Dave, I thought your post was very insightful and considered a wide variety of perspectives and insights. Your discussion of what rebuilding would mean for our efficacy as humans, either resigning ourselves to the power of nature or conquering it was an angle that I never considered. Perhaps the effect of rebuilding on the psyche is profound. I also thought your discussion of who should pay for rebuilding was very interesting. One other question I would like to ask in regards to that discussion is the value of New Orleans to other states. To me New Orleans seems like the Las Vegas of the east, with people from all over the country traveling both for its rich culture and to party. A city whose main driver is tourism would not survive without the contributions of people from other states, and they obviously think it is a great destination if they keep coming back. With that in mind, should the people who patronize New Orleans as tourists (people from Massachusetts, Washington, Montana, etc.) also have a role in paying for its rebuilding through taxation? I am not sure of the answer, but I wanted to bring it up!

David, I really appreciated your discussion of tyranny of both the majority and the minority. It really brought to light for me that there are many sides in any debate that could seek to impose their will on other participants, no matter how large or small their constituency. Instead of groups using the democratic process to stifle (or unilaterally enact) progress using the court system or other methods, facilitated discussion and agreement is the one option which allows participation without tyranny. You point out at the end of your post that these discussion might cost more and take longer, but after reading the first part of your post about all the ways that groups might interrupt the decision-making process, I think that facilitated discussions will cost less and be faster in the long run (although slower and more expensive in the short run). Thanks for helping me see the entire scope of the issue!

Lauryn, Thanks for the post! One related theme to this week's topic is 'planner as advocate.' We've talked about this more in my studio, but the idea is that planners need to be strong advocates for their plans to get them passed by the (often self interested, as you point out) elected officials who approve the plans. It is rare that planners find themselves in the driver's seat of city government like Jaime Lerner and are able to take quick, unilateral action to get things done. I like what you say that "a general consensus should take part between planners and the general public," but I'm wondering what you think should/would happen if that consensus clashes with the political interests of a city council or other elected body. Do you think that consensus would be strong enough most times to overcome the political opposition? Should planners stick to their guns or change part of a plan so that the plan can get passed, even if it is not the community's (or the planner's) general preference? Thanks for making me think about these things - great post! Nathan

Jason, Thanks for your comment! I really appreciate you pointing out the fact that perception is often just as important as reality, because it is impossible to truly quantify what makes great communities (and certain statistics can clearly throw people off). A planner being at a meeting to educate, empathize and reassure can give people the enthusiasm to participate in civic life and make a community their own, instead of facing something new with skepticism or resistance. Giving people ownership in their communities, no matter the form, contributes so much to their success. Thanks for bringing this up!

Lauryn, Thanks so much for the great post. I think you're spot on when you say that it's impossible to find a source that is unbiased when it comes to design and planning. The rest of your final paragraph made me think that it's more about finding people with certain types of perspectives, whose aim is to solve social situations through collaboration and creativity. If planners come into a scenario with a bias towards being collaborative and truly incorporating feedback (unlike many of the clients at your daylighting lab), they will be able to blend their education and training with the unique needs of a local community to create better solutions. In today's planning environment, where developers often create plans that planners approve, planners often assume this role of ensuring that local feedback is heard before a project is approved. Such a postmodern approach provides incentives on all sides to seek and incorporate local feedback, providing the "intent and interest" that you mention (and I agree) will lead to positive outcomes.

Chandi, That is a great point! I think the idea of public comment expands far beyond the national parks and into (almost) every development project in American cities. From the (few) planners that I have talked to, they take the public's opinion very seriously, and city planning commissions have adopted this approach also and are more likely (in most cases) to approve a project if the public is on board. While I generally connect with the centralized strategies of the Modernist movement, this Postmodern democratization of the planning process is a real advantage that I had not thought about. Thanks!

Katie and Fahad, thanks for the comments. Katie, I feel the same sense of belonging and community in the suburb where I grew up, but I think if I went to your suburban neighborhood (or you to mine), that sense of belonging would not be present. I think eventually any place can become familiar, and even the most complicated road configuration can be figured out and mastered. The real advantage of a grid system is for someone new to a city or area (like Fahad to downtown Denver), lacking that familiarity. So to answer your question, I don't think one is always better than the other, but overall a grid contributes to a greater ease and efficiency navigating around a city.