19.
GardeAjayHoffAndrea. 2017. “Zoning Reform for Advancing Sustainability: Insights from Denver’s Form-Based Code.” Journal of Urban Design22 (6): 845–65. doi:10.1080/13574809.2017.1337495
20.
GardeAjayKimCecilia. 2017. “Form-Based Codes for Zoning Reform to Promote Sustainable Development: Insights from Cities in Southern California.” Journal of the American Planning Association83 (4): 346–64. doi:10.1080/01944363.2017.1364974
21.
GerringJohn. 2004. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?”American Political Science Review98 (2): 341–54.
22.
GoldstonEliScheuerJames H.1959. “Zoning of Planned Residential Developments.” Harvard Law Review73 (2): 241–67.
23.
GoodinRobert E.1988. Reasons for Welfare: The Political Theory of the Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
24.
HankeByron. 1965. “Planned Unit Development and Land Use Intensity.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review114 (1): 15–46.
25.
HeazleMichael. 2010. Uncertainty in Policy Making: Values and Evidence in Complex Decisions. London: Earthscan.
26.
HochCharles J.1984. “Pragmatism, Planning, and Power.” Journal of Planning Education and Research4 (2): 86–95.
27.
JohnsonBonnie J.LylesWard. 2016. “The Unexamined Staff Report: Results from an Evaluation of a National Sample.” Journal of the American Planning Association82 (1): 22–36. doi:10.1080/01944363.2015.1109471
28.
KlostermanRichard E. 1980. “A Public Interest Criterion.”Journal of the American Planning Association46 (3): 323–33.
29.
KrasnowieckiJan Z.1965. “Planned Unit Development: A Challenge to Established Theory and Practice of Land Use Control.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review114 (1): 47–97.
30.
LipskyMichael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
31.
LloydGerald D.1965. “A Developer Looks at Planned Unit Development.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review114 (1): 3–14. doi:10.2307/3311032
32.
MandelkerDaniel R.2008. “Legislation for Planned Unit Developments and Master-Planned Communities.” The Urban Lawyer40 (3): 419–49.
33.
MandelkerDaniel R., and American Planning Association. 2007. Planned Unit Developments. Chicago: American Planning Association.
34.
MarrisPeter. 1987. Meaning and Action: Community Planning and Conceptions of Change. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
MooreColleen GroganSiskinCheryl. 1985. PUDs in Practice. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
37.
NorthDouglass C.1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
ParolekDaniel G.ParolekKarenCrawfordPaul C.2008. Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban Designers, Municipalities, and Developers. Hoboken: John Wiley.
39.
PurcellMark. 2006. “Urban Democracy and the Local Trap.” Urban Studies43 (11): 1921–41.
40.
SchrammWilbur. 1971. Notes on Case Studies of Instructional Media Projects. Stanford: Institute for Communication Research, Stanford University.
41.
SeawrightJasonGerringJohn. 2008. “Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options.” Political Research Quarterly61 (2): 294–308.
42.
SoFrank S.MosenaDavid R.BangsFrank S.1973. Planned Unit Development Ordinances. Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials.
SusskindLawrenceMcMahonGerardRolleyStephanie. 1987. “Mediating Development Disputes: Some Barriers and Bridges to Successful Negotiation.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review7 (2): 127–38. doi:10.1016/0195-9255(87)90032-1
45.
TalenEmily. 2013. “Zoning for and against Sprawl: The Case for Form-Based Codes.” Journal of Urban Design18 (2): 175–200. doi:10.1080/13574809.2013.772883
46.
University of Michigan Coastal Zone Laboratory. 1974. Planned Unit Development (PUD): Tool or Trap. Michigan: Coastal Zone Laboratory Great Lakes Resource Management Program, University of Michigan.
47.
WeberJeffrey A.1999. “A Response to Public Administration’s Lack of a General Theory of Uncertainty: A Theoretical Vision of Uncertainty.” Public Administration Quarterly23 (1): 18–45.
48.
WildavskyAaron B.1984. The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Boston: Little, Brown.
49.
YinRobert K.1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
