Team Finland Future Watch Report, Innovative planning in the U.S., Engaging communities to build better places

Innovative Planning in the U.S.:
Engaging Communities to Build
Better Places
Dr. Robert Goodspeed
Lacey Sigmon, Co-Author
Douglas Plowman, Co-Author
Seul Lee, Co-Author and Graphic Design
Urban and Regional Planning Program
Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Design
University of Michigan
Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation
Tekes is the main public funding organisation for research, development and innovation in Finland.
Tekes funds wide-ranging innovation activities in research communities, industry and service sectors
and especially promotes cooperative and risk-intensive projects. Tekes’ current strategy puts strong
emphasis on growth seeking SMEs.
EngagingCommunitiesto
BuildBetterPlacesInnovativePlanningintheU.S.
Tekes is the main public funding organisation for research, development and innovation in Finland. Tekes funds
wind-ranging innvation activities in research communities, industry and service sectors and especially promotes
cooperative and risk-intensive projects. Tekes’ current strategy puts strong emphasis on growth seeking SMEs.
FinPro is the national trade, internationalization and investment development organization in Finland. A public-
private organization and part of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy Group, FinPro also works closely
with other players in the Finnish innovation ecosystem.
This research was made possible by:
June 11, 2014
Dr. Robert Goodspeed
Lacey Sigmon • Co-Author
Douglas Plowman • Co-Author
Seul Lee • Co-Author and Graphic Design
(c) Regents of the University of Michigan, 2014 Figure: The First LIZ Project at Yearba Buena Lane / Source: Living Innovation Zones (liz.innovatesf.com)

CONTENTS
00
01 INTRODUCTION
02 SETTINGTHECONTEXT
03 CASES
04 CASEDISCUSSIONANDSYNTHESIS
05 ENDNOTES
06 APPENDIX
02.1 Internet Use
1
3
5
7
25
26
28
28
29
31
35
9
21
15
6
03.1 Boston’s Innovation District: Economic Development & Placemaking
04.1 Nature of Planning
02.2 Civic Engagement Online
03.2 Chicago GO TO 2040: Novel Engagement Techniques
04.2 Citizen Engagement
04.3 Institutions for Urban Innovation
04.4 New Roles for Public & Private Stakeholders
04.5 Conclusions
02.3 Trends in Civic Engagement in Case Study Cities
03.3 San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Innovation: Sparking Innovation and
Public & Private Partnership
02.4 New Forms of Participation

PLANNING
PRACTICES
Civic Engagement
Public & Private Roles
Institutions
Over 20 years ago, Manuel Castells observed that political,
economic, and technological changes were at work around
the world: the Soviet Union had collapsed, high-tech
industries were emerging, and the economy was becoming
more interconnected. In the face of these developments
Castells asked, “can planning change?”.1
As a socially
embedded practice, urban planning reflects the unique
characteristics of time and place. In recent years, a new
wave of changes are sweeping over cities worldwide. New
technologies continue to re-shape the economy, and
one of the products of this innovation — the Internet — is
transforming how city residents communicate with each
other. Therefore our answer to Castells’ question is “yes”:
planning continues to change as cities respond to new
urban problems, political developments, and technologies.
However, changing practices is not inevitable. Innovative
cities experiment with new technologies and continually re-
evaluate their planning practices and institutions.
InnovativePlanningintheU.S.1
This report aims to document how planning is changing
in the U.S. and identify new developments in the field
that may eventually characterize planning worldwide.
To do this, the report first describes several key trends:
shifting demographics, evolving civic engagement, and the
expanding use of the Internet for civic engagement. Next, the
focus shifts to short cases that explore innovative planning
activities in three U.S. cities. Case research is appropriate
for investigations of contemporary phenomenon, especially
when the “boundaries between the phenomenon and context
are not clearly evident”.2
These cases were selected for two
reasons. First, they are located in leading U.S. cities that
are home to sophisticated planning traditions and are at
the forefront of American political and economic change.
Boston and San Francisco anchor metropolitan regions
that are home to clusters of high technology firms, which
present a unique resource for the public sector. A longtime
leader in urban planning, the city of Chicago is home to
innovative urban policies, from green roofs to data driven
management. Second, the cases illustrate diverse forms of
urban planning. In Chicago, novel modeling and engagement
techniques were applied during a process to produce a
conventional metropolitan transportation plan. In Boston, a
city-led strategy has coordinated public and private efforts to
develop a new district, resulting in new ideas and institutions
required to realize an urban design. San Francisco is
experimenting with ongoing web-enabled engagement, as
well as institutional arrangements to tap into the expertise
of the city’s entrepreneurial community.
INTRODUCTION
01
Three Dimensions of Innovation

EngagingCommunitiestoBuildBetterPlaces
What do we mean by planning? The activities described
above differ significantly from traditional planning activities.
Although the nature of planning varies according to national
context, a good description of the model used in many U.S.
cities during the 20th Century is described in Kent’s classic
book, The Urban General Plan.3
In his view, planning was
government function, organized around producing a written
plan describing the “major policies concerning desirable
future development.” The primary client for the plan
document was the city council, and the primary focus of the
plan should be land use, circulation, and community facilities.
The book pays little attention to questions of how citizens and
nongovernmental stakeholders should be involved. Although
many cities still conduct planning this way, this model has
undergone many theoretical and practical criticisms.4
Not
only does the model presume planners know the public
interest and possess the required expertise to create plans
without external input, the output is a printed plan and
implementation is left to others.
In contrast, for the purposes of this report we adopt
Albrechts’ concept of strategic spatial planning, or a “public-
sector-led sociospatial process through which a vision,
actions, and means for implementation are produced that
shape and frame what a place is and may become”.5
This
definition has several important features which guide this
report’s research questions. First, as a sociospatial process,
successful planning must involve not only a small circle of
key stakeholders, but also communicate broadly with city
residents who ultimately give life to planning ideas. The
advent of the Internet — as well as novel modeling software
— is fundamentally transforming how participation takes
place. The ongoing transformation of civic engagement is the
subject of the first research question:
How are cities taking advantage of the
Internet to engage the public in planning
in new ways?
Second, the definition of planning described above
encompasses not only the conventional concept of a printed
plan that describes a vision, but also the activities which
translate a vision into reality. To do this, cities are developing
institutions to implement plans and link plan priorities with
action, including special municipal offices, novel cross-
departmental initiatives, and even new private organizations.
These are the subject of the second research question:
What institutions are cities creating to
encourage innovation in planning?
Finally, while as Albrecht observes planning is public-sector-
led, it has always required the participation of the private
sector. Castells observed that high-tech clusters arose
around a milieu of innovation.6
In the ensuing years, it has
become clear this milieu forms and grows through events,
meeting spaces, and organizations. With the growth of the
knowledge economy, cities are increasingly interested in
what can be done to encourage the development of a social
environment conducive to economic growth. In addition, the
growth of nongovernmental organizations mean traditionally
governmental roles may be filled by new actors.
Whatpublicandprivaterolesareemerging
in planning today?
2

This section provides a context for the cases discussed below. It begins by describing expanding Internet use American
society more broadly, then describes how the Internet is being used for civic engagement. Finally, it describes trends in citizen
activism — both conventional volunteering, but also the rise of new types of activism that rely on online coordination.
The Internet has provided a new forum for citizens to seek
out information about government institutions, policies,
and projects and is potentially expanding opportunities
for the public to become more involved in public affairs.
In the field of urban planning, the expansion of Internet-
based public involvement provides new opportunities for
the public to engage in planning. These developments may
have important consequences for democracy, since the
demographics of current Internet users show that Internet
based outreach has the potential to reach those who tend
to be underrepresented in traditional public engagement
opportunities like public meetings. These groups include
minorities, youth, and people with a lower level of education
and income. Social media websites, with diverse users, are
especially important potential venues for more inclusive
participation.
02.1 Internet Use
02
SETTINGTHECONTEXT
Figure 1: Internet Use in America Between 1995 and 2014
Source: “Internet Use Over Time.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (2013).
http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/internet-use-over-time/.
May 20, 2014.
0
20
30
10
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2014201220102008200620042002200019971995
(%)
(year)
Internet Use Between 1995 and 2014
Use Internet

