Journal of Urban Planning and Development

Planning theory and practice has evolved from a concern with “scientific efficiency” in the mid‐1800s to a recent emphasis on rationalized decision‐making. The period between has seen a continuing shift in focus including the “city beautiful” movement of the late 19th century, the pragmatists/technicians of the 1920s, the national resources concerns of the 1930s and 1940s, and the rational planning movement of the past three decades. The rational planning model (RPM) is a 5 step process that involves setting goals, defining alternatives, comparing alternatives, making a choice, and implementing the selected alternative. The RPM has three major problems, however: limited knowledge; the community welfare function; and implementation. Failures because of these problems have led to various attempts to modify the RPM. Although there is no single, best theory of planning, the planning function continues to play an important role and to evolve in response to continually changing societal needs.

An economic evaluation procedure is presented for comparing alternative urban water management plans. The procedure provides a flexible general framework for analyzing the interactions between water supply, emergency short‐term demand management and supply augmentation measures, and long‐term water conservation strategies. Quantifying the risks and economic consequences of water shortages is a major focus of the evaluation method.

Governmental review of a large development in an urban area requires consideration of the unique circumstances of the development and its effect on the community. The city of Seattle evaluated the economic and social benefits and the adverse environmental impacts of three large developments and determined that they could be constructed if additional mitigating measures were implemented. The projects were Columbia Center, a 76‐story office building; the expansion of the University of Washington; and a new effluent transfer system for the area's secondary treatment facility. The developments were approved after considering shoreline, environmental, zoning, construction, and street use requirements, and special ordinances enacted in response to the unique circumstances pertaining to the projects. The impacts of the Columbia Center and University proposals primarily pertained to traffic and transportation, while the proposed effluent transfer system affected traffic, soil stability, shorelines, and a greenbelt.