DRAFT

SUP 601 | GSD 5201

Urban Politics, Planning, and Development

Fall 2013 Mondays and Wednesdays | 11.40 a.m. 1.00 p.m. Littauer 130 Shopping Day September 4 | 11.40 a.m. 12.55 p.m. | Littauer 130 Quinton Mayne Assistant Professor of Public Policy 124 Mount Auburn Street | Suite 200N | Room 252 quinton_mayne@harvard.edu Office hours: Wednesdays | 2 p.m. 4 p.m. Course Assistant Benjamin Jervis ben_jervis@hks14.harvard.edu Faculty Assistant Veronica Chapman Littauer 349B | veronica_chapman@hks.harvard.edu

Course Description This course focuses on how public governance and planning shape cities and urban regions in the United States and Europe. Key topics include U.S. and European urban politics viewed in the large, and more specifically the politics of land-use and social planning, suburbanization and gentrification, race and immigration, and mass transit. Cross-cutting themes include the role of business in local governance; citizen participation and urban social movements; equity issues in urban place-making, the costs and benefits of local government fragmentation; and contending theories about the balance of public and private forces in U.S. and European urban politics. While the issues and group conflicts we will examine are urban, the governments involved are often national and/or state (provincial or regional in some other countries) as well as local. This class combines lectures, discussion, in-class exercises, and group work. Readings focus squarely on single-city case studies. Almost every topic is addressed through a compare-andcontrast examination of concrete examples from the U.S. and Europe. In addition therefore to thinking broadly about particular questions and themes, you will learn much about politics and planning in specific cities. The course purposes are twofold: to enhance your sophistication in thinking about how and why public decisions are made at the urban level and what their

 DRAFT consequences are; and to hone your skills in thinking strategically about how to exercise influence in such decision processes. Expectations, Assignments, and Grading Participation and Engagement The quality and value of our meetings are crucially dependent on your coming to class prepared and willing to discuss the assigned readings and actively engage with the larger themes and questions they address. My expectation is that, in preparation for class, you will think hard both about individual readings and about the issues that cut across them. Your participation-andengagement grade will depend on your contribution to the collective learning during class discussions. The quality of your contributions relates to the content as well as the delivery and timing of your comments within the flow of class discussion. The following types of class participation are particularly welcome: bringing in specific evidence from assigned readings; using concrete examples from case(s) to elaborate more abstract, general ideas; building on and responding to the comments of other students; and linking your professional experience to the material being discussed. Comments that are off-topic, excessive in length, or disrespectful of the opinions of others will negatively affect your participation-and-engagement grade. As part of your participation-and-engagement grade, ahead of eight of the course sessions you should submit one (or at most two) questions related to the assigned readings. Each question should be no more than 25 words in length and should end in a question mark. After stating your question, you may elaborate upon it in a separate paragraph (no more than 100 words), but doing so is not required. You must post your question to the course website by midnight the day before the session for which the question is intended. On-time class attendance is mandatory. Absences should be cleared as soon as possible with me so that you can complete alternative assignments for class participation credit. Unexcused absences will affect your grade. Response Paper Your first assignment is a response paper due at the end of the first full week of class. The aim of this paper is to give you the opportunity to compare and reflect critically on the Arlington and Stuttgart cases. Your paper should answer only one of the following questions: 1. How do you rate the overall quality of political and community leadership? If you choose to answer this question, you should consider the quality of leadership of elected and unelected public officials as well as individuals and groups that head community organizations and/or mobilize citizens and civil society. 2. How do you rate the overall quality of public engagement? If you choose to answer this question, I encourage you understand public engagement in broad terms. This includes the extent to which and the ways in which: (a) public authorities involve citizens and community organizations in the policy-making process;