Table 1: Internet Users in 2014
Source: “Internet User Demographics, 2014” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C.
(2014). http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats/.
The use of the Internet overall has rapidly increased over
time (see Figure 1). According to a recent report, 87% of adult
Americans currently use the Internet (Table 1). Nearly 100%
of the well educated, wealthy, and young people are online.
Furthermore, 68% of the 87% who are using the Internet
are accessing it at some point with a mobile device. The use
of mobile devices and cell phones has almost reached the
same level of adoption as Internet use overall. When Pew
first polled Americans on cell phone ownership in 2000,
nearly 53% of adult Americans owned cell phones. Now in
2014, nearly 90% of adult Americans own cell phones. Use of
a mobile device to access the Internet has increased in 2011
from 35% to 58% in 2014.7
Therefore, Internet connectivity,
and access to mobile devices is widespread. Despite this,
there are still disparities in Internet use, especially by
race, income, and educational attainment. In Table 1, the
categories educational level and household income show the
most differences in Internet usage. Among Americans with
a high school degree or less, only 76% are online, compared
with 97% of those with a college degree or higher. A similar
disparity can be found for the lowest income bracket, where
77% use the Internet, compared with 99% of those in the
highest bracket. While further analysis would have to be
undertaken to show a correlation between income and
educational level and Internet, the connection seems logical.
Internet use requires the skills and resources that often
come with higher educational attainment and income level.
Internet users in 2014
All Adults 87
Sex
Men 87
86
85
81
83
97
93
88
57
76
91
Women
Race/ethnicity*
White
African-American
Hispanic
18 - 29
30 - 49
50 - 64
High school grad or less
Some college
College +
65 +
Age group
Education level
Less than $30,000/yr
$30,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 +
Household income
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Community type
Use Internet (%)
87
88
93
99
97
77
83
85
EngagingCommunitiestoBuildBetterPlaces 4

02
Expanding access to the Internet has been accompanied by
its increasing use for citizen interaction with governments. In
2009, 48% of Americans sought out information, either offline
or online, about a policy or issue related to local, state or
federal government.8
This high percentage of Americans who
are seeking out government information shows that there is
a demand for transparency and easy access to information
about government. In 2009, 41% of Americans downloaded a
government form via a government website, 33% renewed a
driver’s license or auto registration, and 15% paid a fine or
parking ticket.9
While these are basic forms of government
interaction between the public and government, these
interactions may be the first steps towards more meaningful
engagement. These numbers might be even higher with
expanded online government services and improved usability
of government websites. For example, while most online
government users say that their visit was successful, most
Americans use a search engine to navigate government
websites, suggesting a need for improved navigation.10
While the Internet has opened up new channels for civic
engagement and access to government information, social
networking sites are changing the demographics of who is
interacting with the government even more. According to
the Pew Report, people who access government data and
contact government officials offline are generally affluent,
white, older and possess college degrees.11
Social media
websites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Flickr, may be one
way to canter this trend.
While Whites are much more likely to participate in online
forums than Blacks or Latinos, the introduction of social
media has shifted access to government information.12
Research shows that when government actors and
institutions reach out via social media websites, they reach a
much higher population of young adults and minority groups
than traditional Internet based outreach methods.13
This is
even more salient when the growth of social networking sites
is better understood. Between 2008 and 2012, the online
population which used social networking sites grew from 33%
to 69%.14
The rapid growth of social networking sites make
them useful venues for civic engagement. Social networking
can provide opportunities for information gathering, public
collaboration, and interaction with government officials.
Among social networking website users, 43% decided to
learn more about an issue when they were exposed to
it on the website.15
Of Internet users, 23% have posted
comments or interacted with a government agency via a
social networking account related to a government policy or
public issue.16
Social networking can lead to more than talk:
18% of social networking site users decided to take action
on an issue because they were exposed to it online. Social
networking sites are powerful tools for public outreach and
collaboration.
Research on Internet use and social networking seems
to show that the place of the Internet in the future of civic
involvement seems promising. While civic involvement will
always be in a state of evolution, Internet based outreach,
especially through social networking sites can reach more
people in a more efficient and powerful way than offline
outreach methods. The Internet can serve as a new resource
for cities to tap into the local knowledge of their populations
for planning processes.
SETTING
THE
CONTEXT
02.2 Civic Engagement Online

Over time, civic engagement in the three case study cities
has evolved. Volunteerism is a common proxy for civic
engagement, and is used here due to a lack of data on civic
engagement. This data presents a basis for which American
civic engagement exists today. The section also describes
emerging innovative civic engagement trends. As the above
section discusses, the emergence of the Internet and social
networking techniques for engagement could profoundly
change the nature of civic engagement in America. However,
the following discussion concentrates on the current nature
of active civic engagement in the three case study cities.
Table 2 shows additional indicators used to measure civic
engagement. The three cities show similar rates of public
meeting attendance in 2012, with Boston showing a slightly
higher participation rate than the other two cities. San
Francisco had the highest number of respondents who said
they were active in their neighborhood. Finally, Chicago
showed the highest retention rate among volunteers. No
city showed particular strength in all three areas of civic
engagement. This seems to suggest that local values inform
what type of civic involvement is most popular.
While it has been often feared that civic engagement
is diminishing in America, this data shows that civic
engagement has been fairly steady. What remains to be
explored is whether or not the nature of civic engagement
has changed and possibly how online forms of engagement
have the opportunity to have a similar impact on government
policies and projects as traditional participation.
Indicator Boston Chicago San Francisco
Attend
Meetings (%)
(2012)
10.1 8.7 9.7
Active in
Neighborhood
(%) (2012)
8.4 7.1 9.8
Volunteer
Retention (%)*
(2010-2011)
63.5 66.9 65.8
25
30
35
201220112010200920082007200620052004
(%)
(year)
As Figure 2 shows, San Francisco has had the highest and
steadiest volunteer rate of the three cities, however, all three
cities had around a 25% participation in volunteering. Boston
shows the most profound downward trend in volunteerism
between 2010 and 2012, where as Chicago reached the
lowest point of volunteerism in 2007 of all three cities.
Volunteer Rate Between 2004 and 2012
Additional Metrics for Civic Engagement
in the Three Case Study Cities
Figure 2: Volunteer Rate for the Three Case Study Cities
Source: Corporation for National and Community Service,Volunteering and Civic Life in
America Data Set (www.volunteeringinamerica.gov)
Table 2: Additional Metrics for Civic Engagement in the Three Case Study Cities
*Volunteer Retention is defined by the number of volunteers who volunteered in Year 1
and continued to volunteer in Year 2 (2010-2011)
Source: Corporation for National and Community Service,Volunteering and Civic Life in
America Data Set, (www.volunteeringinamerica.gov)
San FranciscoBoston Chicago
02.3 Trends in Civic Engagement in Case Study Cities

02
New forms of social participation are emerging around the
world, especially in cities. This section briefly describes
one notable example related to planning, a loose collective
of activities referred to as tactical urbanism. An influential
report on this new trend argues tactical urbanism is a
deliberate approach to city-making that features several
characteristics: (1) a deliberate, phased approach to change,
(2) a focus on local ideas and challenges, (3) short-term
commitments, (4) use of low-risk strategies, and (5) the
development of social capital among stakeholders.17
Tactical
urbanism may include unsanctioned activities by activists and
artists, as well as official experiments by city departments.
The diverse activities included under this term include adding
chairs to urban spaces, planting gardens in abandoned lots
without permission, and creating temporary parks. The term
also describes public experiments by municipalities, such
as projects that temporarily modify traffic patterns or create
new plazas.
SETTING
THE
CONTEXT
02.4 New Forms of Participation
One notable example of tactical urbanism is Park(ing) Day,
an annual event where citizens turn on-street parking spaces
into park-like public spaces. The event was created in San
Francisco in 2005 when a design group converted a parking
space into a mini-park, complete with grass, a bench, and a
tree. The group also inserted coins into the parking meter
during the time they used the space. Since that year, it has
grown to an international event, and today each year over
1,000 parking spaces are transformed to miniature parks
in over 100 cities in dozens of countries around the world.
These projects were largely coordinated online, where local
activists connect with local groups.
Although some of the most radical tactical urbanism projects
raise important questions about legal liability and the use
of public assets, on the whole this movement stresses the
importance of creativity, participation, and fun in improving
urban quality of life. Where complemented by responsive
public authorities, tactical urbanism projects can be used to
test new ideas and build excitement for change in cities.

Figure 3: Park(ing) Day in San Francisco
Source: Flickr (www.flickr.com)

03
This section contains three cases: Boston’s Innovation District, the Chicago GO TO 2040 plan, and the San Francisco Mayor’s
Office of Innovation. While they vary significantly, all of three exhibit innovations tailored for their contexts and goals.
Boston is one of the oldest cities in the United States, first
incorporated in 1630.18
The city’s major industries today are
finance, healthcare, education and services.19
The city is
known as a leader in innovative technology research and has
a strong knowledge base thanks to the presence of many
well respected universities in Boston metropolitan region,
including Harvard and MIT. Many of the Boston region’s
companies have roots in the classrooms and laboratories
in these universities. Despite the city’s apparent strengths,
many companies that started in Boston have moved
elsewhere. For example, Mark Zuckerberg moved Facebook
from Harvard to metropolitan San Francisco in order to
take advantage of that region’s skilled workforce, creative
culture, and venture capital firms. Furthermore, many of
Boston’s fast-growing technology companies cluster near
Universities or locate in suburban locations not near the city
center. The Boston Innovation District is an effort led by city
leaders to develop a high technology cluster in the city limits.
Government-led efforts to cultivate clusters of firms, or
technology parks, are not a new phenomenon. Since the
1980s, governments around the world have experimented
with designating specific cities or neighborhoods for
high technology firms, often providing these areas with
infrastructure or tax benefits. Cultivating these clusters
03.1 Boston’s Innovation District: Economic Development & Placemaking
CASES
History and Context
could encourage collaboration between firms, as well as
serving to benefit the host city. Top-down planned technology
parks have not been very successful. Two reasons are a lack
of skilled workers, and the parks’ lack of urban amenities.20
Boston aimed to create a cluster of high tech firms through a
strategy that combined physical planning and design, public
investment and branding, and other economic development
activities. This involved numerous stakeholders from both
the public and private sectors. In the later half of the 20th
century, a shift towards trucking and modern container
shipping resulted in large tracts of vacant land along the
South Boston waterfront. In the 1990s, government officials
made tentative steps to encourage redevelopment, building
a convention center, federal courthouse, and new transit
line in the area. The stage was set for redevelopment by
the 1999 Seaport Public Realm Plan, which created a guide
for streets, blocks, and parks for this area.21
Although the
plan identified economic development as a goal, it did not
specify the types of businesses that would be located there,
or how physical design would be connected to economic
development activities.

As the technology sector began to heat up in the 2000s, city
officials began to consider how a technology cluster could
be cultivated in South Boston, providing a needed focus for
the neighborhood’s development. Private firms had already
begun to locate in historic warehouses and lofts nearby, and
the ample supply of land could accommodate new growth.
The Innovation District was developed as an evolving strategy,
one which would need coordination between the private and
public sectors. The idea has continued to evolve and has
since become a reality. The district was launched by then-
mayor Thomas Menino in 2010, and continues today under
Mayor Marty Walsh. City officials claim over 5,000 new jobs
have been created by over 200 companies in the district, and
that another 4,000 jobs are anticipated in the coming years.22
Figure 4: Boston Innovation District
Source: Flickr (www.flickr.com)

03
CASES:
BOSTON’S
INNOVATIONDISTRICT
The Innovation District promoters have created a set of
principles and strategies to explain the district to newcomers.
The three core principles that are central to the project are:
opportunities for testing new technologies, sustainable
growth, and shared innovation. Further, there are also
three key strategies: promoting collaboration, providing
public space and developing a 24-hour neighborhood.24
As described further in the case discussion, in addition to
promoting the Innovation District, the project uses a website
and social media to foster engagement by promoting events,
project participation, and entering into a dialog with the
online community.
The Boston Innovation District today is a 1,000 acre site on
the South Boston waterfront that has been transformed into
an area supporting innovative thinkers, entrepreneurs and
collaborative business.23
The neighborhood is also home to
new bars and restaurants, a brewery, a contemporary art
museum, as well as MassChallenge, a startup incubator. The
site used to be an industrial waterfront location and was one
of the most underdeveloped in all of the city despite being
centrally located, making it well suited for redevelopment.
Innovation District Overview
38
40
43
16
48
34
33
35
47 42
2
18
17
12
9
5
6
10
11
22
14
15
8
32
31
19
46
41
44
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
3
27
5
5
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
9
9
10
9
9
13
13
13
14
14
15
14
15
10
10
10
10
10
13
11
12
15
15
15
15
15
15
16 48
10
33
10
18
36
33
36
38
39
36
40
41
20
9
38
10
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
19
20
1
23
22
22
24
25
26
7
7
3
7
27
3
28
29
30
20
32
2
7
31
32
2
16
16
33
34
37
35
36
42
43
44
33
45
20
20
46
47
36
39
37
29
30
27
3 28 7
21
20
4
24
23
26
45
25
Figure 5: A Growing Mix of Innovation Businesses
Source: Boston’s Innovation District (www.innovationdistrict.org)
Greentech Social Media/Communications/Publishing IT/Software Development
Incubator/Accelerator
Non-Profit/Social Entrepreneurship Life Sciences/Biotech Architecture/Design Education/Academia
Manufacturing/Engineering Finance/Professional Services
E-Commerce

In order to achieve these goals, city officials have adopted
land use regulations to guide private investment in the
neighborhood, including a new zoning overlay district. The
City of Boston already requires 15% affordable housing
units (or a payment) for any residential construction greater
than ten homes. Before any new development took place
in the district, a new zoning overlay was added doubling
this requirement to 30%. This was key for the district’s
success because it will produce a mix of housing types
and options. Thus, employees can live close to where they
work regardless of income, which is believed to be crucial
for increasing productivity. Boston, as with many large U.S.
cities, has a housing affordability issue, so this requirement
was pivotal to encourage a young, innovative workforce to
move to the area. For non-residential construction a similar
30% rule was put in place, but this time the space must be
used for innovative uses. The definition of these uses is quite
open, and includes; parks, open spaces, as well as business
incubator spaces that are open to all applicants.25
Real estate developers working within these requirements
have begun to embrace the unique nature of the Innovation
District. For example, developers are beginning to construct
buildings with open-plan workspaces. These shared spaces
are offered with short term leases to appeal particularly to
smaller firms, with options for longer term leasing for larger,
more established firms. Shared working spaces is becoming
increasingly common, as 40% of new companies are
choosing to lease these type of spaces in the District.26
These
unique spaces, which encourage cross-company interaction,
are one of the unique selling points for the District.
This combination of a public vision and land use regulations
and private activity comes together in the neighborhood’s
“District Hall.” This building is the self-proclaimed “new
home for innovation in Boston,” and serves as a meeting and
event space that serves as an anchor for the neighborhood. It
wastheresultofapublic-privatecollaborationamongseveral
parties including the City of Boston, Boston Global Investors,
and the Briar Group.27
District Hall can be configured as an
open workspace, assembly space, or as flexible work pods.28
When talking about District Hall, Mayor Menino asserted,
“cities have long built infrastructure for travel and utilities,
but in a relationship-driven economy we’re building a new
kind of infrastructure - a place to make connections and
to build relationships.”29
While District Hall was privately
funded by Boston Global Investors as part of their larger
23-acre development, the day-to-day function, including
event planning and programming is covered by a non-profit
group, Venture Cafe Foundation.30
Operations are sponsored
by Microsoft and the insurance firm John Hancock.31
This
diverse mix of private and public collaborators speaks to the
nature of collaboration in the District, and the strong support
innovative projects have in the private and public sectors in
Boston.

