打印

作者

Philip R. Berke;Daniel A. Rodriguez

来源

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION,Vol.85,Issue1,P.7-15

语言

英文

关键字

comprehensive planning,consensus building,David Godschalk,resilient cities,sustainable development

作者单位

摘要

AbstractAbstractDavid R. Godschalk, professor emeritus in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, passed away in early 2018. In this essay we reflect on Dave’s planning scholarship and practice. We discuss his main contributions in 4 prominent areas. First is the importance of public participation and collaboration for the planning and governance of communities. He argued for democratizing and recasting public participation, with planners working alongside community members coproducing plans and incorporating uncertainty, new information, and different viewpoints. Second is Dave’s focus on the tenets of the comprehensive plan and its core element, the land use plan. In the plan, central principles of livable urban forms and model planning processes can be integrated and translated to practice. With academic collaborators and practitioners he pioneered theoretical and empirical research on what constitutes a high-quality plan, a fundamental question at the heart of planning. Third is his research demonstrating how spatial planning can be used for hazard mitigation and urban resilience. This work forged a new generation of planning academics and practitioners who focused on hazard plans for predisaster mitigation and postdisaster recovery at multiple governmental levels. Finally, fourth is his personal involvement in planning-related institutions that he helped create, lead, or steer. In his various roles as scholar, teacher, mentor, collaborator, supervisor, planning director, and elected official, Dave touched the lives of many who now build on his contributions in creating better communities.Keywords: comprehensive planning, consensus building, David Godschalk, resilient cities, sustainable developmentDave Godschalk was an exemplary planning scholar and leader. He built his life as a planner and architect, as an appointed and elected official, and as a teacher and mentor. His background and experience embody a continuous search for opportunities to synthesize, integrate, and propose solutions to build better communities and improve planning practice. It is no surprise that his last book, a memoir published in 2017, is titled Searching for the Sweet Spot: A Planner’s Memoir. In the sweet spot, trade-offs are managed and favorable outcomes achieved. The term connotes weighing pros and cons, understanding strengths and weaknesses, and identifying the conditions under which these different elements can be brought together in harmony. It also evokes a physical place, a location, where this balancing act takes place.Dave’s contributions to planning were many, but they were always directed to the sweet spot. His scholarly work spoke to issues that are essential to city and regional planning: managing disputes and stakeholder differences in the development and planning process; making and examining the quality and impact of comprehensive plans; and using plans as proactive, long-term instruments to mitigate natural hazards. He frequently acknowledged the need to move away from considering planning as a zero-sum game. Positive outcomes emerged when stakeholders coproduced solutions. Planners’ missions were to assist in the process of identifying and designing these solutions in an equitable and sustainable way.His meritorious career was widely recognized by many professional and academic organizations. He was a recipient of the distinguished Association of the Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) Educator’s Award and APA’s President’s Award for his lifelong contributions to advancing the best ideas in planning. He was a Fellow of the AICP, the highest honor bestowed on a professional planner. He served as editor of the Journal of the American Institute of Planners from 1968 to 1971. Professionally speaking, his appointment as planning director of the city of Gainesville (FL), his election to the town council of Chapel Hill (NC), and his service to the University of North Carolina’s (UNC’s) Buildings and Grounds Committee speak to Dave’s willingness and ability to translate knowledge to practice. UNC recognized his superior contributions to the university by awarding him the C. Knox Massey Award for Public Service.In this essay we reflect on Dave’s many extraordinary contributions to planning scholarship and practice. We consider Dave’s training and early professional and academic work as a foundation for his search for sweet spots that bring together planning scholarship and planning practice to create better places for people. We focus on his work on comprehensive plans, natural hazards, and urban resilience and his lasting contributions to building planning institutions. Throughout this essay, we also reflect on the key role that dispute resolution and negotiation played in Dave’s career. We end with a set of reflections for scholars and planners about Dave’s lasting contributions and impact (Figure 1).David GodschalkA Planner’s Lifelong Search for the Sweet SpotAll authorsPhilip R. Berke & Daniel A. Rodriguezhttps://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1541423Published online:28 March 2019Figure 1. David Godschalk (center, standing) as a young faculty member interacting with students and colleagues.Source: Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, photograph archive; used with permission.Display full sizeFigure 1. David Godschalk (center, standing) as a young faculty member interacting with students and colleagues.Source: Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, photograph archive; used with permission.Early FoundationsDave encountered the nascent field of planning as an architecture student at Dartmouth and later