 DRAFT and (b) citizens and community organizations show an interest in and mobilize to affect the process and outcome of policy making. Whichever question you choose to answer, your paper should compare and/or contrast both the Arlington and Stuttgart cases. Your paper should address the what, why, and how of quality (be it in terms of leadership or public engagement) in Arlington and Stuttgart. That is to say, you should articulate a clear and evidence-based argument as to what the level of quality is (high, low, good, bad, or something else). You should provide concrete examples as evidence justifying your claims about quality. Finally, you should reflect on some important factors that have affected quality (of leadership or public engagement) in the two cities. The argument you make and the reasons you give to support it should be firmly rooted in the facts and information presented in both of the HKS case studies. Your response paper is due by the days end (midnight at the latest) on Friday September 13. It should be 3-4 pages in length. See below (Note on Written Assignments) for more information on formatting and submission requirements for your response paper. Detroit Policy Report Cities across the United States and Europe face a range of profound policy challenges. Some are thrust upon local politicians and planners as a result of gradual or quick-paced sociodemographic and economic change not of their own making. Policy challenges also emerge because of political decisions made beyond the boundaries of the city; still others stem from the management and leadership of city politicians and planners themselves. In many ways and with devastating effects, the city of Detroit is a poster child for these different kinds of policy challenges. In response to these challenges, in 2010 the citys mayor, David Bing, established The Detroit Works Project aimed at elaborating a vision for improving the physical, economic, and social fabric of Detroit. In 2011 Mayor Bing split the Detroit Works Project in two, with one arm focusing on short-term actions and the other on long-term planning. In December 2012, following a period of engagement with citizens, community groups, businesses, and public-sector agencies and bodies, the long-term planning team published a 347-page strategic framework plan, called Detroit Future City (DFC), available for download at http://detroitfuturecity.com. The DFC report elaborates a blueprint for Detroits future, consisting of five elements focused on: (1) economic development; (2) land use; (3) service delivery and infrastructure; (4) neighborhoods; and (5) public assets management. The report also outlines a civic engagement strategy undergirding all five elements. The Detroit Policy Report assignment is based on the hypothetical scenario that you are a member of a team of consultants whose services have been engaged by the long-term planning team at the Detroit Works Project. You and your team have been commissioned to produce a policy report reviewing a specific set of policy goals relating to one of the five elements (listed above) that comprise the DFC strategic framework.

 DRAFT Using the knowledge gained from course readings and class discussions, and where appropriate building on your own and your fellow team members personal professional experience, the policy report will propose a set of recommendations on how to achieve the specific set of policy goals you have been asked to review. To that end, you and your team will carry out research to understand the policy goals in question and the problems they seek to address. You and your team will also develop an analytic framework to identify the conditions that need to be fulfilled and the steps that need to be taken in the short, medium, and long term in order to realize these goals. The final report will take two forms: (1) an in-class presentation and defense of the policy report in one of the last two sessions of the course; and (2) a written document of 15-20 pages to be submitted by midnight on December 13. For your in-class presentation, you and your team should use a realistic number of PowerPoint slides to convey your ideas in the time allotted to you. (How much time you are allotted will depend on the final class enrollment.) In your written report you are free to add reference lists, tables, figures, and appendices beyond the 1520 pages of text. You are encouraged to use tables and/or figures to illustrate your analyses. All students will be asked to rank their preferences as to which of the five elements contained in the DFC report they would like to address in their policy report. Based on this and with the aim of ensuring an appropriate mix of skills and experiences, I will assign you to a team. Each team will decide for itself on a division of labor whereby every student will be identified as responsible for writing a specific section of their teams policy report and preparing (though not necessarily presenting) the slides for that section in the in-class presentation. Policy Report Timetable 9/20: By midnight on this date, having reviewed the Detroit Future City report (available from http://detroitfuturecity.com), you should submit your policy sector ranked preference form via the course website. 9/27: Team assignments and grading rubric will be distributed via email by this date. 10/4: By this date you should have met once as a team to discuss your assignment, a division of labor, and work timetable, etc. 10/18: By this date I will have met with your team to discuss the content of your policy report as well as review your teams task assignment and work timetable, etc. 11/1: By midnight on this date, each team should email Ben an annotated table of contents for their policy report, including section summaries. See below (Note on Written Assignments) for more information on submission and formatting requirements. 11/15: By this date I will have met with your team for a second time to review progress and discuss any issues, concerns, or questions you might have. 12/2: First round of policy report presentations will take place in class. Slides should be emailed to Ben by 10 oclock in the morning. 12/4: Second round of policy report presentations will take place in class. Slides should be emailed to Ben by 10 oclock in the morning. 12/13: Final report is due by midnight on this date. See below (Note on Written Assignments) for more information on submission and formatting requirements.