While the private sector has had a profound impact on the
district, the public sector has had a hand in its success as
well. City leaders have had a central role in the development
of the district, ensuring the district’s design, infrastructure,
and transportation that have have primed the area for
success. Furthermore, the public sector lad a robust
marketing and branding effrot to promote the district and
attract new residents and firms.
03
CASES:
BOSTON’S
INNOVATIONDISTRICT
Figure 7: A Networking event at the Innovation District in Boston
Source: Boston’s Innovation District (www.innovationdistrict.org)
In addition to these activities, government agencies
engaged in more typical economic development activities.
One example is workshops organized by the Boston
Redevelopment Authority (BRA). These workshops teach
budding entrepreneurs the intricacies of capital access
and other financing topics. MassChallenge is another
economic development example. This nonprofit supports
entrepreneurs in the early stages of the startup process.
MassChallenge is located in the Innovation District and so far
have helped 125 firms a year and have donated $1 million of
capital annually. They are backed by large private investors
including both Microsoft and Verizon.32
This sort of venture
further illustrates the dynamic balance between different
activities within the District.
Figure 6: Boston District hall
Source: Hacin + Associates (www.hacin.com)
Innovation District Overview

As with any redevelopment project, there is likely to
be conflict. The District used to be home to the largest
concentration of artists in New England. The redevelopment
has displaced some to new neighborhoods, resulting in
understandable complaints. The project has also become a
victim of its own success. The Boston Globe reported last year
that affordability has become a problem in the neighborhood,
arguing is “is in danger of becoming a top-heavy boutique
neighborhood because it targets price-sensitive businesses,
but has no way of providing stable rents.”33
This has to be
of concern for everybody involved, since innovation districts
rely on small entrepreneurial businesses and if they cannot
cluster together and work with one another it removes much
of what was trying to be achieved. An article from early 2014
reports that rents in the area are only 1% below that of Back
Bay, an established high-rent commercial area in Boston. To
illustrate the rapid change, the recent high rents are in stark
contrast to the “welcome home challenge” which took place
at the beginning of the project in 2010. The challenge was a
competition aimed at attracting interest among business in
the District, something that doesn’t seem quite so necessary
now.34
Recent research on high-tech clusters argues that they must
combine quality of life with efficient public infrastructure
and services.35
Boston has attempted to fulfill both of these
goals in the innovation district. The urban design regulations
set the stage for new buildings that make the District an
appealing place to work, with not only offices but also parks,
museums, bars, and restaurants. Even if the workers want
to live a little further away, it is near many well-connected
transit lines.36
Contemporary research now often uses the term smart
cities to refer to contemporary version of technology parks.
This research suggests that a hybrid strategy that combines
top-down elements with participation is ideal.37
Reviewing
several examples, Zygiaris argues one of the most successful
examples of a smart city available is that of Barcelona,
specifically the 22@Barcelona project. This project utilized
funding from a wide variety of sources in order to facilitate the
project’s ambitious goals. Projects of this scope need a mix
of funding sources to be successful. This is something that
Boston planners seem to be managing with the District Hall
development. While Boston Global Investors, a real estate
firm, backed the project with a broader master plan in mind,
operations are turned over to a nonprofit. The clear backing
and support from the Mayor and city leaders complemented
more participatory activities.
In conclusion, we suggest that while Boston Innovation
District is successful in many ways, it will continue to evolve
to address new challenges. As Yigitcanlar observes for smart
cities, it is hard to judge them until they reach maturity.38
The
District Hall development has great potential to encourage
the goals and principles laid out in the supporting material
for the district. The rent increases is a cause for concern,
particularly since it could threaten the neighborhood’s ability
to attract small firms. However, the Innovation District has
successfully cultivated a cluster of businesses, services and
amenities that make it poised for a bright future.
Controversy Conclusion

03
CASES:
CHICAGO
GOTO2040
03.2 Chicago GO TO 2040: Novel Engagement Techniques
Figure 8: The Bird eye’s View of Chicago
Source: Wikipedia Commons (commons.wikipedia.org)

Chicago is one of the largest cities in the United States and
has long been known as the country’s “second city,” behind
New York. Although no longer the second largest U.S. city
by population, metropolitan Chicago is home to around 2.6
million people, welcomes 40 million tourists annually, and
is the location of 32 Fortune 500 companies.39
Furthermore,
Chicago has a long history of urban planning as the city is
the home of architect Daniel Burnham, author of the famous
1909 Plan of Chicago.
The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), the
region’s planning authority, launched a project to write a new
regional plan in 2008.40
At that time, the agency projected
that an additional two million more residents would move
to the Chicago metropolitan area by 2040.41
The plan, which
would come to be called GO TO 2040, was the first regional
plan for Chicago since Burnham’s 1909 plan. The document
set an ambitious agenda of infrastructure development. The
four central themes of the plan are: livable communities,
human capital, efficient governance, and regional mobility.42
A common theme throughout the plan is sustainability, and
the importance of responsible development. Between 2008
and the final adoption of the plan on October 13th, 2010,
CMAP solicited input from the public through a variety of
techniques.43
It is important to note that CMAP has limited
legal authority, although they do have influence over
transportation infrastructure funding.44
History and Context

03
CASES:
CHICAGO
GOTO2040
Community engagement for GO TO 2040 began on May 27th,
2009 and continued through September 10th, 2009.45
Walsh
and Burch note that one outcome of good engagement is
support for a regional plan.46
CMAP was aware that success
of their project relied on the public buying into the project.
CMAP’s 2009 Invent the Future report states that “CMAP
recognizes that public participation is a key component
in effective planning. It is essential that the residents of
northeastern Illinois have a voice in how the region’s plans
are formulated.”47
The end goal for the process was to have a
plan that was viable, but that was also directed in some way
by the residents themselves. To ensure the plan would be
a success, CMAP wanted to gain input from a broad range
of residents in the region. This was achieved in a number of
ways including: face-to-face workshops, interactive kiosks,
suggestion cards and online tools. This process fell under
the wider aspects of the project known as Invent the Future.
There were two main goals set out for the project: to educate
the region’s residents about the impacts of various planning
strategies, and gain public input on the development of
CMAP’s preferred future.48
A public participation plan proposed how engagement
would accomplish these goals.49
The document had three
elements: a discussion of how to reach out to a wide range of
residents, how to engage in multiple ways, and how to ensure
participants remained in touch with the process. Outreach
was achieved through increasing visibility for the plan and
using as many avenues as they could to provide opportunities
for feedback. Sustaining a connection with the participants
was a tougher process however. To do this, emails were
sent to those who visited the workshops containing further
information on the plan. This allowed participants to stay
connected and enabled them to see other events they could
attend to further engage in the project.
GO TO 2040 Engagement
Figure 9: Invent the Future Summer Outreach
Source: Invent the Future Summary Report (2009), p.15
Fair Kiosk Workshop Interstates Metro

At the center of the GO TO 2040 community engagement
strategy was a piece of software called MetroQuest.50
The
software was adapted specifically for use in the community
engagement process in Chicago. MetroQuest allowed
participants to explore the implications of their preferences
for the region. Participants’ priorities became scenarios,
which ultimately inform the planning process and the final
plan. This software not only allows someone to design a
plan, but also helps to visualize how the city would look if
their selected changes were made. The software allows
participants to choose the most important planning issue to
themanddevelopascenariobasedonthesefactors.Issuesthe
tool considered included; development density, development
location, road network, transit system, transportation policy
and resource policy. On each issue, participants were asked
to provide a rating, which resulted in a scenario. The most
popular scenarios, as identified through research and public
input would be the basis of the regional scenario presented
to the CMAP board for approval.51
MetroQuest
A more complex version of MetroQuest was used during
public workshops, and a simplified version was available
online. Both highlighted the connections between issues,
and encouraged participants to compare alternatives.
MetroQuest “makes it possible for groups to learn about
the relationship between policy choices and associated
indicators or outcomes.”52
Land use and transportation
are closely related, and this process allowed users to
see these close links first hand. Participants could use
MetroQuest to explore three benchmark scenarios created
by CMAP: preserving the current situation, re-investing in
certain infrastructure, such as transportation, or innovating
and completely overhauling the norm and developing an
alternative option.53
Although a novel tool, the limited data
available suggests not all website visitors engaged deeply
with this tool. The MetroQuest website had a relatively high
bounce rate of 40.4%.54
This was a cause for concern for
CMAP, and they focused on converting web visitors to users,
and created a variety of other engagement opportunities.
Figure 10: The Starting Point for the Three Different Variations of MetroQuest Used by
CMAP
Source: Walsh (2012), p.53