at the University of Florida. His design and architectural sensibilities found a natural home in planning, where form and function coexist at different scales. His involvement in planning was supported by a Naval ROTC scholarship that took him to Scotland, where he was exposed to new Scottish towns. This experience, coupled with his academic training, piqued his interest in planning as a tool for improving urban life. He entered the professional world of planning working for the Florida consulting firm Milo Smith and Associates. He then pursued a master’s degree in regional planning at UNC Chapel Hill in the early 1960s and shortly thereafter was recruited to be planning director for the City of Gainesville. He was attracted to Gainesville “by leaders of a new-guard political movement who had gained a majority on the town’s elected board” (Godschalk, 2014 Godschalk, D. (2014). A planning life: Bridging academics and practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(1), 83–90. doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.928169[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], p. 85). This gave Dave the opportunity to apply his planning and architectural skills while gaining an appreciation for political processes and community involvement. Then came his first foray into academia as an assistant professor in the newly formed planning department at Florida State University. Realizing the importance of a doctoral degree for a career in academia, and in some ways reaffirming his identity as a planner more than an architect, Dave returned to UNC in the late 1960s to complete his doctorate in city and regional planning. These early years of education and practice reveal the various experiences that shaped the young Dave Godschalk. Formative exposure to the fields of architecture and planning, his engagement with planning practice, and his experience as an appointed official began to cement common topics that flourished later in his research.As a young academic at UNC, Dave’s initial scholarly contributions focused on the lack of public participation in dominant and emerging planning approaches. Exposure to British and Scandinavian postwar new towns, built to address social and physical concerns, gave him a top-down view of planning and community development. However, the allure of European new towns was eclipsed by public participation concerns raised through his exposure to U.S. development practice. In what became his doctoral dissertation, he studied public participation in the development processes of the new planned communities of Reston (VA) and Columbia (MD; Godschalk, 1972 Godschalk, D. R. (1972). Participation, planning, and exchange in old and new communities: A collaborative paradigm (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chapel Hill: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina. [Google Scholar]). The two cases were emblematic of the then-emerging trend of developer-led master-planned communities.What he found was alarming. He decried the lack of public participation in the planning and governance of these communities: “If contemporary new communities are to escape becoming elaborate company towns, then decision-making must be shared among the major interest groups involved rather than controlled by the developer and his financial backers” (Godschalk, 1973 Godschalk, D. R. (1973). Reforming new community planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39(5), 306–315. doi:10.1080/01944367308977418[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], p. 306). This steered his interest in democratizing and recasting public participation, which also had an influence on his view of planning methods. At the time, colleagues at UNC were publishing state-of-the-art methods on behavioral and urban modeling (Chapin & Weiss, 1968 Chapin, J. S., Jr., & Weiss, S. F. (1968). A probabilistic model for residential growth. Transportation Research, 2(4), 375–390. doi:10.1016/0041-1647(68)90103-2[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Kaiser & Weiss, 1970 Kaiser, E. J., & Weiss, S. F. (1970). Public policy and the residential development process. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 36(1), 30–37. doi:10.1080/01944367008977277 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Dave’s concern was that much was left on the table when planners attempted to solely quantify behaviors and extract common patterns from them. When hard data were expanded with qualitative information, richer behavioral insights and descriptions would emerge. Perhaps more important, qualitative research also opened up more opportunities for planner involvement with the community, creating avenues of dialogue and mutual understanding (Godschalk & Mills, 1966 Godschalk, D. R., & Mills, W. E. (1966). A collaborative approach to planning through urban activities. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32(2), 86–95. doi:10.1080/01944366608979362 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Hence, public participation was an instrument for improving planning outcomes, planning practice, and planning scholarship. In effect, Dave was planting the seeds to make the case for community-based participatory research in planning.A related concern with public participation emerged from the urban riots of the late 1960s. With cities in upheaval, this tumultuous period motivated Dave to consider how planners could incorporate public participation and adjust to rapidly changing conditions. Chapin (1963 Chapin, J. S. Jr. (1963). Taking stock of techniques for shaping urban growth. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 29(2), 76–87. doi:10.1080/01944366308978044[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Kaiser et al. (1971 Kaiser, E. J., Elfers, K., Cohn, S., Reichert, P. A., Hufschmidts, M. M., & Standland, R. E. (1971). Promoting environmental quality through urban planning and controls. Washington DC: Environmental Studies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [Google Scholar]) had proposed and adopted the concept of land use guidance systems as a way of moving away from fixed end-state approaches to a more flexible, dynamic tool that was action oriented. These systems comprise the set of actions that planners take to implement a plan through a program of regulations and incentives to facilitate implementation and an ongoing process for monitoring plan outcomes, evaluating plan content, and updating plan elements. Dave infused the guidance systems concept with community participation, an acknowledgment that planners are learning with the community, that outcomes are uncertain, and that planners (like community members) are fallible (Godschalk, 1974 Godschalk, D. R. (1974). Planning in America: Learning from turbulence. Chicago, IL: AIP Press. [Google Scholar]).This development guidance approach, later referred to as growth management (Godschalk, Brower, Herr, McBennett, & Vestal, 1979 Godschalk, D. R., Brower, D. J., Herr, D., McBennett, L. D., & Vestal, B. A. (1979). Constitutional issues of growth management (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: APA Press. [Google Scholar]), is in contrast to a view of planners as bureaucrats enforcing the status quo through the police power of the state or as participants detached from the day-to-day challenges of the community. Growth management became imperative not only for ethical and legal reasons but also to manage the environmental, infrastructural, and social impacts of development. The concept of carrying capacity became a tool for understanding and managing urban growth (Schneider, Godschalk, & Axler, 1978 Schneider, D. M., Godschalk, D. R., & Axler, N. (1978). The carrying capacity concept as a planning tool. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. [Google Scholar]). Dave and his collaborators’ idea of flexible and adaptive urban systems, along with the tools and the policies that influence them, was at the forefront some four decades ago and is still relevant to contemporary planning practice.This early exposure to planning and the development process resulted in Dave’s unwavering quest to seek fair and participatory solutions to conflicts. He believed that giving more people and groups a voice was crucial, though not a guarantee that any of their interests would be realized. Conflict would be generated (and that was good), but the cacophony of voices needed to give way to a collaborative planning process that fostered coproduction of alternatives. This collaboration became particularly important as conditions under which planning was taking place changed rapidly. Collaborative planning allowed for incorporating uncertainty, new information, and different viewpoints, often at the cost of a speedy planning and approval process.The Central Role of the Comprehensive Plan in the Dynamic Planning ArenaDuring his early academic life, Dave also focused his attention on the comprehensive plan. At the time of his arrival, UNC was the center of intellectual thought and practice in land use planning. Dave began collaborating with Stuart F. Chapin, Jr., and Ed Kaiser, two leading figures in land use planning. He found the comprehensive plan and its core element, the land use plan, a natural fit for exploring how the central principles of livable urban forms and model planning processes could be better integrated and translated to practice. Over the course of four decades, Dave explored factors that make up the core tenets of land use plans to support urban forms that fit the values, needs, and aspirations of different interest groups. He understood that good plans must be formulated and implemented through sustained collaboration among stakeholders and public engagement. Dave firmly believed that planners have the unique and important skills to make this happen by acting as advocates for good place making, by guiding engagement and education of the public and decision makers to understand the consequences of their actions, and—most important—by building consensus.Dave was influential in the fourth and fifth editions of the classic book Urban Land Use Planning. In writing the fourth edition with Chapin and Kaiser, Dave’s main contribution was to place greater emphasis on the human element compared with that of previous editions. Dave and his coauthors were at the forefront of land use planning in developing an analytical basis (forecasting land supply/demand, land suitability analysis) for sound land use design (Kaiser, Godschalk, & Chapin, 1995 Kaiser, E., Godschalk, D., & Chapin, S. (1995). Urban land use planning (4th ed.). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. [Google Scholar]). Dave thought that analytical methods offer the necessary discipline for imaginative urban form designs that otherwise often unravel (Godschalk, 2014 Godschalk, D. (2014). A planning life: Bridging academics and practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(1), 83–90. doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.928169[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), but placed significant emphasis on the role of land use planning as a means of communication, agenda setting, and visioning. The fourth edition was also a guide to local government decision making, which he saw as a serious game of development politics in which players with unequal power compete for changes in future land use designs, regulations, and public investment priorities. In his view, the community’s land use plan not only embodies possible visions and outcomes but also is an instrument for collaboration and decision making.In writing the fifth edition with Kaiser, Philip Berke, and Daniel Rodriguez (Berke, Godschalk, & Kaiser, 2006 Berke, P., Godschalk, D., & Kaiser, E. (2006). Urban land use planning (5th ed.). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press.[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]), Dave introduced the idea of a three-dimensional sustainability prism model that extends the well-known core values of sustainable development (environment, economy, and equity; Campbell, 1996 Campbell, S. D. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312. doi:10.1080/01944369608975696[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) to include a fourth value of livable built environments (Godschalk, 2003 Godschalk, D. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136–143. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136) [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). By introducing the prism model, he developed a novel visualization tool for analyzing a proposed land use design, ranging from site designs to towns and regions. The tool helps to pose questions, identify conflicts among the values, and find a way to create consensus-based solutions that add value in all four sectors. In his book with planning scholar Emil Malizia, he demonstrates how multiple values can be achieved in building high-quality development projects (Godschalk & Malizia, 2014 Godschalk, D., & Malizia, E. (2014). Sustainable development projects: Integrated design, development, and regulation. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). The authors offer guidance and concrete evidence on how real estate developers, designers, and planners can collaborate and engage the public in creating projects that balance sound economics, quality design, and the public good. This approach breaks with the common view that places developers and planners as antagonists engaged in the development game and is consistent with Dave’s view of developing collaborative solutions.The value conflicts that emerge in land development underpinned the emphasis on negotiation and dispute resolution in Dave’s work. He believed that planners could play a critical role in addressing and mediating these conflicts. A single, optimal solution was frequently impossible, and the planner’s job was to identify common ground and explore the boundaries of the possible solutions. For the same reason, he was loath to endorse one single planning approach as the best. He understood that planning encompassed a more comprehensive set of concerns than any single planning approach could provide.One of Dave’s greatest achievements was his contribution to theory and methods of evaluating the quality and impacts of plans. He and his colleagues were pioneering contributors to empirical research on this topic (Berke & Godschalk, 2009 Berke, P. R., & Godschalk, D. R. (2009). Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(3), 227–240. doi:10.1177/0885412208327014 (One of AICP’s “Comprehensive Planning Examination Selected Readings”) [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). They focused on a topic that surprisingly had received scant attention from planning scholars: What is a good plan? Answers to this fundamental question speak to the heart of planning. A series of studies starting in the early 1990s contributed to the development and validation of principles and indicators of plan quality, including goals, a fact base, policy, implementation, participation, and interorganizational coordination (Lyles & Stevens, 2014 Lyles, W., & Stevens, M. (2014). Plan quality evaluation 1994–2012: Growth and contributions, limitations. And New Directions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(4), 433–450. doi:10.1177/0739456X14549752[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). A particular contribution was Dave’s belief that a major limitation of the plan quality work is that scholars do not give attention to how well plans support the central tenets of good land use design. This literature places land use design as a central focus of plan evaluation, accounting not only for the physical built environment but also for social, economic, and environmental dimensions of design. Dave was further concerned that criteria for good plans could be used to produce cookie-cutter plans that are formulaic and unresponsive to local conditions.Dave responded to these shortcomings when he was asked to co-chair a task force created by APA’s Sustaining Places Initiative, established to promote sustainable communities. The leadership role allowed him to advance his belief in good land use design as an integral part of plan quality evaluation. APA took this action in response to its public commitment at the 2010 World Urban Forum in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) to promote sustainable places through research, outreach, and education. The task force pursued a multiyear, multifaceted effort to define the role of comprehensive planning in promoting the sustainability of human settlements. Working with a team of leading planning practitioners, Dave led the development of a set of sustainability indicators that drew on prior theory on plan quality but extended this work by developing indicators that define good urban form. Examples of the new indicators include providing green places for living, working, and recreating; ensuring that public health needs are recognized through access to healthy food and physical activity; and interweaving equity into all aspects of urban forms that address affordable housing, safety, livelihood needs, health care, and transportation services. The culmination of this work is found in Godschalk and Rouse (2015 Godschalk, D., & Rouse, D. (2015). Sustaining places: Best practices for comprehensive plans (APA Planning Advisory Service 578). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. [Google Scholar]), which includes a set of national best practice standards, a scoring protocol for use by communities that want to evaluate their plans and compare the results against national standards, and case studies of best practices in local comprehensive plans that meet or exceed the standards. The scoring protocol can be used in different stages of plan development, “from evaluation of an existing comprehensive plan to community engagement during the planning process to providing a best practice ‘checklist’ against which a draft plan can be measured” (Godschalk & Rouse, 2015 Godschalk, D., & Rouse, D. (2015). Sustaining places: Best practices for comprehensive plans (APA Planning Advisory Service 578). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. [Google Scholar], p. 4). It allows for the awarding of additional points for plans that are particularly innovative. It also does not punish plans for standards that are not applicable under particular local conditions. Examples of inapplicable standards include remediating brownfields in places without contaminated sites and locating transit-oriented development in rural areas.Dave was not satisfied with just publishing the best practice standards. He wanted to see the standards translated to action through educating communities about content, values, and the potential of plans for better place making. In May 2016, APA launched the Comprehensive Plan Standards for Sustaining Places Recognition Program, which established a national competition aimed at training practicing planners to apply the standards to improve their local plans. Dave led a team of planners, including one of us (Berke), in giving national webinars and workshops for state chapters that have been attended by hundreds of planners and local officials. Furthermore, APA initiated an annual national competition in which communities could submit their comprehensive plans for peer review by a committee of experienced local planners who were trained and certified to evaluate plans. Comprehensive plans achieving high scores received national recognition from APA. Communities such as Plano (TX) and Temple Terrace (FL) received considerable media attention by APA and proudly display their award-winning plans on their local government websites. Dave’s hope was that the program would be a motivator for widespread application of sustainability standards in planning for place making.Hazard Mitigation and Urban ResilienceFrom the 1980s onward, Dave turned his attention to the mostly neglected topic of the risk and resilience of cities to hazards and climate change. Dave and his UNC colleagues David Brower, Raymond Burby, and Edward Kaiser were early pioneers in recognizing the importance of the topic and the critical role of urban planning in risk reduction, yet the specter of hazard losses was underexamined by planning scholars and received limited action among affected populations and public policymakers. As an assistant professor, I (Berke) recall attending ACSP panel presentations by Godschalk and other hazard scholars when there were more presenters than people in the audience. How times have changed, in good part because of the work of Dave Godschalk.Despite the fact that disaster losses are knowable and predictable, the problem of lack of proactive planning to reduce disaster losses seemed intractable. Dave thought otherwise. He developed a line of research that served as a basis for demonstrating how spatial planning could make a difference in reducing risk. He argued persuasively for greater attention to hazard mitigation over the course of four decades. He made it clear that the rise in disaster losses throughout the 20th century was attributable to the expansion of urbanization in hazardous locations, even though the frequency and severity of climate-related natural hazard events remained steady during this period (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2018 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2018). Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events/US/1980-2018  [Google Scholar]).In the mid-1990s, Dave led a team of researchers as the principal investigator of a National Science Foundation–funded study to examine the impacts of national hazard mitigation policy. It was the first systematic national study of the complete intergovernmental system for natural hazard mitigation and culminated in Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning (Godschalk, Beatley, Berke, Brower, & Kaiser, 1999 Godschalk, D. R., Beatley, T., Berke, P. R., Brower, D., & Kaiser, E. (1999). Natural hazard mitigation: Recasting disaster policy and planning. Washington, DC: Island Press. [Google Scholar]). This book caught the attention of national policymakers as well as scholars and practitioners. A careful reading of the findings and policy recommendations, and the subsequent change in national mitigation policy a year after its publication, indicates the impressive impact of the study. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 in particular amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by repealing prior mitigation planning provisions that focused only on state-level mitigation planning programs. The new legislation reflected many of the insights drawn from Godschalk et al. (1999 Godschalk, D. R., Beatley, T., Berke, P. R., Brower, D., & Kaiser, E. (1999). Natural hazard mitigation: Recasting disaster policy and planning. Washington, DC: Island Press. [Google Scholar]), notably including provisions that all local governments be required to prepare local hazard mitigation plans to be eligible for federal funds for predisaster mitigation and postdisaster rebuilding and that local plans be consistent with state plans. These changes have had a long-lasting impact on local mitigation planning practice (Masterson et al., 2015 Masterson, J., Peacock, W. G., Van Zandt, S., Grover, H., Schwartz, L., & Cooper, J. (2015). Planning for community resilience: A handbook for reducing vulnerability to disasters. Washington, DC: Island Press. [Google Scholar]; Schwab, 2010 Schwab, J. (Ed.). (2010). Hazard mitigation planning: Integrating best practices into planning (APA Planning Advisory Report 560). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. [Google Scholar]). The book was ultimately selected as one of the 100 Essential Books of Planning of the 20th Century by the APA Centennial Great Books.Another of Dave’s many contributions to hazard mitigation planning is his conception of planning for urban resilience. Dave viewed resilience as the ability of a city to anticipate, adaptively respond to, and recover from disaster events. Furthermore, a city that promotes planning is more resilient because it adopts policies that anticipate adaptation, recovery, and vulnerability reduction before and after the event. He challenged common wisdom that called for technical approaches to building urban resilience and for planning for networks of physical systems—roads, buildings, infrastructure—in creating more resilient cities (see, e.g., National Research Council, 2002 National Research Council. (2002). Making the nation safer: The role of science and technology in countering terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]). Dave countered by arguing for a more holistic or meta-systems approach that recognizes that the resilience of social networks and institutional networks is a critical component of planning for the creation of more resilient cities (Godschalk, 2003 Godschalk, D. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136–143. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136) [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Dave was clear that “in addition to traditional physical system hazard mitigation functions, a city that seeks social and institutional resiliency would…develop broad hazard mitigation commitment…adopt recognized equity standards, assist threatened neighborhoods, and mitigate business interruption impacts” (Godschalk, 2003 Godschalk, D. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136–143. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136) [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], p. 140).Building Planning InstitutionsIn addition to his scholarly contributions, Dave Godschalk’s legacy is distinctly tied to planning-related institutions he helped create, lead, or steer. His early work as planning director and town council member left a lasting mark on both his own scholarship and the organizations. Frequently ahead of his time, Dave would propose policies and planning approaches that seemed infeasible or too far-fetched. Both in Gainesville and in Chapel Hill, time proved him correct decades later. His service to the university, to APA, to the state of North Carolina, and to ACSP reflected his commitment to bridging knowledge and practice.Dave played important roles in building and maintaining a highly respected planning program. As department chair, he ensured that the UNC planning department maintained and further developed its flagship status in the United States and indeed throughout the world. Using strategies for consensus building, he sought to involve different stakeholders in matters of importance to students, staff, and faculty. As a teacher, he encouraged participation, role playing, and observation of planning in action. He held his students and his colleagues to high standards and carefully and methodically reviewed ideas and manuscripts. As a mentor to faculty, he offered advice on how to improve their teaching skills through careful preparation of lectures, reviewing papers, and offering sage wisdom on making life choices. In these different roles as a mentor, collaborator, and supervisor, Dave was unfailingly generous with his time (Figure 2).David GodschalkA Planner’s Lifelong Search for the Sweet SpotAll authorsPhilip R. Berke & Daniel A. Rodriguezhttps://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1541423Published online:28 March 2019Figure 2. David Godschalk lecturing, circa 2010.Source: Photo by Udo Reisinger; used with permission. Display full sizeFigure 2. David Godschalk lecturing, circa 2010.Source: Photo by Udo Reisinger; used with permission. Beyond the UNC program, countless faculty, planning practitioners, and students benefitted from Dave’s mentoring and collaboration. His long history of cultivating partnerships with planning practitioners at all levels of government, professional organizations like APA, and consultants culminated in translating academic knowledge to action. He understood what matters to practitioners and the communities they serve. Dave’s behavior modeled the many ways in which scholarship can make a difference to actual places and lives. There is a deep and lasting respect for the man who mentored so many.During his last decade of professional service to the university (2001–2011), Dave played a critical role on UNC’s Buildings and Grounds Committee. This committee advises the university chancellor on matters related to the long-term planning, implementation, and maintenance of buildings, facilities, and grounds on the UNC campus. During this time, and under Dave’s leadership, the committee planned for and oversaw the addition of 6 million square feet of new award-winning buildings and the renovation of 1 million square feet of historic buildings, many of which contained sustainable site design principles. For example, 5 million square feet of pedestrian paths and open space were added, and the use of graywater-flushing toilets (that used captured rain), the installation of roof gardens, the reduction of impervious surface cover, the addition of bicycle parking, and the initiation of a citywide fare-free bus system were many of the actions guided by an ethic of sustainability.Many of the critical actions taken and lessons learned from the successful expansion of the campus included concepts Dave had identified in earlier work. One