Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 pp.

31-56 (26)

ISSN: 1747-4205 (Online)

Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side
Bonnie J. Johnson: University of Kansas, USA

Abstract
Critically reflecting on how to teach students site planning in a one semester course within a
policy-oriented graduate planning programme led to seeking out the view from the other
side. The view is the perspective of a sample of landscape architects with extensive
training and experience as site designers whose plans are routinely reviewed by city
planners. Ten practising landscape architects were interviewed to find answers to questions
such as, what are the basic skills needed to be a good site planner? and what do you wish
city planners knew about site planning? The purposes of this research were to gather
information to help reconstruct a site planning course using the concept of cognitive
apprenticeships as well as to appreciate how planners can work with landscape architects to
create better site plans. The concept of cognitive apprenticeships alerts teachers to the
different ways novices and experts understand skills and situations. The interviews
showcased the importance of experience to site design and helped reframe the course so
that it lays the proper foundation for students to build mastery as they gain experience in the
future. Planners, as plan reviewers, can also improve site plans by understanding and
relating to the work of landscape architects.

Keywords: Cognitive Apprenticeship, Reflective Practice, Site Planning, Planning

Education, Learning Styles

31
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Introduction
Teaching site planning for planners is a challenge. It is a huge subject requiring multiple
years of study, on-the-job training, and years of experience to master fully. As will be
discussed in more detail below, one landscape architect interviewed for this study explained,
We have landscape architects that have been with us for five years and they cant do a site
plan. Another interviewee pointed out that it takes new landscape architects a couple years
to learn how to layout a site. Plus, the bar set by Lynch and Hack (1984) is high as they
describe the goal of site planning as moral and esthetic: to make places which enhance
everyday life which liberate their inhabitants and give them a sense of the world they live
in (p. 1). Landscape architects, architects, and engineers go to school for years to learn
how to create site plans that may or may not liberate their inhabitants. Yet, not all urban
planning graduate programmes are design oriented or even have studio classes (Carter,
1993). Nevertheless, new planning graduates often find themselves in their first jobs
reviewing site plans or subdivision plats. A recent planning school graduate reported to
Planning magazine that his programme was very theory based but light on the basic
knowledge of planning and how cities work everything from how to read a plat map to
understanding how sewer systems work to doing a subdivision review (Stromberg, 2008,
p.16). Alumni returning for the 40th anniversary of California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispos City and Regional Planning Department emphasised the need for students
to graduate with basic skills in reading subdivision plans and understanding infrastructure
design (Smith, 2009). In the public sector, new planning hires must take their turn at the plan
review desk before being promoted to the policy related positions for which they are trained.
Figuring out how to teach students site planning in a one semester course (15 to 16 weeks)
within a policy-oriented graduate planning programme led me to seek out the view from the
other side. The view is the view of landscape architects who have extensive training and
experience as site designers and have their plans routinely reviewed by city planners.
Landscape architects sit on one side of the plan review desk and planners on the other. For
this study, ten practising landscape architects in the metropolitan area surrounding Kansas
City, Missouri in the United States, were interviewed to find answers to questions such as,
what are the basic skills needed to be a good site planner? and what do you wish city
planners knew about site planning?.

Following Shn (1983), this study consists of my reflections in action as a new teacher
seeking to redesign a course on site planning and seeking the guidance of expert site
planners (landscape architects). Choosing this approach is in response to my own desire to
practise what I preach in terms of urging students to become reflective practitioners (Schn,
1987), but also to be good storytellers and seek out stories as tools for understanding
(Forester, 1999; Sandercock, 2003; Throgmorton, 1996). I begin my story by reflecting on
how one turns knowledge learned in practice into classroom knowledge. I then describe
using a pedagogical model based on the idea of cognitive apprenticeships to gather data
from experts on site planning and determine course content. Along the way, I not only
redesign a course on site planning but discover the view from the other side.

32
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

How do I fill a whole semester?

Like the young planner interviewed in Planning (Stromberg, 2008), I too left planning school
with little knowledge of reading a plat or reviewing a site plan, yet there I was as a practising
planner having to do just that. Site planning is the process someone uses to determine
where buildings, landscaping, sidewalks, parking lots, and signs should or should not be
placed on a particular piece of property. Site planning is often done by a landscape architect,
architect, engineer, or even by a land surveyor on occasion. Site plans are submitted to
cities, counties, or government agencies to see if the plans meet regulations. City planners
are often the ones who review site plans drawn up by others. I learned site plan review on
the job working for a city. My on-the-job training was not always pretty, like the time I told a
Planning Commission that a car wash would not be putting their wash water into the sanitary
sewer. The Commission Chair pounced, Where would it go then into the storm sewer?
My boss finally stepped in and saved me, It will be going into the sanitary sewer, but there is
a filter. There was also the time at a plan review including the applicant, engineers, and site
inspectors when I suggested that they just schooch a line over to meet setbacks. A project
inspector asked me (jokingly), Is that a technical planning term schooch? As a result,
when I was first informed that I would be teaching site planning, my first thought was Who?
Me? and then How do I fill a whole semester? Because I came at site planning from the
public sector side, it was all about reviewing site plans and running a checklist (seeing if
regulations were being met) which I thought was not that hard and something I could teach in
a week or so. However, on second thought, I wanted students to know all those things I did
not know when I came out of school. I wanted to save them some of the embarrassment I
experienced. The first time I taught the class, it was geared toward learning a different skill a
week and learning by doing. However, I did not realise that [i]t is quite possible to acquire a
tool but to be unable to use it (Brown et al., 1989, p. 33). In the end, the students were not
happy and did not feel they had learned anything because I did not lay a proper foundation
for the skills, provide context, or allot enough time for practise and understanding. They did
not understand why they were being taught what they were taught. I had forgotten what it
was like to be a novice. I had forgotten all the little things I had picked up over eight years of
experience that made it possible for me to easily understand and run a checklist.

It was difficult for me, a former practitioner but newly minted academic, to determine how to
teach what I had learned in practice. Baum (1997) explains well the dilemma of integrating
planning practice into academia. Academia is concerned with methods in terms of
research methods and seeing the world as though one were an outside observer versus
methods as way[s] of acting in a practice situation and being an observer who is expected
to do something (Baum, 1997, p. 23). Urging planning programmes to integrate academic
and practice cultures, Baum (1997) advises, they should take the problem and questions of
practice as the focus for their work (p. 26). This was my focus in talking to landscape
architects about site planning and their interactions with city planners in practice.