03
CASES:
CHICAGO
GOTO2040
Engagement Approaches
The second innovative approach to community engagement
used in the GO TO 2040 process was social media and other
nontraditional promotional avenues. Twitter was a key
broadcast method for the project, meetings were often live
Tweeted which increased the transparency and accessibility
of the project.55
Other social media websites used by the
project included Youtube, Flickr and a blog.56
The use of
MetroQuest was also tied into the social media strategy.
Participants who developed their own scenarios online could
share them on either Facebook or Twitter. Friends on these
sites could then rate these scenarios. This helped spread the
word about the plan and further encouraged the community
to engage in the planning process. CMAP’s use of social
media shows a forward-thinking approach to planning which
enabled the project to reach out to a younger and more
diverse population than might have been the case.
Computer kiosks were another innovative community
engagement tool. Traditional forms of community
engagement rely upon workshops and face-to-face
interaction. Kiosks are freed from these restrictions and
allowed for technologically-savvy participation. The kiosks
were initially created to disseminate information about
the project, yet the feedback received became useful for
the project. Kiosks were located in high foot traffic areas,
including the lobby of the Willis Tower and a semi-temporary
site in Millennium Park. Each user spent around three to
five minutes at the kiosk. There were two 30-second videos
with a question at the end of each. After the questions
were answered, a video played giving immediate feedback,
which showed the impacts of their decisions on the built
environment.57
There were over 14,000 completed responses
collected from these kiosks.58
These digital strategies were complemented by a set of
more conventional citizen engagement strategies. Citizen
participation was further encouraged at workshops hosted
all across Chicago. There were 57 workshops held during the
engagement process, with the highest attendances in Joliet
and Oak Park.59
These were the most time-intensive method,
since workshops often lasted two hours. The workshops
allowed in-depth deliberation of key decisions. Two popular
themes that arose at each of these workshops was the
need for more compact development, as well as increased
spending on transportation infrastructure.
Figure 11: The Millennium Park Kiosk
Source: Invent the Future Summary Report, p.8

Assessment
Much of the discussion during the GO TO 2040 plan was about
Chicago’s competitive advantage in a rapidly urbanizing
world.60
The same source references the executive director
of CMAP claiming that this could be Chicago’s last chance
to prepare for growth. The modest funding for this project is
also discussed with a charitable donation of $1.3 million given
by the Chicago Community Trust. However, the final plan did
not propose radical changes, and the region has been slow
to implement of the plan’s goals of denser development and
increased transit service. Some news reports that referred
to CMAP as “little known” suggests the agency’s newness
may have limited their visibility.
After the completion of the project, CMAP staff have reflected
on its strengths and weaknesses as they continue their work
in the region. Tom Garritano, the communications director
of CMAP, argued that the use of computer kiosks was a
highlight of the outreach effort. In addition, he reported
that CMAP was lucky to “getting out in front” of the social
media trend, but that some of the websites were not as
successful as others. For example, Flickr was used to share
photographs during the process, yet Flickr is no longer as
important or heavily used as it once was. Garritano said one
area where the plan could be improved was its focus: the
resulting 400-page report was too long, and did not present
clear priorities.
To conclude, the project was innovative and engaged a
good number of residents in the process. The kiosk and the
MetroQuest software was an innovative demonstration of
how to expand and improve engagement. Creating a regional
plan for a city as large as Chicago inevitably raises challenges
for engagement, focus, and implementation. CMAP’s limited
authority and newness posed challenges to the process,
and the plan’s suggestions for more compact development
have generally not been realized. Although the plan did not
come to bold conclusions, it did foster discussions about the
city’s future and has laid the groundwork for future planning
efforts.

03
CASES:
SANFRANCISCO
MAYOR’SOFFICEOFINNOVATION
The city of San Francisco anchors a metropolitan region
famous for a cluster of high-tech firms that extend from
downtown to the suburban Silicon Valley. As of 2012, San
Francisco has approximately 1,800 companies with 4,200
jobs in the technology industry.61
This sector is a tremendous
resource for the public sector. For example, through a
partnership established in 2013 with the nongovernmental
organization Code for America, San Francisco is trying to
“make the city more open and efficient” by working with web
developers, designers, and entrepreneurs.62
As a result of
this cooperation, San Francisco was named the best U.S. city
for open data in 2014.63
In 2012, San Francisco established the Mayor’s Office of
Civic Innovation for making “an environment that allows
innovation to flourish in City Hall.”64
The Mayor’s Office of
Civic Innovation aims to enhance the quality of life in the city
through a wide range of projects involving technology, civic
engagement, and municipal administration.65
This case will
focus on several of their projects related to urban planning:
Entrepreneurship in Residence, the Mayor’s Innovation
Roundtables, ImproveSF, and Living Innovation Zones.
These two programs promote new forms of public-
private collaboration. Through the 16-week Residence
program, San Francisco seeks “innovative solutions to civic
challenges” that create economic benefits to the city, and
encouraging startup companies to explore creative solutions
with the government.66
Recently, the government chose a
startup planning technology firm, Synthicity, as one of six
Entrepreneurship in Residence participants to work with
the Planning Department on “new simulation, planning, and
urban development tools and technologies.” Paul Waddell,
the company’s president and a professor at the University of
California, Berkeley, noted that they will continue to develop
UrbanSim, urban modeling software. The firm and the city
government both expect to apply this technology to the real
city through the Residence program in the future.67
The Mayor’s Innovation Roundtable program provides for
more informal collaboration. This program involves two
regular types of discussion sessions involving private sector
leaders, a small session with the Mayor and community
leaders, and a public forum with community members.
This allows the government to keep abreast of the changing
economy, and explore ways to generate economic and social
value by capitalizing on emerging technologies.68
These two
projects complement the city’s primary civic engagement
project, ImproveSF.
03.3 San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Innovation:
Sparking Innovation and Public-Private Partnership
History and Context
Entrepreneurship in Residence
and Mayor’s Innovation Roundtables

Figure 12: The Mayor’s Innovation Roundtable
Source: Type A Machines (news.typeamachines.com)
ImproveSF is a website that encourages city residents
to become more directly involved in finding solutions for
community problems. Shannon Spanhake, the city’s deputy
innovation officer describes ImproveSF as “a public-private-
people partnership that aims to make civic participation
sustainable.”69
This website not only allows community
members to discuss issues in their community, but also
provides potential private stakeholders an opportunity to
preview emerging project and ideas for investment.
ImproveSF uses both a website and Twitter to encourage
interaction. Through these forums, users can contribute,
support, and comment on ideas related to city-designated
issues. Once a community or organization identifies an
issue in a specific area, community leaders set up topics in
the forum and ask the public for ideas and opinions on this
issue. City residents share their thoughts and collaborate to
develop solutions. Then, community leaders move forward
with the best ideas.70
For instance, the Planning Department
used ImproveSF to seek better ways to improve the Green
Connection project, which is a short-term transportation
planning project to build a path for bicycling and walking.
The Planning Department proposed the initial idea on
the website, and asked the public to provide feedback to
enhance the project. Approximately 420 interactions were
made between the public and the department through this
platform. The ease and accessibility of this type of interaction
has proved to be successful. As a result, over 4,000 ideas
have been suggested and discussed in the platform so far,
and from 200 to 15,000 interactions have taken place in each
topic. ImproveSF’s online component shows that meaningful
engagementonaprojectandcollaborationamongcommunity
members and private entities can be accomplished through
innovative Internet-based technologies.
ImproveSF
Figure 13: Public Interaction on the ImproveSF website
Source: ImproveSF (www.improvesf.com)