 DRAFT Your final grade will be determined as follows: Participation and engagement: 35% Response Paper: 20% In-class presentation of policy report: 15% Written policy report: 30%

Office Hours I encourage you to see me during office hours with any questions or comments. Please plan to attend office hours for any questions related to course content or to course assignments; inperson discussion is far preferable to email. I will ordinarily hold office hours on Wednesday afternoons from 2 4 oclock. If you wish to see me during my office hours, please sign up for a time slot online at http://wejoinin.com/QuintonMayne. Please be sure to cancel your reserved time if you cannot come so that this time slot can be made available to other students. Prior to our first meeting (and preferably by 9 a.m. on the Wednesday morning) please send a brief bulleted list of the items you wish to discuss during office hours to Veronica Chapman (veronica_chapman@hks.harvard.edu).

 DRAFT COURSE POLICIES Note on Written Assignments In completing your written assignments for this course, it is important that you are familiar with the Kennedy Schools academic code, a copy of which can be found at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/degrees/registrar/procedures/integrity. Please pay special attention to the codes section on plagiarism (pp. 4-5). I have a zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism. You should also be aware that the disciplinary consequences of plagiarism are severe, so please ensure that you fully quote and properly reference your sources. Class readings should be referenced simply by author and year of publication. For example, Author (2013) showed or blah, blah (Author, 2013). References to publications that do not appear in the syllabus should be cited by the authors or authors last name(s) and year of publication (e.g., Author, 2013) in the text and with full citation information in a references section following the paper text. All written assignments should be sent to Ben (ben_jervis@hks14.harvard.edu) as email attachments in Word format, double-spaced, using Times New Roman size-12 font, with 1-inch margins. Policy on laptops, cell phones, and smart phones The use of cell phones and smart phones is strictly prohibited in class. Students may use their laptops or tablet PCs to take notes in class or to refer to the readings. You may not however surf the web or check your email. Being caught doing this will directly and negatively affect your participation-and-engagement grade. Missed classes This course requires that you manage your time well, keep track of the assigned readings and, most importantly, attend every class session. Plan your schedule around the class meeting; avoidable conflicts such as doctors appointments or job interviews are not excused absences. Students who miss class due to minor illness such as a cold may be asked to complete a make-up assignment, such as a short paper, to receive credit for the class. If you will be absent for a total of two full weeks or more over the course of the semester due to non-emergency and/or avoidable reasons (including vacations, travel, or training), you may be ineligible to take this course. Please let me know in the first week of the course if you have planned an extended absence. Extensions In the interest of fairness to your colleagues, the deadlines in this syllabus are firm. Extensions for assignments will not be granted except in the case of serious illness, family emergency, or religious observance (see below). Late response papers and op-eds will lose a full letter grade for each 24 hours or portion thereof.

 DRAFT Grading concerns Students are encouraged to consult with me during office hours about questions on an assignment prior to submitting the assignment. In the event of a low grade on an assignment, students will not be allowed to rewrite or to resubmit an assignment for an improved grade, except in extraordinary circumstances as determined by the professor. If you have faced an extraordinary circumstance that resulted in a lower grade on an assignment and you would like the opportunity to resubmit an assignment, please contact me within one week of receiving your grade. If you feel that there was an error in the calculation of your grade, you may submit a regrading request. All such requests must be submitted to me in writing, along with a memo explaining where you believe an error was made. If you elect to have an assignment re-graded, please be aware that it may result in a lower grade on the assignment. Religious conflicts Students may ask for reasonable and timely accommodations for religious observances. Please review the syllabus closely to determine if religious obligations will present scheduling conflicts with any of the assignments. Students must inform me of any conflicts within the first two weeks of the semester. Accommodations In compliance with Harvard University policy, appropriate accommodations will be provided for students with documented disabilities. Please provide your accommodations paperwork to me as soon as you have it available, within the first two weeks of the semester. For further information, please see the HKS Student Disability Coordinator.