The integration of observer and practitioner is seen in Schns (1983) reflective practitioner
who reflects on, or thinks about, what she is doing as she practises her profession.
Practitioners learn how to deal with uncertainties through reflecting-in-action. Reflecting-in-

33
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

action allows practitioners to experience surprise, reflect on what has happened and then try
different experiments which in turn lead to different actions. The reflective practitioner seeks
to understand that her actions may have a different meaning for the client and seeks to make
her technical knowledge accessible to clients and the public. When this is achieved, the
reflective practitioner experiences a sense of freedom from her professional faade and a
real connection to the client based on the shared knowledge of a particular situation
(Schn, 1983, p. 300).

Schn (1983) and Forester (1999) suggest similar types of research to assist practitioners in
their reflection. Schns suggestion is frame analysis or examining how practitioners see
their roles. If someone frames a situation in a particular way, she precludes other options
and chooses priorities. Once she is aware of her frames, she can then become aware of
alternative frames (Schn, 1983, p. 310). The research for this study is in this vein as
landscape architects are asked how they frame site planning situations and their frame for
city planners. Additionally, Forester (1999) emphasises using practitioners stories as
windows onto the world of planning (p. 7). Of particular importance to Forester is the social
aspect of planning and how planners can be deliberative practitioners bringing people
together and learning from others. If city planners can understand how they and their
working relationships are perceived by those they work with (landscape architects), they can
then become more reflective and more deliberative.

Learning from Experts Cognitive Apprenticeships

The desire to translate practice knowledge into classroom knowledge and wanting to learn
from experts what site planners needed to know directed me to the pedagogical models of
cognitive apprenticeships and teaching for understanding. Thinking of teaching in terms of
cognitive apprenticeships alerts teachers to the different ways novices and experts
understand skills and situations. It urges teachers to start with what topics are worth
understanding and proceed from there (Wiske, 1998a, p. 61). Cognitive apprenticeships are
based on the principle of coaching students and modelling behaviour so they move from the
realm of novices to experts (Duncan, 1996) and are akin to experiential learning (Kolb, 1984).
Unfortunately, more commonly used methods of teaching disconnect learning and doing
(Brown et al., 1989).

Cognitive apprenticeship models can help direct attention away from mistaken assumptions
(Berryman, 1991, p. 1) about teaching which detract from actual learning. When I taught the
site planning course for the first time, I relied on some of these mistaken assumptions and
the results were an unsatisfying experience for teacher and student alike. I assumed [t]hat
people predictably transfer learning from one situation to another (Berryman, 1991, p. 1). I
was surprised when students did not automatically apply what had been done in an in-class
exercise to their next assignment. I assumed that students were vessels into which
knowledge is poured (Berryman, 1991, p. 1). At the end of the semester students had no
confidence in their abilities. I did not realise that my giving them knowledge had actually
undercut their development of cognitive management skills, including goal-setting, strategic
planning, monitoring, evaluating, and revising (Berryman, 1991, p. 1). Based on cognitive
science research, those using cognitive apprenticeship models approach teaching in terms of

34
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

coaching students through context, real world situations, a sequence of progressive skills,
tricks of the trade for problem solving, cognitive management strategies like goal setting,
and learning strategies, such as, repurposing existing knowledge (Berryman, 1991, p. 2).
Delving into what expertise and deep understanding looks like focuses teachers attention on
the end product, successful learning (Bransford et al., 1999, p. 19).
After that first semester, it was important for me to take a step back and try to see the subject
through the eyes of students. Because of their experience and knowledge base, experts
notice things that novices miss and they know how to organize, represent, and interpret
information in their environment (Bransford et al., 1999, p. 19). For example, a nave
historian may view the world as a series of events or facts reported in textbooks, while a
master historian sees that the past is interpreted for a variety of purposes and seeks out
primary sources to uncover different points of view (Mansilla and Gardner, 1998, pp. 165-
167). After recognising the expert-novice gap and the need to teach so that students
uncover complex, abstract, and counterintuitive ideas (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998, p. 21), I
settled on the pedagogy of understanding or teaching for understanding (Wiske, 1998b) to
guide my course redesign. Teaching for understanding provides a framework teachers can
use to see how novices understand situations differently than experts.

The Framework for Understanding and Collecting Data

The teaching for understanding framework covers four universal dimensions of
understanding: knowledge, methods, purposes, and forms which can then be tailored to
particular subject areas. By focusing on these four qualities, teachers can help their students
move through levels of understanding from nave, novice, apprentice, to master (Mansilla
and Gardner, 1998, p. 172). For me, the framework in combination with the interviews with
landscape architects was helpful in thinking about which areas of site design policy-planners
would find most useful and how much students could begin to master in one semester.
The framework defines each of the dimensions: knowledge, methods, purposes, and forms
along levels of understanding from nave to master. The knowledge dimension focuses on
moving beyond the intuitive beliefs of nave students to developing the ability to move back
and forth between specifics and generalisations like masters. Methods refers to having a
healthy scepticism about knowledge and being able to confirm or disconfirm assertions.
The dimension of understanding labelled purposes takes into consideration how knowledge
is accumulated, its multiple uses, and consequences. Forms includes how knowledge is
demonstrated within different contexts. The form can be written, verbal, or graphic (Mansilla
and Gardner, 1998, pp. 173-178). At a nave level, students do not take ownership of their
knowledge and novices simply mimic what they have read or been told. Apprentices begin to
show how they can apply their knowledge in new ways while masters are highly flexible,
creative, and cognisant of different worldviews (Mansilla and Gardner, 1998, pp. 180-181).
Table 1 shows a summary of the four dimensions and the different levels of understanding.