03
CASES:
SANFRANCISCO
MAYOR’SOFFICEOFINNOVATION
The Living Innovation Zones (LIZ) program is one of the most
successful projects undertaken by ImproveSF. This project
is a partnership of the SF Mayor’s Office of Civic Innovation,
the Planning Department, and the Department of Public
Works. Under the Better Market Street Project that aims
to revitalize the public realm on Market Street, LIZ makes
“temporary, flexible spaces for public interaction.”71
This
program also encourages innovators, artists, and designers
to easily take part in projects in public spaces. This provides
the opportunity for creative art projects and innovative
technologies to enhance the quality of public spaces in San
Francisco. This was done by initiating a topic on ImproveSF
asking the public what they would like to see on this major
street. During the five months the topic was active, people
posted their ideas, shared their favorite thoughts via Twitter,
and collaborated with others through the forum. People
suggested 23 ideas to activate Market Street that included:
monthly pop-up stores, small-scale mobile homes for the
homeless, night markets, and installation of musical swings
that play local artists’ music.
Living Innovation Zones
Figure 14: The First LIZ Project at Yearba Buena Lane
Source: Living Innovation Zones (liz.innovatesf.com)
The first project completed by LIZ, Yearba Buena Lane, gave
the Exploratorium, the science museum, the opportunity to
build an interactive educational experience on city sidewalks.
Through this project, the project partners sought to bring
people, energy, activity, and innovation to the sidewalks of
Market Street. The process to undertake projects through
the LIZ starts with the opening up of an underutilized site
to the public. Then the private partner organizations engage
in funding, design, and maintenance of the site. During this
time, the public interacts through ImproveSF to provide
their input on the project. Currently, LIZ is undertaking
several pilot projects along Market Street. Success of these
projects will enable the city to develop a formal process for
community engagement for new public spaces and expand
LIZ to other areas in the city.

Despite its apparent benefits, ImproveSF is still controversial
in the community. John Avalos, one of the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors noted that while the ideas might
improve the city, it involves providing special access to city
agencies without any revenue.72
The projects also tend to
focus on short-term placemaking projects, instead of long-
term planning. Moreover, the rapid changes in technology
might significantly affect ImproveSF in the future and this
technology might quickly become obsolete. Lastly, the
compatibility between ImproveSF and the city’s master plan
needs to be carefully considered, since participatory input
may not reflect a broader strategy.
Debate
Figure 15: The Installation at Yearba Buena Lane
Source: Living Innovation Zones (liz.innovatesf.com)
To conclude, innovative planning in San Francisco focuses
on the collaboration among the government, the private
sector, and the public. Although there might be some issues
such as the transparency of government resources, the
actual feasibility of projects for the government, and budget
restraints extenuated by including private actors, The San
Francisco Mayor’s Office of Civic Innovation has the potential
to develop the city’s civically engaged planning processes
and could inspire other cities to do the same in the future.

04
This section discusses the three cases, focusing on four issues: the nature of planning, citizen engagement, institutions for
urban innovation, and new roles for public and private stakeholders.
CASEDISCUSSIONANDSYNTHESIS
The cases illustrate the evolving character of urban planning.
In Boston, the government established regulations and
an urban design plan, but has since worked to coordinate
a variety of stakeholders to cultivate a new economic hub
in the city to realize the plan. In particular, the mayor and
other city leaders cultivated an identity for the neighborhood
as an “innovation district.” Although this started as a brand,
it has evolved into a full-fledged economic development
and placemaking strategy. Although originating in a top-
down strategy, the District has thrived as it became more
open to participation by firms and citizens. Its success also
lies in Boston’s status as a center for entrepreneurship,
and the amenities and vacant land contained within the
neighborhood. In Chicago, a planning process engaged
residents in a range of innovative ways, with the kiosks being
the most valuable. This case is the most traditional, since it
resulted in a large publication — a plan. However, it is also
04.1 Nature of Planning
the case where planning is farthest from implementation
activities. Finally, the San Francisco case illustrated how
efforts such as fostering public-private collaboration can
support the planning process. Here city leaders have re-
cast their role as coordinating private activity around priority
topics. Other activities, such as hosting entrepreneurs, are
motivated by a desire to capture knowledge and expertise
outside of government that could improve not only planning,
but also other government activities. The Entrepreneurship
in Residence program allow city planners to gain access to
novel private sector visualization and modeling tools. While
a full discussion of the lively debate about various forms of
planning is beyond the scope of this report, the cases serve
as a reminder that local planners should reflect on their
assumptions about the types of activities that may properly
be called “planning.”

The cases also illustrate experiments in new forms of
engagement that utilize the Internet and new computer
models. These fall into two categories: the use of social
media and interactive websites, and the development of new
software to visualize and compare urban planning scenarios.
Both of these topics are the subject of growing bodies of
research and practice.73
Takingplaceafteranurbandesignplanhadbeenadopted,the
Boston Innovation District’s approach to citizen engagement
was oriented around promotion and implementation. An
active Twitter account has sent over 3,000 tweets, garnering
a following of over 11,700 Twitter followers. The tweets
not only promote the neighborhood itself, but also discuss
public meetings, networking events, and news related to
businesses located in the district. Similarly, San Francisco’s
ImproveSF platform uses Twitter to make connections and
spark discussion.
However, engagement often extends beyond exchanging
ideas in order to allow citizens to engage with detailed
proposals. Chicago’s MetroQuest allowed for precisely this
type of nuanced exploration, and was key in the success of
the project as a whole. It engaged residents in learning about
the region and gave them instant feedback on how their
preferences compared to the agency’s scenarios.
04.2 Citizen Engagement
Boston
Innovation
District
Chicago
GO TO
2040
San Francisco
Mayor’s Office of
Civic Innovation
Twitter
Followers
11,700 3,222 2,118
Twitter
Following
2,489 1,409 2,214
Number of
Tweets
3,117 3,998 1,314
Likes on
Facebook
275 882 N/A
Table 3: Social Networking Analysis for Case Studies; Conducted on May 22, 2014.
Social Networking Analysis for Case Studies

04
We explored how Twitter was used for civic engagement by
analyzing the Twitter feeds for each project. Tweets were
categorized into several categories, two main purposes
for tweets emerged: tweets that promoted engagement
and tweets that were informational. Tweets that promoted
engagement included advertisement on how to engage
with the project (i.e. public meetings), advertisements for
local events, and interactions with the Twitter community.
In Boston, 40% of tweets promoted engagement, 38.6% in
Chicago, and 50.9% in San Francisco. In all three cities, the
type of engagement most promoted through Twitter are event
promotions in the local community. Often the events were
related in some way to the project at hand but were not events
that allowed citizens to directly engage with planning issues.
The remainder of the tweets were informational: 54.6% in
Boston, 56.6% in Chicago, and 48.1% in San Francisco.
Within this group, the most common category was the
dissemination of project related information, closely followed
by planning-related news. These news items often promoted
emerging planning values that aligned with the project
goals or linked to articles by outsiders about the project.
These items bolstered the projects’ reputation in the public
eye. The “other” category captures completely unrelated
uncategorizable items found in the Twitter feed. What this
analysis begins to show is that while Twitter is a powerful
tool to disseminate direct and promotional information
about a planning project, Twitter is also being used to help
the public better engage both online and offline.74
This
analysis combined with the previously mentioned research
on social media’s ability to better engage youth, minorities,
and lower income populations seems to potentially indicate
that innovative planning projects that include a social media
component are not only informing a larger mass of the
underrepresented population, but are possibly providing the
information to increase engagement in urban communities.
Figure 16: Twitter Content Analysis
*Boston and Chicago percents were calculated from a total of 150 tweets sampled, San
Francisco as a newer project was calculated out of a total of 104. Boston was sampled
between February 2011 and December 2012; Chicago was sampled between January
2009 and December 2010; San Francisco was sampled between May 2012 up to the
current tweets. Analysis conducted on June 1, 2014.
Twitter Content Analysis
CASEDISCUSSION
AND
SYNTHESIS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
OTHERGOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
PROJECT
INFORMATION
PLANNING
RELATED
NEWS
INTERACTION
WITH
TWITTER
COMMUNITY
EVENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ENGAGEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
(%)
San FranciscoBoston Chicago

