tion. He should know enough to work with traffic engineers, highway engineers. bridge engineers, and other such specialists.

The student should further be familiar with elements of the parking problem and methods of dealing with it; administrative, legal, and financial, as well as design aspects of parking regulations, parking meters, off-street parking lots and storage garages.

2. Intercity passenger transport planning: The student should have an understanding of the location and interrelation of terminals, routes, and auxiliary facilities needed for rail, bus, water, and air passenger transport. He should be familiar with current practices, existing examples, and proposed techniques. 3. Local passenger transit planning: Various types of transit facility should be treated-rapid transit, subway, streetcar, trolleybus, bus. The student should know the appropriate use of each type, their interrelation, their effect upon land development, and the relation of transit planning to street and parking planning. He should be acquainted not only with design features, but also with control, administration, and economic factors such as the effect of fare structures and franchises.

4. Freight transport planning: The student should know general theories of freight transport design, for routes, terminals, and auxiliary facilities for rail, waterborne, highway, and air freight. He should understand the relation of these functions to each other and to the design and location of industrial, storage, and business areas. He should have enough background to work with specialists on design aspects, and aid in correlating their functions. He should be acquainted with both intercity and local freight transport problems and techniques. To the regional planner this subject is of particular importance, including the significance of freight rates and various transportation subsidies in regional development.

(c) Utility planning.—In regard to public utilities, the planning student again needs a broad familiarity with subject matter. His training in this field should extend beyond the design, to sufficient understanding to enable him to evaluate projects as to time and importance in relation to public works programs and capital budgets.

1. Water system planning: The student should know the different sources of water supply, the purpose and general methods of treatment, and mechanics of storage and distribution. He should know something of the differentiation of function, for domestic use, industrial use, fire protection, etc., and understand how to approach estimates of future water supply needs for a community and for its parts, in relation to land use planning and population distribution.

2. Sewerage system planning: The student needs the same character of familiarity with sewerage system planning; types of lines, types and location of treatment plants, methods of estimating needs in terms of land use and population. The regional planner here goes into stream sanitation, pollution control, and similar large-area aspects of waste disposal.

3. Other utilities: The student should know enough about other utilitieselectric light and power, gas, telephone to understand the economics of their extension and influence on land development, and the administrative and legal features for their control. He should be familiar with the economics and physical possibilities of locating lines underground or in other locations that will be esthetically inoffensive, particularly in business and residence districts.

(d) School and recreation system planning.—School and recreation facilities, because of the extensive land areas they occupy, partake of the nature of the land use planning outlined above, and must be planned as a part of that process. although the effectuation of such plans is through different means.

1. School system planning: The city planning student should be familiar with the types of schools, public and private, and with standards as to size and spacing for different systems of school organization. He should have knowledge of how to analyze requirements for schools, in terms of population forecasts and age-groups distribution, in relation to residential area planning. He should have design training in the relation of school plant to neighborhoods and be familiar with the possible uses of school buildings as well as grounds in conjunction with recreational and community programs. In regard to schools and other public buildings, in addition to an understanding of the land and location requirements for each type of structure, he needs sufficient training or practice in the design and layout of building groups both for utilitarian efficiency and for appearance, to appreciate and make use of the contribution specialists in architecture and landscape architecture can offer.

2. Playground system planning: The student should be familiar with the various types of active recreation spaces and buildings needed to provide for the needs of the community, and with the standards as to size, design and location, in relation to residential areas and to the school system, and some acquaintance with operational, administrative, and fiscal problems in this field. 3. Park system planning: In regard to the complementary "passive" recreational facilities, the student should have the same general knowledge as for the "active" facilities. He should know about, and have some design experience with neighborhood parks, large parks, parkways, forest and game reservations, historical monuments, plazas and the like, in relation to major land use plans for urban development and for the metropolitan hinterland.

(e) Protective and other governmental services.-The student should understand enough of the administrative organization and functional needs of police and fire protection, public health services; garbage and waste disposal and other governmental services to be able to tie plans for such systems of facilities intelligently into a comprehensive plan and program for development. As with public utilities, he cannot be expected to become enough of an expert to be able to take design responsibility for laying out these facilities, but should know enough about principles and theories of their operation to collaborate with such experts.

(f) Effectuating plans for public works and services.-The student of planning should be equipped not only to coordinate and participate in the design of systems of public works and services, but also to take leadership in assuring the orderly effectuation of such plans. This involves, in addition to physical design, the added dimensions of time and finance.

1. Public works programing: The planner, because he is not a specialist in any one field of public works, has an opportunity to render valuable advice in appraising the relative importance and urgency of the various types of facilities discussed above. The planning student should understand available methods of evaluating relative needs for various public improvements and should learn how to compose a program of public works in terms of such priorities. In this coordinating task he needs to know how to use the help of economists and others in designing the program not only according to absolute community needs for the facilities and services, but also in terms of the impact upon the economy of the community and the timing of different types of construction and of the availability of materials and manpower as well as money.