35
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Table 1: Four dimensions of understanding and levels from Mansilla & Gardner, 1998
Knowledge Methods Purposes Forms
A. Transformed A. Healthy skepticism A. Awareness of the A. Mastery of
intuitive beliefs purposes of performance genres
knowledge
Nave intuitive beliefs Nave the world is Nave does not see Nave unaware that there
dominate what it is importance of what is are accepted ways to show
being taught expertise
Novice some Novice some Novice can see Novice can follow
discipline knowledge skepticism but content importance but does not instructions
is not questioned see why
Apprentice discipline Apprentice sees that Apprentice can Apprentice understand
knowledge competes knowledge can be connect big questions to instructions, aware of one
with intuitive beliefs questioned but may be lessons when asked set of rules, and learning
hyper-critical others
Master the discipline Master knowledge is Master can look for Master moves easily from
dominates but intuitive contestable and is best big questions, see what one set of skills to others
beliefs inspire further when constructed using they mean to people, and creates new ones
research multiple methods and see knowledge can
be misused
B. Coherent and rich B. Building B. Multiple uses and B. Effective use of
conceptual webs knowledge in the consequences of symbol systems
domain knowledge
Nave no difference Nave trial and error Nave can perform Nave symbol systems
between examples and is only way to get tasks as told are used but do not tell a
generalisations knowledge clear message
Novice makes Novice goes by the Novice can see Novice over reliance on
connections using book consequences for real one system
rehearsed answers world when prompted
Apprentice begins to Apprentice sees Apprentice relates Apprentice uses more
link examples and different methods but knowledge to real world than one system when
generalisations gets stuck on one asked
Master can move Master uses variety Master can use Master - can use symbol
between specifics and of methods and sees knowledge in new ways systems effectively and
concepts and create new methods coming and use the disciplines creatively
new constructs from public discourse lenses
C. Validating C. Ownership and C. Consideration of
knowledge in the autonomy audience and context
domain
Nave no criteria for Nave does not see a Nave unaware of
validation need for own personal audiences and surprised
view of the profession when miscommunication
occurs
Novice validation Novice can see Novice aware of audience
based on textbooks or personal philosophies of but thinks
recent experiences authorities and is miscommunication is the
creative when asked audiences fault
Apprentice validation Apprentice can use Apprentice continues to
is important but knowledge on own but think good intentions mean
unsophisticated does not understand good communication
views of others
Master uses multiple Master feels Master worldviews and
validation methods and authoritative and sees context are used to engage
questions criteria own view and others peoples beliefs
Note: Table is summary of Tables 6.1 - 6.5 (Mansilla & Gardner, 1998, pp. 184-196)

36
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Using the framework for understanding in combination with reflecting-in-action helps

address one of the shortcomings Webster (2008) attributes to Schns approach to teaching.
Webster notes that Schns emphasis on a teacher correcting a students work in a studio
inhibits the students freedom to discover new ways and eventually make her own
contributions to the field. While still emphasising coaching and setting examples for
students, the framework for understanding stresses moving students along the continuum to
a point where they can critically question ways of doing things and think creatively on their
own.

For the site planning course I teach, the students are commonly graduate planning students
in our policy oriented planning programme who have minimal design experience. Other than
laying out land uses on a map, the students have had little opportunity to actually design a
site. As a result, the students enter the class at the nave or, in some cases, the novice level.
The first time I taught the class, I tried to bring all the students up to some level of mastery.
The interviews with landscape architects helped me to determine that bringing students up to
novice/apprentice level was what I could realistically accomplish in a one semester class.

The framework for understanding was created to be adaptable to different disciplines

(Mansilla and Gardner, 1998, p. 162). However, it seems particularly relevant to site
planning with its emphasis on how masters can use existing and create new symbol systems
and appreciate the importance of context. To use the framework, Wiske (1998a)
recommends starting by generating topics or exploring what is essential to understand
about a particular field (p. 61). I started generating topics by looking at major site planning
texts and then moved to interviewing experts. The site planning texts pointed out that good
site planning involved technical and artistic skills. Lynch and Hack (1984) explained about
the art of site planning but also laid out technical details, such as, site grading and even
costing of projects. Russ (2002, p. xiii) reiterated that [s]ite design is a profession with both
a technical and artistic character. While labelled Site Analysis, LaGros (2007) text
presents the entire site planning process: site selection, programming, site inventory, site
analysis, concept development, master planning, construction documentation, and project
implementation. LaGro described site planning as a multiphased activity to ensure that land
is utilized in ways that are functionally efficient, aesthetically pleasing, and environmentally
sustainable (p. 21).

To further understand the creative process and determine basic technical skills, I interviewed
10 long-time, practising landscape architects in the Kansas City, Missouri metropolitan area
in the United States. This region roughly covers nine counties with 120 cities ranging in size
from 450,000 people to less than 5,000. The results are a variety of community contexts
(urban, suburban, rural) and even different state level regulatory requirements, as part of the
region is in the state of Missouri and the rest is in Kansas. The interviewees were selected
via a snowball method. I contacted landscape architects who had been guest speakers in
my class and then they recommended other landscape architects who then recommended
others. Interviews were conducted until I no longer heard different information but was
hearing commonalities. One of the landscape architects had experience working for a city in
the public sector but was now a consultant in the private sector. One worked for himself while

37
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

the others worked for larger consulting firms hired by developers or cities as site designers.
All had experience having their designs reviewed by multiple city authorities in the Kansas
City area and by authorities in other parts of the United States. One had experience working
for clients outside of the United States.

The interviews were geared toward understanding how landscape architects frame (as in
Schns frame analysis) or view planners and to allow them to describe the process of
creating a site plan and going through a review. This is similar to other research which asks
experts to think aloud in order to make their thought processes visible and thus transferable
to the classroom (Bransford et al., 1999). For these interviews, of particular interest were the
experts answers to the following questions: What skills does a good site planner have? and
What skills do you think a good plan reviewer should have? For a complete list of the
interview questions, see Appendix 1. In the preface to his book, Russ (2002, p. xiii)
explained, [s]ite design professionals more so than most other professionals are always
faced with having their work reviewed and often modified by nonprofessionals. Russ was
referring to citizen planners but he may very well have been referring to new city planners
who review site plans with little training or experience in site design. In this regard, I also
asked interviewees questions about what makes for a good site plan review and whether
they had had projects weakened by a poor review or improved by a good review.

Interview Results Generating Topics

The interviews revealed what these landscape architects view as essential working habits of
site planners and which topics and skills they thought were important. Five of the
interviewees stressed the need to understand the process of site planning:
You always do these things: site visit, site analysis, look at the code, determine the
parameters (property lines, setbacks)

They all stressed how site planners are jacks-of-all trades, team players and are the hub
bringing together architects, civil engineers, traffic engineers, and contractors. One
commented how he loves working in a multi-disciplinary environment. Being able to
communicate with clients and other disciplines is key.

Related to the process of site planning and bringing everybody together, site planners need
patience:

Patience is important because we think we can get 15 people in a room at a

charrette and walk out with a solution, but it is only the beginning.

An interviewee advised:

If you cant deal with criticism, youve picked the wrong profession.

In terms of skills, one landscape architect said:

Spatial planning just being able to put together spaces, really assemble buildings
and parking, streets, amenities, and open space and putting it all together. Just like
some people are better at packing the trunk than others.

38
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Similarly, another explained:

Look at all these pieces of the puzzle a good site planner can bring that together
with good problem solving skills.