The cases also illustrate the evolving nature of institutions
for urban planning.75
Boston’s District Hall was a central part
of the Boston Innovation District and a cornerstone of the
public-private partnerships that exists. Not only a physical
building, it is also a new social institution now operated by
a non-profit. The Hall epitomises the coordination between
sectors that characterizes this case. In Chicago, the planning
agency itself was newly formed as the merger of two older
organizations that separately concerned metropolitan land
use and transportation. Since its creation in 2005, CMAP
has continued to evolve to integrate these issues and tackle
new problems. Finally, the projects in San Francisco are
coordinated by a new entity within city hall, the Mayor’s Office
of Civic Innovation. With the mandate to pursue innovative
ideas, tools, and approaches in the city government, this
office works with several stakeholders: the private sector,
other City departments, nonprofits, and city residents. Kent
described the debate taking place at that time about the
proper location for planning with city governments: as an
independent commission, as an advisor to the mayor, or as
an advisor to the city council. Regardless of where the office
was placed, planning for Kent was inside city hall. The cases
illustrate cities experimenting with institutional reforms to
better align planning with the variety of stakeholders in cities
today.
04.3 Institutions for Urban Innovation
04.4 New Roles for Public & Private
Stakeholders
Finally, the two previous developments are creating new
roles for public and private stakeholders. The Boston case
illustrated the fruits of close collaboration between these
two groups. In the Innovation District, the public sector
provided infrastructure, a neighborhood brand, an urban
design plan, and corresponding regulations. To complement
these efforts, several nonprofits, such as a startup incubator,
art museum, and District Hall contribute to the novel
neighborhood. However the private businesses and real
estate companies are responsible for property development
and drive economic growth in the neighborhood. The Chicago
case presents the most traditional perspective on this issue,
since a public agency led the planning effort. However,
the project was partly supported with financial support by
a private charity. Finally, the San Francisco case relied on
public sector infrastructure and support, but allowed private
sector investors to collaborate with the public to carry out
projects to reinvigorate public spaces. These new public
private partnerships provide the funding, innovation, and
direction that projects created singularly could not do as
easily.
In many cases, public-private partnerships describe
arrangements where functions are outsourced to the private
sector. These cases trigger important debates about the
role of the public sector. These cases illustrate the opposite.
In these cases, the public sector has retained a leadership
role, setting strategic priorities and regulations. However,
the cities are much more aware of the extensive nonprofit
sector that has emerged. Without giving up their leadership
role, these cities are inviting other stakeholders into city
hall, or in the case of the Innovation District, supporting
unusual institutions such as District Hall where the creativity
and connections which are the lifeblood of the knowledge
economy can flourish.

04
Ongoing change in the world’s cities has led to the increasing
profile for the field of urban planning, which is seen as
essential to achieving policy objectives in many areas: from
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to stimulating economic
development. However, these very changes have challenged
a traditional concept of planning epitomized by Kent’s Urban
General Plan described in the introduction. Increasingly,
writing plans and changing regulations are seen as necessary
but not sufficient ingredients to successful planning. As
Albrechts reminds us, while the public sector serves to lead
the planning process, other stakeholders are crucial to draw
on local expertise and produce useful plans. Furthermore,
planning must increasingly develop not only a vision but also
a means for implementation to transform places.
Finally, new technologies are creating a new toolkit to
engage these stakeholders and implement plans. To explore
this topic, this report described three cases of innovative
planning in the U.S. The cases were selected to illustrate the
variety of innovations being tested in professional practice.
Since they aim for different objectives and in some cases
are ongoing, this report has not attempted to evaluate their
success. However, several themes emerged: the use of new
technologies such as social media for citizen engagement,
the emergence of new institutions, and new stakeholder
roles.
Writing about the important role of institutions in explaining
economic outcomes, three economists observed that “even if
wedidhaveitrightforoneeconomy,itwouldnotautomatically
be right for another; and even if we have it right today, it will
not necessarily be right tomorrow.”76
As a socially embedded
institution, planning shares this imperative for change. As
the context of cities evolve, the institutions might need to
evolve as well to produce high-quality urban places. The
three cases described here present a rich variety of ways to
do this.
04.5 Conclusions
CASEDISCUSSION
AND
SYNTHESIS
Figure 17: The First LIZ Project at Yearba Buena Lane / Source: Living Innovation Zones (liz

z.innovatesf.com)

05
ENDNOTES
1. Castells, Manuel, 1992, “The world has changed: can planning change?” Landscape and Urban Planning, 2 (1):73-78.
2. Yin, Robert K., Case study research: design and methods, (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2009), 18.
3. Kent, T. J., The urban general plan, (San Francisco,: Chandler Pub. Co., 1964).
4. See for example, Altshuler, A., 1965, The Goals of Comprehensive Planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 (3):186-
195.
5. Albrechts, L., 2004, “Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined,” Environment and Planning B (31):743-758.
6. Castells, Manuel, The informational city : information technology, economic restructuring, and the urban-regional process,
(Cambridge, Ma., USA: Blackwell, 1989).
7. Fox, Susannah and Lee Rainie, “The Web at 25 in the US: Summary of Findings,” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C (2014), 2.
8. Smith, Aaron, “Government Online,” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C (April 27, 2010), 2.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., 8.
11. Smith, Aaron, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba and Henry Brady, “The Internet and Civic Engagement,” Pew Research Center,
Washington, D.C (September 2009), 20.
12. Ibid., 33.
13. Ibid., 36.
14. Smith, Aaron, “Civic Engagement in the Digital Age,” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C (April 25, 2013) http://www.pewInternet.
org/2013/04/25/civic-engagement-in-the-digital-age/.
15. Ibid.
16. Smith, Aaron, “Government Online” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C (April 27, 2010) pp. 31.
17. Lydon, Mike, Dan Bartman, Tony Garcia, Russ Preston, and Ronald Woudstra, 2012, Tactical Urbanism 2: Short-Term Action, Long-
Term Change. The Street Plans Collaborative.
18. “About Boston,” City of Boston, accessed May 20, 2014, http://www.cityofboston.gov/visitors/about/
19. Ibid.
20. Matthew J Keifer, “Public Planning and Private Initiative: The South Boston Waterfront” appears in Urban Planning Today, 2006.
Accessed May 29, 2014 http://www.goulstonstorrs.com/portalresource/lookup/wosid/contentpilot-core-6-10402/media.name=/
Kiefer_Urban%20Planning%20Today_2006.pdf