success factor was the importance of building consensus among all stakeholders from the start, including the town of Chapel Hill (Godschalk & Howes, 2012). Dave credited the use of a master agreement rather than a building-by-building review process, which enabled broad participation and agreement on a set of guiding principles that connected spaces, buildings, and people. Another success factor was the application of the concept of carrying capacity to determine the growth that the university could sustain. As a grand culminating planning endeavor of his professional career, the sweet spot, it seemed, was an actual place (Figure 3).David GodschalkA Planner’s Lifelong Search for the Sweet SpotAll authorsPhilip R. Berke & Daniel A. Rodriguezhttps://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1541423Published online:28 March 2019Figure 3. The Rams Head Plaza. This plaza highlights a physical challenge: how to connect the auto-oriented southern part of the University of North Carolina campus to the more walkable, historic northern part. As head of the Buildings and Grounds Committee for the University of North Carolina, Dave led a team that addressed the issue with physical and social design principles. The development of the Rams Head Center, spanning a valley formerly used as surface parking, brings student services (registrar’s office, housing office) closer to students and embodies principles that go beyond individual buildings to consider how buildings and spaces connect together. (a) A rendering of the plaza. (b) The plaza as built.Source: Pictures by Jon Gardiner of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, University Photography; used with permission. Display full sizeFigure 3. The Rams Head Plaza. This plaza highlights a physical challenge: how to connect the auto-oriented southern part of the University of North Carolina campus to the more walkable, historic northern part. As head of the Buildings and Grounds Committee for the University of North Carolina, Dave led a team that addressed the issue with physical and social design principles. The development of the Rams Head Center, spanning a valley formerly used as surface parking, brings student services (registrar’s office, housing office) closer to students and embodies principles that go beyond individual buildings to consider how buildings and spaces connect together. (a) A rendering of the plaza. (b) The plaza as built.Source: Pictures by Jon Gardiner of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, University Photography; used with permission. Ending RemarksDave’s quest in searching for sweet spots was unwavering. His search focused on principles, people, and activities at the very heart of the identity of urban planning. In land use design, sweet places that attract people contain the right mix of housing types, public spaces, buildings, and mobility. Sweet designs are more likely to be achieved when planning is practiced as a consensus-building activity and a colearning process between the planner and the community. Achieving these sweet designs is not a zero-sum game with planners and developers in antagonistic roles; instead, planners and developers work together collaboratively, involving the many publics that have an interest in place making.A sweet comprehensive plan contains a thoughtful integration of facts, policies, and an implementation program that work together to achieve a series of goals and vision. Dave’s contributions to defining and characterizing the attributes of good comprehensive plans are critical to the profession. In addition, he expanded the concept of the plan to become a tool to manage change and uncertainty, which is of particular relevance in times of turbulence and growing threats to communities. The plan is thus a tool to manage risk and increase community resilience.Dave’s call to have planners be mediators among conflicting parties in the development and redevelopment process gains urgency in the current times of political polarization. His focus on genuine public participation in planning processes emerged from his partial disappointment with advocacy planning. After all, the planner is also fallible in identifying goals and desirable community pursuits. By contrast, synthesizing information and assisting parties in resolving conflicts is a planning function that remains critical. With cities continuing to play a prominent role in the global economy, struggles with growth and contraction, congestion, housing unaffordability, natural hazards, and the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens of urban living will remain contested areas in which planners ought to play an important role.Dave was not afraid to be normative (how things should be). He took a principled stance on his research, from his work on public participation addressing some of the shortcomings of advocacy planning to his work on plan quality and plan-based hazard mitigation.Dave was an outstanding colleague, teacher, mentor, friend, and public citizen. He believed in putting research forward and using it to make a difference. He taught many generations of students to get it right and use what they learned to improve the physical layout of places and to strengthen the social and institutional settings for planning. To this end, he was relentless in pushing what he learned and in working with many different people to apply research and evaluate planning solutions. He sought to help his students, his colleagues, professional planners, engaged citizens, and organizations create plans that were firmly rooted in a process that included civic engagement, consensus building, and facts. Dave’s hallmark was that he combined a unique set of skills as a scholar, teacher, practitioner, and elected official.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe are grateful to Professor Emeritus Edward Kaiser and Professor Emeritus Emil Malizia for their valuable comments and support.REFERENCESBerke, P. R., & Godschalk, D. R. (2009). Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(3), 227–240. doi:10.1177/0885412208327014 (One of AICP’s “Comprehensive Planning Examination Selected Readings”)  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Berke, P., Godschalk, D., & Kaiser, E. (2006). Urban land use planning (5th ed.). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]Campbell, S. D. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3), 296–312. doi:10.1080/01944369608975696 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Chapin, J. S. Jr. (1963). Taking stock of techniques for shaping urban growth. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 29(2), 76–87. doi:10.1080/01944366308978044 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Chapin, J. S., Jr., & Weiss, S. F. (1968). A probabilistic model for residential growth. Transportation Research, 2(4), 375–390. doi:10.1016/0041-1647(68)90103-2 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136–143. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136)  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D. (2014). A planning life: Bridging academics and practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(1), 83–90. doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.928169 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D. R. (1972). Participation, planning, and exchange in old and new communities: A collaborative paradigm (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chapel Hill: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina. [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D. R. (1973). Reforming new community planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39(5), 306–315. doi:10.1080/01944367308977418 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D. R. (1974). Planning in America: Learning from turbulence. Chicago, IL: AIP Press. [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D. R., Beatley, T., Berke, P. R., Brower, D., & Kaiser, E. (1999). Natural hazard mitigation: Recasting disaster policy and planning. Washington, DC: Island Press. [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D. R., Brower, D. J., Herr, D., McBennett, L. D., & Vestal, B. A. (1979). Constitutional issues of growth management (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: APA Press. [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D., & Howes, J. (2012). The dynamic decade: Creating the sustainable campus for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2001–2011. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D., & Malizia, E. (2014). Sustainable development projects: Integrated design, development, and regulation. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D. R., & Mills, W. E. (1966). A collaborative approach to planning through urban activities. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32(2), 86–95. doi:10.1080/01944366608979362  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Godschalk, D., & Rouse, D. (2015). Sustaining places: Best practices for comprehensive plans (APA Planning Advisory Service 578). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. [Google Scholar]Kaiser, E. J., Elfers, K., Cohn, S., Reichert, P. A., Hufschmidts, M. M., & Standland, R. E. (1971). Promoting environmental quality through urban planning and controls. Washington DC: Environmental Studies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [Google Scholar]Kaiser, E., Godschalk, D., & Chapin, S. (1995). Urban land use planning (4th ed.). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. [Google Scholar]Kaiser, E. J., & Weiss, S. F. (1970). Public policy and the residential development process. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 36(1), 30–37. doi:10.1080/01944367008977277  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Lyles, W., & Stevens, M. (2014). Plan quality evaluation 1994–2012: Growth and contributions, limitations. And New Directions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(4), 433–450. doi:10.1177/0739456X14549752 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Masterson, J., Peacock, W. G., Van Zandt, S., Grover, H., Schwartz, L., & Cooper, J. (2015). Planning for community resilience: A handbook for reducing vulnerability to disasters. Washington, DC: Island Press. [Google Scholar]National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2018). Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters. Retrieved from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events/US/1980-2018  [Google Scholar]National Research Council. (2002). Making the nation safer: The role of science and technology in countering terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]Schneider, D. M., Godschalk, D. R., & Axler, N. (1978). The carrying capacity concept as a planning tool. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. [Google Scholar]Schwab, J. (Ed.). (2010). Hazard mitigation planning: Integrating best practices into planning (APA Planning Advisory Report 560). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. [Google Scholar]Additional informationAuthor informationPhilip R. BerkePHILIP R. BERKE (pberke@tamu.edu) is a professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, and director of the Institute for Sustainable Communities at Texas A&M University. He was incredibly fortunate to have Dave Godschalk as a mentor, co-author, and co-teacher during his 19 years at UNC Chapel Hill.Daniel A. RodriguezDANIEL A. RODRIGUEZ (danrod@berkeley.edu) is Chancellor’s Professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning, and associate director of the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He worked closely with and learned immensely from Dave Godschalk when they were both faculty at UNC Chapel Hill.