Two landscape architects mentioned putting puzzles together. An important skill is being
able to visualise in 3D what a project will look like and a huge thing is the ability to
understand scale and spatial relationships. An additional aspect is an understanding of
anthropometrics or the study of human scale and how people fit into an outdoor setting.
One described the ability to look ahead and to break projects up into phases as essential
skills.

When a site is designed well, an interviewee emphasised that it is:

organised well. The building is placed so the land can support it. Youre not turning
the site upside down to make something occur.

This was echoed in statements, such as, let the land guide you and being responsive to
the site and lamentations that too often engineers do not pay attention to limitations like
topography. Another described a good design as having a good structure with road
networks and relationships to different uses along with an entrance sequence, arrival, and
amenities in key areas, terminating vistas, recreation areas, and walkability.
Relationships to the surrounding area was a common theme with one landscape architect
saying a good design is not an island and another explaining that a good design does not
stick out and look like a mistake. Two brought up that when they see lots of retaining walls
on a site plan, they start wondering how good the design really is.

In terms of what makes a good site plan reviewer, one landscape architect indicated:

Doing site plans and reviewing site plans are two entirely different things and they
require different sets of intellectual thought really. Doing site planning is based on
how to get the most out of a site for the owners end use and do that as economically
and efficiently and as consistently as possible within city code.

Reviewing plans, on the other hand, requires the ability to:

recognise a good one [site plan] from a bad one when you see it and thats different
from having to draw one.
For reviewers:

keep in mind you are not just building a site, you are putting a patch into the quilt
which is your community and how do you feel about that and are you doing that in the
right way.

Two of the interviewees underlined the importance of reviewers getting out of their offices.
One said:
Site visits are huge. My first statement to plan reviewers who say a plan doesnt
make sense is have you been out to the site with my plan and looked at it? and nine

39
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

chances out of 10 they say they havent and my next comment is call me when you
have. Im not trying to be rude but you have to get out of the office.

The other comment was:

Best ones [reviewers] get up out of their chairs and visit the site. So it all starts from
an understanding of the site
and without that site visit:

it is really hard to have a good sense of what that plan is telling you

They all emphasised observing the world with comments like:

And to create cool places you have to go to cool places

What feels good about a site

Kansas City has the best product The Plaza...Weve walked around the Plaza with
a tape measure

Until you get out and measure things, you really dont have an appreciation for it,
and The more you can be out on the pavement, the better.
This then relates back to the skill of being:

able to visualise things. You have to look at a two dimensional site plan and
visualize it in three dimensions.

One explained that he did not truly understand scale until he designed a project and then
saw it built in the field.

The interviews with landscape architects brought my attention to teaching planners to be site
plan critics rather than site plan creators. As a result, using the framework of understanding,
teaching is focused on principles of design and how to see a site versus the mechanics of
drawing a site plan. As an example, as far as the knowledge dimension is concerned, a
goal for a site planning course would be to move students further down the continuum from
navet to mastery by helping students shift from intuitive beliefs to recogniz[ing] the
importance of disciplinary knowledge (Mansilla and Gardner, 1998, p. 186). In other words,
going from thinking this is a good place because it feels right to thinking this is a good
place because I followed a path and went through a portal to get here (White, 1999). As
one interviewee emphasised, you should consider the plan as a whole instead of as a list of
requirements or conditions.

The focus of the course shifted from creating site plans to understanding the design of site
plans. Nevertheless, it was still important to teach the process of site design because a good
process underlies good plans and vice versa.

As one landscape architect suggested:

I always look at the grades [on the plan]. If its been through the process and you
see lots of [retaining] walls [then the site analysis is suspect].

40
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

It is also through the process of going on a site visit, conducting a site analysis, and creating
a concept that future reviewers start to understand what plan creators mean when they say:

parking always drives the site plan

if you dont have good access, you are almost doomed from the start

if you cant draw it to scale, youre shooting yourself in the foot right there

the creativity comes out of the budget

good graphics can sell a bad idea, and

a plan is based on a client, developer, someone who is trying to get the [financial]
numbers to work

Understanding the site planning process will help reviewers understand the consequences of
what they are requesting of site plan designers.
A respondent wondered:

How do we communicate our thought process to the reviewer? Weve worked on the
plan for three months with the owner and others. They [reviewers] dont have the
benefit of that thought process.

Site Planning in the Framework of Understanding

The comments from landscape architects on the skills of site plan designers and site plan
reviewers along with what they would like city planners to know about site design fit well in
the framework for understanding. In Tables 2 - 5, interview comments are matched to
different dimensions of understanding. The responses show these experienced landscape
architects regularly moving up and down the continuum from intuitive beliefs, through their
own personal philosophies, to core tenets of their disciplines thus illustrating movement from
navet, novice, apprenticeship, to mastery. Their comments seem to fit these patterns
because they were asked to speak about site planning in terms of advice for teaching a class
and advice to students. Also, they were asked to advise planners (plan reviewers) whom
they often see as novices. One commented:

Perception out there from my perspective, as a landscape architect, is that the

planner is pie in the sky sometimes and they are not looking at all the hard work we
put into doing this [site design].

Sometime the review comments returned to landscape architects can be:

out of the realm of reality

Often review planners lose sight of what the project is about. Often planners want to
make everything elaborate or following a new trend without any consideration for the
impact on the financial feasibility of the project.

Five interviewees mentioned that planners do not seem to understand all the work they do up
front to get to the submittal stage. Another mentioned planners being theory based versus
being grounded in the real world. A different landscape architect suggested that planners

41
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

should become more familiar with market sectors (residential, commercial, etc.) and what
criteria makes businesses want to locate there and people to visit there. On a related note,
one stated, One thing I was unaware of when I left school was how much the market drives
the work.

Table 2: Knowledge dimension with interview comments

Dimension of Understanding Knowledge
A. Transformed intuitive beliefs Connecting common sense with the discipline. Intuitive
beliefs are questioned, but they inform the discipline

Comments From navet to mastery

Its just an experience thing and right out of school youll be green and you wont know
exactly what to look for.
Nave

In site design, take all that information and think it through and understand it doesnt always
come the first time. Another important characteristic is patience. First time through [the
design] isnt going to work.
Good site design? Its more of a feel.

Artistic skills? How you apply them? It is in the back of your head.
Visiting different places and understanding different contexts is probably the bottom line...
Does it [the site plan] have a space or series of spaces or focal space that people want to
Mastery

go to?
Kansas City has the best product The Plaza because it adapts. It has all the right
components. It lasts. The spatial relationships. Every use you can think of is there.

