While well intended, current planning theory and the Minneapolis 2040 plan are failing in their objective. The district court decision last week in Smart Growth Minnesota v. Minneapolis, which halted enforcement of the 2040 plan on environmental grounds, is only the most recent evidence of the problems with using planning theory to solve social justice or environmental problems.
Planning, planning theory and urban design run in trends. Among the more fashionable theories in the last few years have been a push for increased urban density through the elimination of single-family zoning and a call for greater reliance upon more mass transit to move people around. The goals of both are to provide more affordable housing, eliminate racial and economic segregation, and protect the environment. This was the design of Minneapolis’ 2040 comprehensive plan, which was heralded nationally as a model of progressive planning.
From the late 19th century until the 1950s the trend was the rapid urbanization of America as people left the farms for the cities. Industrialization, improved sanitation and economic opportunity drove this. Yet this urbanization came with racial covenants and segregation, including Minneapolis and perhaps St. Paul.
But post-World War II suburban America was born. It was the product of aging of city infrastructures, the lure of cheap land in the suburbs, the rise of the automobile and massive building of highways, and white flight. Cities depopulated and suburbs became the new population centers. Metropolitanwide areas became racially and economically segregated, as described by among others Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton in American Apartheid. Twenty-five years ago a team of researchers including me pointed to the Twin Cities as one of the most segregated urban areas in America.
— David Schultz, MinnPost