21. “The Seaport Public Realm Plan,” Boston Redevelopment Authority, City Of Boston, 1999.
22. “About,” Innovation District, accessed May 20, 2014, http://www.innovationdistrict.org/about-2/.
23. Ibid.
24. “The Strategy,” Innovation District, accessed May 20, 2014, http://www.innovationdistrict.org/the-strategy/.
25. Interview with Samantha Hammar, May 30, 2014.
26. “About,” Innovation District, accessed May 20, 2014, http://www.innovationdistrict.org/about-2/.
27. “About District Hall,” District Hall, accessed May 20, 2014, http://districthallboston.org/.
28. Ibid.
29. “Mayor Menino Tours District Hall, City’s First Innovation Center,” Targeted News Service, May 22, 2013, accessed May 20, 2014,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1355327351.
30. Ibid.
31. “About District Hall,” District Hall, accessed May 20, 2014, http://districthallboston.org/.
32. “About,” Mass Challenge, accessed May 29, 2014 http://masschallenge.org/about
33. Paul McMorrow, “Priced out of the Innovation District,” Boston Globe, August 13, 2013, accessed May 20, 2014, http://search.
proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1419627176.
34. “Boston,” New Urban Mechanics, accessed May 20, 2014, http://www.newurbanmechanics.org/boston/.
35. Nick Leon, The Well Connected City. A report on municipal networks supported by the cloud. (2006) Imperial College London.
36. “The Strategy,” Innovation District.
37. Sotiris Zygiaris, Smart City Reference Model: Assisting Planners to Conceptualize the Building of Smart City Innovation Ecosystems.
Journal of the knowledge economy. 4(2013): 2, 209.
38. Yigitcanlar and Lee, “Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart sustainable urban form or a branding hoax?,” 14.
39. “Facts and Statistics,” City of Chicago, accessed May 19, 2014, http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/about/facts.html.
40. CMAP was formed in 2005 when the two regional agencies focused on land use and transportation were merged. See: “About,”
CMAP, accessed May 19, 2014, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/about.
41. GOTO 2040 Plan. CMAP, accessed May 20, 2014, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/17842/Introduction_10-6-2010.pdf/
b1cd7beb-6f5a

05
42. Regional Vision for Metropolitan Chicago. CMAP, accessed May 19, 2014, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/30054/
VISION_2040_FINAL.pdf/c01117e1-c5b0-438b-9657-aee5527530e4.
43. “Plan update,” CMAP, accessed May 19, 2014, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/about/2040/update.
44. Tom Hundley, “Chicago Draws Up Plan To Prosper in 2040,” New York Times, July 18, 2010, accessed May 20, 2014, http://www.
nytimes.com/2010/07/18/us/18cncplan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
45. Susanna Haas Lyons, Mike Walsh, Erin Aleman and John Robinson, “Exploring regional futures: Lessons from Metropolitan
Chicago’s online MetroQuest,” Technological Forecasting & Social Change (2014): 23-33.
46. Mike Walsh and Sarah Burch, “Communities at the Crossroads: Using MetroQuest to Help Communities Create Consensus Around
a Vision of the Future,” in The Future of Cities and Regions, ed. L Bazzenalla, Luca Caneparo, Franco Corsico and Giusseppe
Roccasalva (Springer Geography): 45-64.
47. “Invent the Future: Report of GO TO 2040 Public Engagement Phase, May to September 2009,” 2009, prepared by CMAP, 2.
48. Ibid., 1.
49. “GOTO 2040 Plan,” 2010, prepared by CMAP, 29.
50. Walsh and Burch, “Communities at the Crossroads,” 47.
52. Haas Lyons, Walsh, Aleman and Robinson, “Exploring regional futures,” 25.
55. Ibid., 28.
56. “Invent the Future: Report of GO TO 2040 Public Engagement Phase, May to September 2009.” 2009, prepared by CMAP, 13.
59. Ibid., 20.
60. Richard Wronski, “Transit planning looks to 2040: Officials seek public input with an eye towards the future,” Chicago Tribune, March
24, 2008, accessed May 20, 2014, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/420682165.
61. “Living Innovation Zones,” September 12, 2013, accessed May 19, 2014, http://liz.innovativesf.com.
62. “Code for America,” accessed May 10, 2014. http://codeforamerica.org/cities/sanfrancisco/.
63. “2014 U.S. City Open Data Census,” http://us-city.census.okfn.org/.
64. “SF Mayor’s Office of Civic Innovation: Office of Mayor Edwin M. Lee,” accessed May 19, 2014, http://innovatesf.com/about/.
65. Ibid.
END
NOTES

66. “Office of the Mayor, City and County of San Francisco,” Mar 13, 2014, accessed May 10, 2014, http://www.sfmayor.org/index.
aspx?recordid=537&page=846.
67. Kathleen Maclay, “Planning professor-turned-entrepreneur to help SF tackle urban problems with Big Data,” Directions Magazine,
May 14, 2014, accessed May 23, 2014, http://www.directionsmag.com/.
68. “SF Mayor’s Office of Civic Innovation: Office of Mayor Edwin M. Lee,” accessed May 13, 2014, http://innovatesf.com/projects/mayors-
innovation-roundtables/.
69. Ben Paynter, “ImproveSF Invites the Crowd over for a Feast of Healthy Ideas,” Fast Company, Aug 30, 2012, accessed May 14, 2014,
http://www.fastcompany.com/3000904.
70. “How it works,” ImproveSF, accessed May 10 2014, http://www.improvesf.com/.
71. James Brasuell, “‘Living Innovation Zones’ Activate Public Spaces in San Francisco,” The Architect’s Newspaper in Planetizen, March
31, 2014, accessed May 20, 2014, http://www.planetizen.com/.
72. Johna Owen Lamb, “SF opens doors to public tech incubator expecting no return,” The San Francisco Examiner, April 18, 2014,
accessed May 17, 2014, http://www.sfexaminer.com/.
73. For an overview of Internet based participation, see Evans-Cowley, J., and J. Hollander. 2010. “The New Generation of Public
Participation: Internet-based Participation Tools,” Planning Practice and Research, 25(3):397-408. Planning support systems are
the subject of a large planning literature, for introductions see: Brail, Richard K. “Planning support systems for cities and regions,”
(Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2008). ; Geertman, Stan, and John C. H. Stillwell. “Planning support systems best
practice and new methods,” (Dordrecht: Springer, 2009).
74. Goodspeed, R., 2010, The Dilemma of Online Participation: Comprehensive Planning in Austin, Texas, unpublished paper.
75. Institutions have been the subject of recent scholarly work in planning. See for example: Kim, A.M. 2011. “Unimaginable Change:
Future Directions in Planning Practice and Research About Institutional Reform,” Journal of the American Planning Association,
77(4): 328-337, and Verma, Niraj. “Institutions and Planning,” (Boston: Elsevier, 2007).
76. Mantzavinos, C., Douglass C. North, and Syed Shariq, 2004, “Learning, Institutions, and Economic Performance. Perspectives on
Politics,” 2 (1):80.

06
APPENDIX

San Francisco City Boston City Chicago
Total Population* 805,235 617,594 2,695,598
Age (%)*
Under 17 13.4 16.8 23.1
18-24 9.6 19.4 11.2
25-34 20.9 20.7 19.1
35-64 42.5 33.0 36.4
65 and above 13.7 10.1 10.3
Race (%)*
White alone 48.5 53.9 45.0
Black or African American alone 6.1 24.4 32.9
Asian alone 33.3 8.9 5.5
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Island-
er alone and American Indian and Alaskan
Native
0.9 0.4 0.5
Some Othe Race alone 6.6 8.4 13.4
Two or More Races 4.7 3.9 2.7
Family Income in the Past 12 Months (%)**
Less than $10,000 3.5 7.7 7.7
$10,000 to $49,999 26.8 34.2 38.8
$50,000 to $74,999 13.5 14.4 16.6
$75,000 to $99,999 10.8 11.9 11.7
$100,000 to $200,000 28.1 24.5 23.0
$200,000 or More 17.5 9.4 6.6
Per Capita Income in the Past 12 months** $47,278 $33,589 $28,202
Tenure**
Owner Occupied 36.9 34.2 46.1
Renter Occupied 63.1 65.8 53.9
APPENDIX A: Case City Demographic Overview
Table 1: Demographic Data for the Case Sites
* Census 2010 ** ACS 2008-2012 (5-Year Data)

Team Finland Future Watch Report, Innovative planning in the U.S., Engaging communities to build better places

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Team Finland Future Watch Report, Innovative planning in the U.S., Engaging communities to build better places

Ähnlich wie Team Finland Future Watch Report, Innovative planning in the U.S., Engaging communities to build better places (20)

Mehr von Team Finland Future Watch

Mehr von Team Finland Future Watch (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Team Finland Future Watch Report, Innovative planning in the U.S., Engaging communities to build better places