B. Coherent and rich conceptual webs Can move easily from specifics to broader
generalisations

Comments From navet to mastery

It [design] is subjective to a certain extent but there is this criteria from the city code.
Youve got an ordinance and it says these things. The number one thing in a review should
Nave

be the code and does it meet this criteria.

They [site plan reviewers] are focused on one thing. The radius of a curb, street width, or
no you cant park cars on that side of the street...The whole is sacrificed because of that.
Yes, you need to move traffic in and out and you dont want unsafe curves butsome

cities...One city says any multi-family that is attached, all streets have to be 36 feet wide,
even [for] duplexes [which do not need those wide streets].
Not just going down the list but understand the holistic project.
The whole idea of urban versus suburban is important to understand...One mistake that all
Mastery

cities have made is their site design guidelines are based on suburban standards and so we
sort of have made the mess we are in. Its not the designers fault....Dont try to make one-
size-fits-all ordinances.

42
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Table 3: Methods Dimension with Interview Comments

Dimension of Understanding Methods
A. Healthy skepticism Can understand that knowledge is constructed by humans and see how
one can ask too much of single methods
Comments From navet to mastery
Sometimes you cant get them [site plan reviewers] off of something [even if the solution
meets the code].
Sometimes planning commissioners or even staff will get bogged down on something, some
Nave

minutia.
A good reviewer would try to stay focused on those variables they can control and less on
subjective portions.
No matter what, your plan needs to be flexible. You know the plan is going to change.

Therell be a reason to do something different. You dont want to get set on that this is the
only way. Youll want to try something different.
People have different design approaches.
Visiting different places and understanding different contexts is probably the bottom line and
Mastery

the interpreting that into regulations they [site plan reviewers] are trying to enforce and, as
you know, a lot of site plan review is arm twisting. It is not black and white, theres a lot of
grey there and know when to go with the grey.

B. Building knowledge in the domain Use of professional methods in a variety of ways or in

new, upper level ways
Comments From navet to mastery
I cant tell you the number of planners I run into that know nothing about what they are
Nave

talking about in terms of trees and shrubs. Thankfully a lot of ordinances take care of that.
Theres a process that you are taughtStart with site analysis: where are the steep slopes,
access points, amenities, views, sun angles and all that.
A good site planner is going to come across different scenarios and know if I take this route

it takes me to X while this one takes me to Y.

Then some idea of where you can be flexible and where you cant [as a site plan reviewer].
I dont see a reviewer as a code enforcement officer. There is always some negotiation in
Mastery

those things and a lot of that comes with experience...Obviously it is always based on health,
safety, and general welfare. Get some idea what is most important and its not that some
things are more important than others, it is what might be negotiable in a particular setting.

C. Validating knowledge in the domain Use of multiple methods of validation which are open
to change
Comments From navet to mastery
How do you experience a site and why would you care?
It always comes back to public health, safety, and welfare. I think all parties involved, the
Nave

planner, the civil [engineer], the architect, the landscape architect anybody involved in a
project has to look out for public health, safety, and welfare.
Ordinarily [in a good site plan] the site is organised well. The building is placed so the land

can support it. Youre not turning the site upside down to make something occur. Now,
unfortunately most of the time, the engineering community is turning the site upside down to
do what they need to do.
Mastery

You cant regulate good design. You can have regulations, but if someone followed every
one of them, that doesnt mean it will be a space you want to be in or a desirable addition to
the community.

43
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Table 4: Purposes Dimension with Interview Comments

Dimension of Understanding - Purposes
A. Awareness of the purposes of knowledge Look for why this knowledge is important and
why it is important in peoples lives
Comments From navet to mastery
It would probably be more important to get them [students] to recognise a good site plan
and a bad one when they see it.
Is it beneficial [the reviewers requested change] or is it just following the rules?
Nave

What builds community?

On what makes for a bad review Its the no grey area [the site plan reviewer] says you
have to do this [because the regulation says so] even if it then requires six feet of fill.

You can tell the difference between those [reviewers] that are nitpicking everything that
ordinance says and those that are concerned about real issues. And that goes back to why
the rules are there. If you know why, that helps you know whats negotiable and whats not.
Mastery

The best site plan reviewer knows the difference between those two.
A good reviewer comes out and explains. Let us know what the city wants. Explain the
opportunities and the constraints and if its political, just say so. If it is the code, just say so.

B. Uses of knowledge - Realising multiple uses and that they can create new uses How to
see the world through the disciplines lenses
Comments From navet to mastery
Theres a lot of different disciplines with input [into site plans]: traffic engineers, stormwater,
fire departments
Nave

On site plan reviewers being more flexible For example, if the code calls for a three foot
tall wall, berms, or shrubs why three foot tall wall? Is it something historic about that town?
Is it better to mix them and have a three foot tall wall here and a berm over there?

On site plan reviewers And sometimes you wonder, Why are you picking at that?
Sometimes they want to be the designer...I think we are all in this together and I think it is
important that planners understand what the other disciplines are going through: architects,
civil engineers, and landscape architects.
Mastery

A good review can catch things we miss.

A good reviewer allows for artistic license within criteria like those for parking...

C. Ownership and autonomy Students feel authorised to use their knowledge and see
consequences from different points of view
Comments From navet to mastery
The hardest thing a reviewer has is to keep their opinion out of the code. A reviewer
doesnt have the same ownership that I have representing the client. I know they [reviewers]
Nave

have ownership in wanting to do the right thing.

For landscape architects In school its your own idea. You didnt have to please anyone
other than the teacher, but need to know how to interact with your client. Some people out
of school dont last long because they cant just do it their way. You can see the stress level

here and steam coming out of their ears.

Its a team. Were not adversaries [designers and reviewers]. Were all trying to get
something built, good quality development. We like working with people who are
Mastery

knowledgeable and design oriented.

Keeping in mind you are not just building a site, you are putting a patch into the quilt which
is your community and how do you feel about that and are you doing that in the right way.

44
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Table 5: Forms Dimension with Interview Comments

Dimension of Understanding Forms
A. Mastery of performance genres Can move easily through different means of communication and
create new protocols when needed
Comments From navet to mastery
Able to use a checklist.
On artistic skills In school we had three years of sketches a lot of art. How you apply it? It is in
the back of your head.
Nave

Biggest thing I didnt get out of school was communicationskills with pulling ideas out and finding
out what the client wants.
Being a good listener.

Because it really is a design problem and youre not going to be able to make them [students] into
site designers but [you can] get them to recognise mapping and scale and does the traffic pattern for
vehicles and pedestrians work.
Some planners sketch out a solution. Sitting down with the planner and scribbling on the plan saves
Mastery

a lot of time.
A good site plan reviewer must be able to clearly and effectively communicate verbally, graphically,
and in writing concepts and recommendations.
B. Effective use of symbol systems Can use symbols as effective communication tools and can use
them in creative ways when needed
Comments From navet to mastery
You cant not draw it to scale. Youre shooting yourself in the foot right there.
My color pencils are right here on my desk.
Nave

Learn how to do quick sketches and dont worry about final product.
I still do this today I cut out the different buildings and heres my site with drainage, setbacks and I

place the buildings [and move them around].

Things are very deceptive on a piece of paper...How close the building is to the street, how far, how
Mastery

tall, the patterns of existing development. You cant get any of those things unless you visit the site.
A piece of paper, it doesnt communicate those things which are more important often than how
many parking spaces there are.
C. Consideration of audience & context Effective communication entails taking different worldviews
into consideration and being good listeners. Can use context to enhance communication.
Comments From navet to mastery
Ive always felt that it would be best if the person in the private sector could work in the public sector
for six months [and vice versa] We all would be better off.
Nave

Understand that they [city planners] are reviewing a plan based on a client or developer someone
is trying to get the numbers to work. If its residential, theres a bottom line and Jane Doe is going to
buy a house and pay an extra $5,000 for that wider street.
Biggest thing is they need to have an open mind and that developer is not that evil person.Its not
cutting corners, it just a different way of approaching the problem. It benefits the client but might
benefit the city too because of less infrastructure. There are a few out there that do the bare bones,

but they are not all bad.

And some mention of the politics is important. You know if the mayors Dad owns the place, that
plan reviewer you still have to do the review, but be aware of the politics. You try not to let it get in
the way but are aware. You dont want to be nave you know it exists. If not, you become a very
frustrated planner very quickly.
Planners should realise that cities develop in different ways so cities they work for should reflect
their values. A planner that knows suburban design should not review plans for an urban core.
Mastery

It is important to have a contextual frame of mind.

One thing is being able to explain why.

45
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

A Site Planning Course Using the Framework

Placing the interview comments into the framework helped me see how experts think and
how they move from specifics to generalities and how they think through their projects and
how they relate to plan reviewers. The main message from the interviews was that I was not
going to be able to create expert site planners, or even expert site plan reviewers, in one
semester. On the other hand I could get students further down the road toward mastery by
focusing on:

observing the world around them;

understanding the site planning process;
experiencing basic design principles;
using context; and
seeing different viewpoints.
Weaving these together in a course started with teaching site planning as a marriage of
technical and artistic skills with some artistic exercises and some technical exercises. The
artistic assignments were not graded but were graded credit/no-credit. This was to reduce
the anxiety among students with little or no art training and to encourage them to, at least,
try. Planning students should take comfort in one interviewees comment; good graphics are
not key to a good idea so being able to draw is not essential. The technical assignments
(plotting a trail through hills while maintaining certain slopes or placing a house on a site
within setbacks and other site limitations) were performed in class where students could help
each other and I could act as coach.
The course was organised using LaGros (2007) site planning and design process (site
selection, programming, site inventory, site analysis, concept development, master planning,
construction documentation, and project implementation) but stopping at the conceptual plan
stage instead of proceeding to construction documents and implementation. This was in
response to the realisation that there was not enough time in one semester to allow students
to advance to higher levels in all of these steps. Each students final project was a poster of
a conceptual site plan versus a final site plan drawing. Throughout the semester, students
followed LaGros site planning steps completing a programming description (how the site will
be used and by whom) and site analysis (soils, steep slopes, views, local ordinance) for an
actual client. They also completed a site visit walking the property with their client. Using
LaGros steps allowed for projects to be divided into manageable pieces and allowed for
experts (landscape architects, an ecologist, a city planner, engineer, artist) to come in as
guest speakers at each step of the way to model professional behaviour and give real world
advice. In the end, each student brought the steps together in a conceptual site plan poster
using design principles for what makes a great place (see Figure 1). Learning poster design
enhanced their visual communication skills and use of symbol systems but also introduced
them to basic design concepts like: clear hierarchy, organising structure, typography, white
space with a purpose, far away and up close (how design differs depending on whether the
object will be seen up close or from a distance), colour with a purpose, and triangulation.
There was also a take home test where students had to visit a housing development and see
how it met or did not meet the American Planning Associations (APA) guidelines for what

46
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

makes a great place, street, or neighbourhood. The take home test allowed students to
practise applying the 'great places criteria to a real place before using the criteria in their own
designs.

Table 6 shows the elements (discussed above) chosen to include in the course. I put the
elements into the framework for understanding to make sure I was covering the concepts
and laying the proper foundation to take students from the nave level to the
novice/apprentice level. Table 6 was useful in checking my work and ensuring that nothing
was forgotten.

Figure 1 Student presenting concept plan poster and related materials to clients

47
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Table 6: Framework with Class Topics, Skills, & Assignments

Four Dimensions of Understanding and Redesigned Site Planning Course
Knowledge Methods Purposes Forms
A. Transformed A. Healthy skepticism A. Awareness of the A. Mastery of performance
intuitive beliefs purposes of knowledge genres
What makes great Engage experts from Use examples of great Learn written and visual
places? allied professions: places, great communication skills.
What makes great engineering, landscape neighbourhoods, and - Create programming
neighborhoods? architecture, ecology, great streets. description handout.
What makes great and architecture along - Look at APA award - Learn how an artist sees
streets? with the experience of a winners. the world and practise
practising planner. Use site planning process drawing skills in low
- Start semester by
asking students to - Guest speakers from to understand its logic pressure manner.
answer these each profession advise and why it is useful. - Learn Photoshop and In
questions. students on their - Break final project into Design software.
projects. pieces and allow for
- Have readings and - Engage expert in poster
class sessions on each Engage experts in what practise and feedback. design.
question. makes art and how to - Practise site design in
design effective class.
- Ask students
posters.
questions again later in
a take-home exam. - Use art museum
resources.
- Students to explain
why their designs are - Guest speaker on
great places. poster design.
B. Coherent and rich B. Building knowledge B. Uses of knowledge B. Effective use of symbol
conceptual webs in the domain systems
-Focus on the great Model professional Using technical Learn site planning symbol
questions. behaviour. knowledge in creative systems.
- Look at APA award - Guests from allied ways. - Importance of scale and
winners. professions. - Taking expert and north arrow.
-Go through the site - Landscape architects technical information and - Exposure to penmanship
planning process in show how to do a site combining it with design of design.
class. analysis and a principles. - Use of symbols in art.
-Break the design conceptual design. - Seeing examples of - Practise symbol systems
process into Practise professional final designs and how used by site designers.
assignments. behaviour. they evolved out of site
- Read topography maps.
-Have guest speakers - Assignments analyses.
at each step of the correspond with design - Applying artistic design
process. process. principles to actual sites.
- In-class exercises
mimic real challenges.
C. Validating C. Ownership and C. Consideration of
knowledge in the autonomy audience and context
domain
Seeing the world Applying new knowledge. Understanding biological,
through allied - Use of experts advice cultural, and physical
professions. in final project. attributes of sites.
- Using knowledge from - Use of client wants and - Practise in class.
different experts in site needs in final project. - Use in exercises.
design. - Use of artistic and - Engage allied professions.
Understanding client poster design knowledge Understand context.
needs and wants. in final project. - Listen to client.
- Working with client on
- Visit the site.
real-world project.
- Do a site analysis.

48
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

The View from the Other Side Framing Planners

Seeking the view from the other side of the site plan review desk reveals how these
landscape architects frame planners, but their comments illustrate the tension they have in
their own minds concerning whether they want plan reviewers to just enforce regulations or
whether they want flexibility. A nave or novice site plan reviewer will be able to use a
checklist and enforce what is most commonly found in government regulations. Occasionally
in the interviews it sounded like this was all landscape architects were looking for in a good
site plan reviewer. They made comments, like:

The number one thing in a review should be the code and does it meet this criteria
and

The hardest thing a reviewer has to do is to keep their opinion out of the code.

However, when they spoke of poor site plan review or their frustrations, they were longing for
a master. There were numerous allusions to site plan reviewers getting stuck on one point,
not being flexible, or not being able to explain the purpose or origins of particular
requirements:

Often the planners are either tied or tie themselves to a particular interpretation of the
code, which does not leave them any room to use good judgment.

Do landscape architects want the master plan reviewer who is creative or do they want the
novice who just follows the rules? One landscape architect said both:

The hardest thing a reviewer has to do it to keep their opinion out of the code and

If you look at it [the code] in black and white it [the site plan] is not going to work but if
grey yeah. Thats where the grey comes in.
One stated his preference for a reviewer to be progressive but balanced with a positive
attitude who does not ask for things that are outside of his authority. Frustrations with
flexibility and the ability of planners to explain the reasons underlying regulations go hand in
hand. The frustration of landscape architects goes up as planners are not able to explain
why. One interviewee advised, Let us know the citys intent. One expressed the general
frustration bemoaning, Why did I need to have a fake window on my waffle house?1
In addition to being inflexible when applying rules, two landscape architects mentioned that
city planners should get out of their offices more often. Others mentioned the need to get out
and:

take measurements or experience a site

When you are driving around and see something you dont like, you think Im not
going to do that.

1
The landscape architect is referring to a type of restaurant common in the Midwestern United States
that serves breakfast any time of day and is generally housed in plain, concrete block buildings along
major highways. He is wondering how a decorative window that does not really act as a window
(providing light or air) makes any difference when it is placed on such a building.

49
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

This relates back to understanding context and gaining experience. It also shows the
importance of planners explaining where their suggestions come from, particularly explaining
how they visited the site and how the regulations relate to real-world examples from their
communities.

The landscape architects all stressed the need to bring different allied disciplines together.
The reviewer is the hub and planners need to understand what the other disciplines are
going through: architects, civil engineers, and landscape architects. Half of them stressed
the need for planners to understand their need to meet their clients budget demands. All
that creativity comes out of the budget. One stressed:

understanding of an owners perspective and reality versus some of their [reviewers]

theories they have, not to say we dont want to try anything new, but sometimes there
are limitations - on a practical basis.

Envision yourself in the designers seat and look for what their design intent is.

Plan reviewers need to at least acknowledge economic forces and the property owners
desire to make a profit. They can also acknowledge that they are coming late to the design
process and encourage more cooperation up front and early consultation with plan reviewers.

When asked if there were times when a site plan review enhanced a design, most said that
generally the review did improve the design but not to any great extent (eight out of ten).
Reviews mainly helped site plans when the landscape architect needed to be able to push
the developer for more landscaping or higher quality elements. The high standards
established by some city regulations were useful at those times. The reviewer could then
play the bad guy while the landscape architect could play the good guy just trying to meet
city standards. One interviewee replied:
Ninety-five per cent of the time they [reviewers] are going to improve it [the site plan]
I think. I havent had any big issues in review. Its usually just about picky stuff but
generally 95 per cent of the stipulations put on review make it better.
Sometimes planners know whats going on adjacent to the site and help with
comments that lead to better road alignments. Their knowledge of the whole area
helps. Also, there have been times when the city has put up money to make related
improvements.

In speaking of poor reviews, a respondent said:

They [reviewers] worried about spelling. Their time could be better spent rather than
on trivial pieces like whether that chart is here or there.

On site plan reviews improving site plans, one described the overall sentiment well. He
explained that when one is always dealing with suburban development where buildings are
islands surrounded by parking that design guidelines for a particular type of awning, for
example, do not make much difference the building doesnt relate to anything anyhow.

50
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

However one said, without hesitation, that reviews:

probably weaken more often than improve site plans and emphasised that
[r]egulating design is very, very difficult.

This person emphasised that reviewers were not code enforcement officers but
negotiators and to be effective required getting to know what was essential to the design
and to the larger quilt known as the community. One response was that the reviews really
do not make much difference in the end, but they can delay projects and waste a lot of
money. In regards to reviews having much impact, a respondent offered the following
caveat, If there really was a poor submittal, a review could improve the site plan.

One of the landscape architects described his long term working relationship with a city
planner as:

We used to have a competition and we would try to go through a site plan in two
reviews. I think we did it two or three times, but usually outside forces would come in.
We had a good rapport and understanding. Get to where you trust each other.
Thats where communication comes in and longevity.

In describing a good working relationship with plan reviewers, an interviewee stated:

They seemed much more open and pro-development. They would help you through
the process and alert you to what to look out for.

Similarly, in describing what a good review looked like, one liked it when reviewers would let
him know ahead of time how elected officials might react to a certain proposal. Still another
said:

They [reviewers] were progressive and had a positive attitude to achieve the best
solution. A lot of times you are just thrown into an automatic defence modeThey
wanted the best for their city but also understood the owners constraints as well. It is
a pleasure to work with those people. There are some people that are only
progressive and they dont balance it out with a positive attitude and understanding of
the owners.

