Planning as Bargaining

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings

Why would plans have an impact on the built environment when their provisions can be revisited in the context of individual development decisions? I examined the causal impacts of transit-oriented development (TOD) plans in San Francisco (CA) and Seattle (WA) using a mixed methods approach, combining qualitative interviews and a quantitative regression discontinuity design. I found that the Market and Octavia Plan in San Francisco had a substantial impact on development outcomes, increasing densities and reducing parking ratios not just within the plan boundaries but also in adjacent neighborhoods. In Seattle, although parking ratios declined and densities rose over time, it is harder to attribute these trends to the TOD plans studied here, which constituted a small part of the city’s overall planning program. Beyond zoning changes, I identified two mechanisms through which plans exert an impact. First, in a city where development approvals are not by-right, plans can act as an anchor point for bargaining among developers, city staff, and community members. Second, plans can serve as laboratories of innovation, enabling experimentation with new policies that can later be extended to adjacent communities. These findings, however, may not extend to places where zoning provides by-right development permission or where community members are implacably opposed to new development.

Takeaway for practice

Planners should consider the mechanisms through which plans exert causal impacts. In particular, they should strive for plans that provide a lasting compromise and leave limited incentives for stakeholders to reopen controversial debates in the context of individual project approvals. Planners can also use TOD and similar plans as sites of experimentation and innovation.

Keywords:

• mixed methods
• parking
• plan implementation
• transit-oriented development
• zoning

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The interviewees gave freely of their time and insights, and this research would not have been possible without their participation. I also thank Carlos Dobkin for helpful econometric advice; Tabitha Fraser, John Ford, Dylan Huntzinger, Drew Natuk, and Brandon Nyo for excellent research assistance; John Feit for comments on an early draft; and the county assessor offices and city planning departments in Seattle and San Francisco for providing data.

RESEARCH SUPPORT

Partial funding was provided by a University of California, Santa Cruz, Faculty Research Grant.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Supplemental data for this article can be found on the publisher’s website.

Notes

1 I refer to the impact of plans as shorthand for the impact of either the adopted plan or the planning process. Where relevant, I specifically distinguish between the two.

2 I focus on the literature on the impacts of plans and do not attempt to cover the extensive literature on TOD. For a useful, international review of TOD, see Ibraeva et al. (2020).

3 Such a view that zoning reflects, rather than shapes, other determinants of land use is not incompatible with research that finds that zoning controls and other land use regulations substantially limit the supply of housing (Glaeser & Ward, 2009; Jackson, 2016; Quigley & Raphael, 2005). Rather, zoning could serve as one mechanism for local political actors to realize their policy preferences. Even without zoning, these actors could find other ways, such as impact fees or design review processes, to achieve their goals (Monkkonen et al., 2020).

4 See, for example, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (2009) and an informative analysis at the Seattle’s Land Use Code (2011) blog.

5 Bargaining certainly occurs in other land use planning contexts in Seattle, suggesting that the capacity of community groups is not the constraint. One developer (interview no. 17) highlighted the work of The Champion, a group formed to advocate for the implementation of community TOD goals at the Capitol Hill station site and to champion the implementation of the Urban Design Framework plan. However, this advocacy focused on the redevelopment of land owned by Sound Transit, a public agency, rather than privately owned parcels covered by the more extensive and earlier station area plan.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Adam Millard-Ball

ADAM MILLARD-BALL ([email protected]) is an associate professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles.