Planning as Bargaining

Problem, research strategy, and findingsWhy 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 practicePlanners 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.