Some planners can be too progressive and take their creativity too far. This can be a
problem when the planner does not understand why an owner would be hesitant to try new,
untried ideas.

The view from the other side can help teachers of planners focus on the basics and direct
students away from common pitfalls when they become site plan reviewers, like forgetting to
get out of their offices. It also highlights areas of misunderstanding like the mixed signals
landscape architects send concerning whether they want reviewers to just apply the rules
and see things in black and white or they want reviewers to be flexible and go with the
grey. If plan reviewers have a good grasp on the site planning process and are able to
explain why regulations require what they require, then they can expect better relationships
with landscape architects.

51
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

The advice landscape architects have for site plan designers and site plan reviewers can be
summarised into 10 major points as follows:
1. Have patience, because the plan is going to change.
2. Communicate and say what you want.
3. Listen.
4. Understand the process of site planning.
5. Remember you are part of a team.
6. Go look at the site.
7. Observe the world around you and keep a tape measure handy.
8. Know the reasons why.
9. Know when things are not black and white, and know when to go with the grey.
10. Remember that each site plan is a piece within a larger picture.
Plan reviewers can use this information to help them understand the need to explain
regulations and explain where they can be flexible and where they cannot. They can also
play to their strengths which are understanding their communities contexts and seeing the
larger picture. It is in this manner that plan reviewers can help site plan designers tailor their
designs for different communities and work together.

There are limitations to the transferability of this research. The landscape architects
interviewed for this project are all from one area in the United States. Their views on
planners may not be universal. Plus, the views reported here are subject to the biases of my
own interpretations. Despite the limitations related to the interviews, the method of
redesigning a course with cognitive apprenticeships in mind and thus seeking out experts in
practice and seeking out how they frame the work of those we are educating, can help
bridge the practice academic divide and hopefully create more effective learning
environments.

Maybe Three or More Semesters?

After visiting my class the first semester I taught the site planning class, a landscape
architect remarked, those [students] were not designers. The view from the other side of
the plan review desk is that city planners doing site plan reviews are often more like novice
site plan critics following rules rather than flexible, knowledgeable master site plan critics.
Perhaps, the masters get promoted out of review positions just as they are gaining the
necessary experience to allow them to know when to go with the grey and to avoid one-
size-fits-all ordinances. Also, some landscape architects are not seeing the pressure placed
on planners to follow the letter of the law in order to be consistent, to satisfy competing
constituencies, and to meet quick turnaround times. There are lessons to be learned from
the view from the other side and also lessons to be learned from examining how students
think and move from navet to mastery. I have gone from wondering, How am I going to fill
a semester? to I need three or more! and if you ask landscape architects, they would say
the planners need three or more too. One landscape architect said he was lucky that in his
first job he was thrown into the frying pan. Another explained that to become a good site

52
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

planner, Its just putting the time in. Experience is so important to site planning that
students will need to be comfortable with some uncertainty when they first enter practice and
realise that they are going to make mistakes. Exploring how landscape architects frame site
planning and frame what city planners do helped reconstruct a class that can lay a stronger
foundation for students to build mastery as they gain experience. The interviews also
revealed how planners can approach their relationships with landscape architects and thus
become more reflective about how they are perceived and more deliberative in collaborating
with others.

53
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

References
Baum, H. S. (1997). Teaching practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17, (1)
21-29.

Berryman, S. E. (1991). Designing effective learning environments: Cognitive apprenticeship

models. IEE Brief, 1, 1-4.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How experts differ from novices. In
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. &. Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp. 19-38.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.

Carter, E. J. (1993). Toward a core body of knowledge: A new curriculum for city and
regional planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12 (2), 160-163.

Duncan, S. L. S. (1996). Cognitive apprenticeship in classroom instruction: Implications for

industrial and technical teacher education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33 (3),
66-86.

Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning

processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
LaGro, J. A. (2007). Site analysis: A contextual approach to sustainable land planning and
site design. (Second ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Lynch, K. & Hack, G. (1984). Site planning (Third ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mansilla, V. B. & Gardner, H. (1998). What are the qualities of understanding? In Wiske, M.
S. (Ed.). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. 161 196.

Russ, T. H. (2002). Site planning and design handbook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sandercock, L. (2003). Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in
planning practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 4 (1), 11-28.

Schn, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books, Inc.
Schn, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, N. (2009). 40 years of planning, Cal Poly style. Focus, 6, 77-79.

Stromberg, M. (2008). What the newbies say. Planning, 74 (7), 16-18.

Throgmorton, J. A. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

54
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Webster, H. (2008). Architectural education after Schn: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and
Beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3 (2), 63-74.

White, E. (1999). Path-portal-place. In Carmona, M. & Tiesdell, S. (Eds.). (2007). Urban

design reader. New York, NY: Architectural Press. pp. 185-198.

Wiggins, G. P. & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiske, M. S. (1998a). What is teaching for understanding? In Wiske, M. S. (Ed.). Teaching

for understanding. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. 61-86.

Wiske, M. S. (Ed.). (1998b). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

55
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE
 B. J. Johnson: Site Planning for Planners: The View from the Other Side

Appendix 1
Interview Questions
What skills does a good site planner have? Are there minimal technical skills a site planner
should have? Are there minimal artistic skills a site planner should have? Are there things
that simply cannot be taught? What are they?

What does an expert site planner look like? (skills, abilities, work habits, temperament)

How did you learn site planning? Were there assignments or exercises that particularly
helped you get it?

Is there anything you later learned on the job that you wish you would have known earlier?

After looking at the syllabus, what do you think has been left out? Are there things being
taught that you think are unnecessary? Should some skills be emphasised over others?

What do you look for in a quality site plan design? What criteria do you use for assessment?

Could you show me a high quality site plan and walk me through what makes it good? (I
would love to put together some good examples for my class. I would pay for a set of copies
of a good plan to use in class.)

When site plans are submitted to city or county governments, the reviewers are often
planners.

What skills do you think a good reviewer should have?

As you have interacted with planners, are there certain aspects of site planning you wish they
understood better than they do? Why?

How can you tell the difference between a good site plan review and a bad site plan review?

What are you looking for in a site plan review? What is most useful to you?

Have you had a particularly good working relationship with a plan reviewer on a project? (No
need to name names.) If so, what stands out in your mind?

Have you had a site plan review significantly improve a project? What happened?
Have you had a site plan review significantly weaken a project? What happened? (No need
to name names.)

What do planners need to know about site planning that would make them better reviewers?
Anything else I should know before revamping this site planning course for future city
planners?

56
Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009
Copyright 2009 CEBE