2. Capital expenditures budgeting: The student should understand the capital budget as a tool in effectuating an orderly program of planned public improvements. He should be familiar with the various sources of funds available; general taxation, special assessments, general bonds, revenue bonds, mortgage bonds; State and Federal contributions and grants-in-aid. He should understand the administrative, fiscal, and legal limitations of such sources as well as their economic effects and political relationships. He should be aware of the importance of relating capital expenditures to operating budgets, present and future. Though he need not be of himself a municipal finance expert, he should know how to work with such experts in designing a capital expenditures budget in keeping both with the community's financial ability and with its physical needs.

4. Summary Elements of planning

Although it will probably be necessary to study the above elements of the city and of the region as individual entities (at least initially), these studies should be so developed that the relationships of these elements to each other will be constantly brought to the student's attention. He should be constantly reminded that the objective of planning is to produce communities that will be productive and convenient for living and esthetically satisfying.

In a sense, all of the foregoing may be said to be laying the groundwork for the real design and planning of a city or a region-the synthesizing of all the elements into a well-coordinated, unified plan which will satisfy the determined objectives of its citizens as to the kind of community they desire. In actual practice, this plan should be developed with the participation, understanding, and acceptance of the citizens whom it is to serve. The planning steps and procedures to attain the desired end should be developed continuously throughout the course but should be pulled together and rounded out as the final and most important single phase of the instruction.

69660 0-61-19

Lastly, since a plan is worthless unless it is carried out, the student needs instruction not merely in political theory, but in actual practical politices and public relations--the science of persuading people to do things. He needs to know techniques for getting his story across, to city councils and legislatures, to administrative officials, to newspapers, to the public at large, to neighborhoods and special interest groups.

For this reason, as much as to aid him in design, he needs to know how communities are composed and how their parts operate, what motives make them tick. His political and sociological studies should be presented with this need in mind. He should be acquainted with the tools of the art of public relations, and know how to use its specialists.

Because the successful planner will be to some extent an administrator, he should be taught also some of the techniques of office administration and personnel management and relations, systems of filing records and maps, methods and staff organization.

If the student should advance to top technical or administrative positions, he may not touch pencil to drafting board nor finger to adding machine for months on end; he will spend all this time dealing with people, inside and outside the planning agency. His technical education should be designed to fit him for such a position, as well as for the intermediate steps leading to it.

American Institute of Planners, Washington, D.C.

Professional education for planners has closely paralleled a gradual broadening of the concept and function of planning. The planning movement in the United States had its origin in a reaction to the ugly horrors which rapid industrialization and urbanization were spreading across the landscape at the beginning of the century. In its early days, it was focused primarily on esthetics the appearance of the city. During the twenties, planning and planners became concerned also with the "practical" considerations-the efficient functioning of the city. In the depression of the thirties, and particularly during World War II and the postwar era, social, economic, and political aspects of urban life became recognized as of vital importance, and throughout the last decade, city planning has been giving increasing attention to the human beings who live in the city. The process has not been one of discarding old ideas and viewpoints and substituting new ones; it has been, rather, a process of widening the horizons of the field, of progressively realizing the interdependence of the many and varied components of modern urban development.

Over the years these changes have been accompanied by corresponding changes in the educational background of the persons who have entered the field of planning as practitioners The early practitioners of city planning were, of course, not trained in the field, as we think of such training today. They were architects and landscape architects-men of vision who believed that the application of the principles of their disciplines could be extended in a comprehensive fashion to the whole community. As the horizons of city planning widened. these men were joined first by engineers, then by lawyers, land economists, and social scientists and by persons trained basically in public administration. Today, planners come into the field with a variety of previous education and experience, and have a wide choice of positions. Only a small minority of the more than 600 positions advertised in 1958 in the American Society of Planning Officials' semimonthly list of Jobs in Planning, for example, specified a background in physical design only; practically all the jobs listed were also open to those with undergraduate training in one of the social sciences.

The changing emphasis in planning education itself can only be broadly generalized-there are many exceptions and variations. The first courses in city planning were given in schools of landscape architecture, and later in schools of architecture, and brought the techniques of those fields to bear upon

problems of the urban community. When economic and social forces were recognized as being associated with-influencing and influenced by-the physical form of the community, courses were broadened to include elements of economics and sociology. As the planning movement gained momentum and began to foster the public regulation of property through zoning and subdivision control legislation, it became necessary for the planner to understand the legal framework in which he was to operate. Because of this, courses in planning law were added to the curriculums. As planning became accepted as an integral part of governmental structure, a knowledge of public administration and political science became desirable.

This gradual broadening of planning education has taken two forms. First, the curriculums of some of the older, originally design-oriented, schools have been adjusted in line with the development outlined above. Second, several of the planning programs established in recent years have used a new variety of academic backgrounds-schools of social science and public administration, or interdisciplinary committees It is no longer considered essential that a program of education in planning be part of, or even firmly based upon, an established school of physical design.