 DRAFT Readings All assigned readings are available electronically through the course webpage. You will be reading excerpts from a number of books for this course. A copy of the following books has been placed on reserve at the Kennedy School library in case you would like to consult them. Cervero, Robert. 1998. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Dancygier, Rafaela M. 2010. Immigration and Conflict in Europe. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DeLeon, Richard Edward. 1992. Left Coast City: Progressive Politics in San Francisco. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas. Erie, Steven P., Vladimir Kogan, and Scott A. MacKenzie. 2011. Paradise Plundered: Fiscal Crisis and Governance Failures in San Diego. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Fainstein, Susan S. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Freund, David M. P. 2007. Colored Property: State Policy and White Racial Politics in Suburban America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hanson, Royce. 2003. Civic Culture and Urban Change: Governing Dallas. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Jones- Correa, Michael, ed. 2005. Governing American Cities: Interethnic Coalitions, Competition, and Conflict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Levy, Jonah D. 1999. Tocquevilles Revenge: State, Society, and Economy in Contemporary France. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pasotti, Eleanora. 2010. Political Branding in Cities: The Decline of Machine Politics in Bogot, Naples and Chicago. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Stone, Clarence. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas. Trotter, Joe W., and Jared N. Day. 2010. Race and Renaissance: African Americans in Pittsburgh since World War II. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. Walker, Peter A. and Patrick T. Hurley. 2011. Planning Paradise: Politics and Visioning of Land Use in Oregon (Society, Environment, and Place). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Zukin, Sharon. 2010. The Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

 DRAFT Overview of Course Schedule Class Date W 9/4 Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Challenges & Issues 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 F 9/6 M 9/9 W 9/11 M 9/16 W 9/18 M 9/23 W 9/25 M 9/30 W 10/2 M 10/7 W 10/9 Fiscal Health W 10/16 M 10/21 Mass Transit W 10/23 M 10/28 Progressive Politics W 10/30 M 11/4 Immigration W 11/6 W 11/13 Gentrification M 11/18 W 11/20 Social Ownership & Squatting M 11/25 M 12/2 Project Presentations W 12/4 Detroit Christiania Paris Cao Martin Pea Houston & Atlanta Brooklyn Frankfurt London Copenhagen Boston San Diego Boston Topic Shopping Day: 11:40-12:55, L-130 Why (Compare) Cities? The Big Questions The Big Questions The Growth Machine Anti-Growth Politics The Urban Regime Brand Politics Equity Planning Participatory Planning Comprehensive Planning Arlington Stuttgart Dallas Besanon & St. Etienne Atlanta Naples Amsterdam Cleveland & Minneapolis Portland/Oregon Detroit Case(s)

Planning Modes

Governance Styles

 DRAFT September 6 Why (Compare) Cities?

Nicholas Lemann, Get Out of Town: Has the Celebration of Cities Gone Too Far? The New Yorker. June 27, 2011, pp. 76-80. September 9 The Big Questions Arlington, MA

Howitt, Arnold. Extending the Red Line to Arlington (A). HKS Case #: C16-87-777.0.

September 11

The Big Questions Stuttgart, Germany

Varley, Pamela. Mega-Projects and the Role of the Public: Germanys Embattled Stuttgart 21 Rail Project. HKS Case # 2000.0.

September 16

The Growth Machine Dallas, TX

Hanson, Royce. 2003. Civic Culture and Urban Change: Governing Dallas. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, pp. 15-18, 47-59, 178-186, 199-203, 209-240, 263-267, 275-280.

