Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
“IT MAY WELL BE TIME to rethink our ways of dealing with growth,” said Russell E. Tr^in at the recent Washington, D.C., conference on conservation and Development. “It may be time to abandon traditional ways of formulating the growth problem. . Historically, most of our institutions, including those affecting land use planning and control, have been geared to determining and then meeting demands. "Whether it is highways, power plants or airports, the two-step process we have gone through asks first: How much of a resource or service will people want; then, how can we best deliver them?” These words by the chairman of the, Council on Environmental Quality came to mind when we read the proposed “guide plan” for limiting growth in Loudoun1 County to a rate of five or five and a half , per cent per year. Loudoun’s problem is stated in terms of a “population base which is inseparably linked to the metropolitan Washington region, (and) which will inevitably continue to grow.” In other words, the “two-step process” referred to by Mr. Train.
SIMILAR WORDS FROM Graham Ashworth, director of Britain’s Civic Trust for the Northwest and host to two visiting groups of Virginians interested in that country’s planning experiences, said much the same thing, when he denounced much of American planning as mere “trend planning — which isn’t planning at all.”
Unless we misread both Mr. Train and Mr. Ashworth, “planning” which is really worthy of the name must establish desirable goals and rational growth patterns, which is not the same thing as predicting a trend and then trying to accommodate it.
92.7%