A tabulation of the dates of the founding of these programs reveals a dramatic expansion of professional planning education in the years following World War II: Programs

Period:

founded

During the academic year 1958-59, 29 universities in the United States and Canada offered programs in planning leading to the awarding of advanced degrees in the field. Two-thirds of these were administered by, or were close to, a school or department of architecture or landscape architecture, and onethird had either independent departmental status within the university or were administered by an interdepartmental committee. Mauy programs in the first group began as subsidiary courses within the larger department, but subsequently grew to a semiautonomous status.

Variations become evident as the programs of the individual schools are examined variations in the avowed specific objectives of the programs; differences in types of degrees offered and the length of university residence required prior to granting of the degree; and differences in the actual content of the curricula.

The continued existence of variations between planning schools is viewed by planners and planning educators as both a strength and a weakness. There is a movement toward uniformity of definitions, establishment of standards, and increased professionalization of the field. At the same time, however, there is also widespread belief that planning is too new, too diverse, and too much in a developmental stage for a complete agreement on the aims and methods of planning education to be either possible or desirable at present.

At this time, there is no formal recognized procedure for the accreditation of planning schools in the United States. Minimum standards for planning schools have been adopted by the American Institute of Planners to enable that organization to recognize planning degrees in partial fulfillment of its requirements for membership. Similar standards have been established by the Sears Roebuck Foundation selection committee for city planning fellowships, and by the independent Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.

PROGRAMS OF STUDY

Although the various planning education programs in United States and Canadian universities are not identical in specific objectives, scope, or details of curricula, there is nevertheless enough of a common view of the ultimate objective of planning education to provide certain rather wide areas of agreement and similarity. Chief among these is the concept of the planner as a generalist, which has been aptly described in the following statement from the 1947 policy statement of the American Institute of Planners, "The Content of Professional Curricula in Planning."

"One thing is certain: we cannot treat all fields of knowledge of concern to the planner as though he were required to be a specialist in those fields. To do so is to misunderstand the essential function of the planner; and hence to pervert the educational process as it applies to him. At the same time, he must know enough of the varied subject matters with which he is involved so that he will be able to coordinate the different elements of a planning program, and will know when to get more specialized advice and how to use the results.” The various programs recognize this concept in various ways. Some tend to emphasize physical design, both esthetic and "practical"; others emphasize social and economic considerations and the processes of administration and decision making. In no major program now existing, however, is either of these approaches developed to the exclusion of the other.

Some variant of the "planning core" concept is present in almost all of the graduate programs, i.e., a required core, consisting of those courses which are considered to be the unique planning substance, both theoretical and practical. In addition, there are a series of required courses dealing with the subject matter of closely allied fields considered to be essential to the education of the planner, and elective courses in related fields which enable the student to develop his knowledge of some related specialty.

In nearly all of the 2-year master's curricula, the central position within the planning core is occupied by the "workshop," "laboratory," or "studio" coursesoften requiring 50 percent or more of the student's time and effort. It is in these courses that the planning student learns to analyze and solve problems in much the same manner as will be required in actual practice: as a member of a "team" of persons with individually different backgrounds and approaches but sharing common goals. The content of the workshops will vary widely, in keeping with the different emphases of the various programs.

By far the most prevalent program being offered is that which normally leads to a master's degree upon the completion of 2 years of specialized planning study beyond the normal 4-year baccalaureate degree. A couple of schools offer a 1-year master's degree program, intended to follow a traditional 4-year baccalaureate degree; these programs are primarily oriented toward physical design, and require that the student's undergraduate degree be in either architecture or engineering.

In a few schools, the traditional 4-year bachelor's degree is offered, or a 5-year bachelor's degree in planning, somewhat in the tradition of the "professional degree" widely offered by American universities in the fields of engineering architecture, landscape architecture, law, etc.

Some universities grant the doctor of philosophy degree in planning, with periods of study varying widely with the requirements of the university and the previous education of the individual student. The doctor of philosophy is generally regarded as an advanced degree to be taken in preparation for teaching or research, rather than as an advanced professional degree.

Several planning degrees are nominally a degree in some other field-arts. science, or architecture, for instance. It should not be inferred that such degrees necessarily represent less complete education in planning than do those degrees which include the word planning.

A number of the graduate planning schools are related to institutes or programs devoted to research on urban or regional problems. These research programs have been organized in recent years in recognition of the great need for more adequate basic knowledge of cities and regions. The knowledge and techniques of many disciplines—including those of planning-are brought together in these programs to search out the basic facts of urban and regional growth.

In general, the basic requirement for admission to the 2-year master's programs is a 4-year bachelor's degree in architecture, landscape architecture, civil engineering, or one of the social sciences. Most of the graduate planning programs require a thesis. Nearly half of the programs include a requirement which is unusual in most professional education-a required period of practical experience. This internship is usually served by the student during the summer months between his years of residence at school. It is regular, paid employment in the service of a planning office (usually a public agency) approved by the faculty of the planning program.

Scholarships and fellowships are available at practically all of the planning

schools.