September 18

Anti-growth Politics Besanon & St. Etienne, France

Levy, Jonah D. 1999. Tocquevilles Revenge: State, Society, and Economy in Contemporary France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 96-115, 118-130, 143-148, 171-184.

September 23

The Urban Regime Atlanta, GA

Stone, Clarence. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas, pp. 28-35, 38-41, 42-45, 52-55, 60-65, 73-74, 78-86, 92-94, 98-100, 109-115, 126-130, 144-147.

September 25

Branding Naples, Italy

Pasotti, Eleanora. 2010. Political Branding in Cities: The Decline of Machine Politics in Bogot, Naples and Chicago. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 32-42, 66-73, 105-117, 145-160.

10

 DRAFT September 30 Equity Planning Amsterdam, Netherlands

Fainstein, Susan S. 2010. The Just City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, Chapter 5.

October 2

Participatory Planning Cleveland, OH & Minneapolis, MN

Jaquay, Robert B. Civic Vision: Participatory City Planning in Cleveland in the 1980s. HKS Case #: C16-91-1060.0. Fagotto, Elena, and Archon Fung. 2006. Empowered Participation in Urban Governance: The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30:3, pp. 638-655.

October 7

Comprehensive Planning Portland, OR

Walker, Peter A., and Patrick T. Hurley. 2011. Planning Paradise: Politics and Visioning of Land Use in Oregon. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, pp. 50-51, 54-55, 58-59, 6275, 81-82, 84-88, 92-93, 95-98, 101-104, 110, 126-131, 141-144, 146, 148, 152.

October 9

Fiscal Health San Diego, CA

Erie, Steven P., Vladimir Kogan, and Scott A. MacKenzie. 2011. Paradise Plundered: Fiscal Crisis and Governance Failures in San Diego. Stanford: Stanford University Press, excerpts.

October 16

Fiscal Health Detroit, MI

Sugrue, Thomas. 2005 [1996]. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ; Princeton University Press, excerpts.

October 21 Guest Speaker: Professor Alan Altshuler

Mass Transit Boston, MA

Altshuler, Alan, and David Luberoff. 2003. Megaprojects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, Chapter 6.

11

 DRAFT October 23 Mass Transit Copenhagen, Denmark

Cervero, Robert. 1998. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington, DC: Island Press, Chapter 5.

October 28

Progressive Politics Boston, MA

Clavel, Pierre. 2010. Activists in City Hall: The Progressive Response to the Reagan Era in Boston and Chicago. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 35-38, 43-47, 55-61, 64-73, 82-95.

October 30

Progressive Politics Frankfurt, Germany

Moore, Steven A. 2007. Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City. Lanham, MD: Lexington, Books. Excerpts.

November 4

Immigration London, UK

Dancygier, Rafaela M. 2010. Immigration and Conflict in Europe. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 5 and 6.

November 6

Immigration Houston, TX & Gwinnett County, GA

Jones-Correa, Michael, ed. 2005. Governing American Cities: Interethnic Coalitions, Competition, and Conflict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press, Chapter 9. Ehrenhalt, Alan. 2013. The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City. New York: Vintage Books, Chapter 4.

November 13

Gentrification Brooklyn, NY

Zukin, Sharon. 2010. The Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, Chapter 1.

12

 DRAFT November 18 Gentrification Paris, France

Sibalis, Michael. 2004. Urban Space and Homosexuality: The Example of the Marais, Paris Gay Ghetto. Urban Studies 41:9, pp. 1739-1758.

November 20 HKS Multimedia Case # TBA

Social Ownership & Squatting Cao Martin Pea, PR

November 25

Social Ownership & Squatting Christiania, Denmark

Thrn, Hkan, Cathrin Wasshede, and Tomas Nilson. 2011. Space for Urban Alternatives? Christiania 1971- 2011. Vilnius: Gidlunds Frlag, Excerpts.

December 2

Group Presentations Detroit

December 4

Group Presentations Detroit

13