1 Applied studios as critical pedagogy

Metropolises are in need of sensitive sustainable planning practice and scholarship (Ferm and Tomaney 2018, p. xx; Balsas 2022). Phoenix, the largest metropolitan area in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert, is perhaps one of the best examples of a metropolis in a desert environment in North America (Gober 2007, p. xii). Land in Arizona tends to be perceived as an abundant resource (Bowman and Pagano 2004, pp. 113–115), which has led to extremely high levels of suburban sprawl (Kane 2015, p. 1). Suburban sprawl has been enabled by a mostly ineffective land-use planning system. Such a system responds more to economic opportunities derived from low-density and car-dependent development preferences than to high levels of urbanity typical of what society considers as sustainable development. The projects discussed in this paper were attempts at retrofitting existing central city neighbourhoods through various “evidence-based” planning and urbanism strategies (Mehaffy and Salingaros 2015, chap. 11), some land-use-based (compact development), others non-motorized-based transportation (walking and bicycling), others centred on urban design (public space), social programs (after school activities), and industrial development (industrial land retrofit) (Calthorpe 2011). All the projects analysed in the paper received best student awards from the Arizona Chapter of the American Planning Association; so, they represent exemplar (and innovative) attempts at changing planning practice in the US Southwest and Sunbelt regions of the country via engaged collaborations between academia and civil society.

As to our research question, and building upon Arefi et al. (2019, p. 573)’s approach on reflection-in-action in land-use planning, it was asked “whether we can do better?” A set of lessons learned for others to also improve their co-creative planning pedagogies in order to deliver place- and evidence-based planning practice and scholarship was put forward. Town-gown collaborative projects offer many rewards for all those involved (Sungu-Eryilmaz 2009; Wiek and Kay 2015). However, student work is often underappreciated because typically those in academia do not create the visibility that it requires. As in most professions, there tends to be a variable lacuna between what is taught in the classroom and the applied demands of the profession (Ritchie et al. 2015, p. 3). Planning studios and other applied disciplines are invaluable opportunities to conduct in loco research and to produce professional or near-professional documents (Collins and Evans 2007; Grant Long 2012) that comprise basic and advanced planning tasks such as: Problem identification, data collection, literature reviews, interactions with stakeholders, case study analyses, report writing and illustration, presentation of findings, and the delivery of a professional document, usually a plan or a study (Dandekar 2019).

Specifically, the purpose of this paper is twofold: First, to showcase how various undergraduate and graduate disciplines centred on improving land-use-based urbanism (i.e. the opposite of what Arizona’s cities are known for: low-density, car-dependent, infrastructure inefficient, high-energy consumption, and negative environmental externalities) offered at Arizona State University (ASU) during the second half of the 2000s resulted in state-level professional planning awards and second to extract a set of lessons learned and implications for those who wish to venture out in town-gown academic collaborations.

Following this introduction, the paper is in three parts. Part I introduces these four community engagements in the Phoenix metropolitan area: (i) the revitalization of the Arizona Capitol Mall District in 2005; (ii) the Non-motorized Transportation Planning for the Arizona State University Tempe campus in 2008; the planning of Phoenix’s aerotropolis north and south edges with the preparation of (iii) the East Van Buren Revitalization Plan in 2008, and (iv) the Wedge, South Mountain Industrial Plan in 2010. It also explains the research methods and the evaluation criteria of the Arizona Planning Awards. Part II discusses the community engagements in terms of the sevenfold planning awards criteria. Part III proposes further research and applied scholarship on governmental malls, sustainable transportation planning on college campuses, and on industrial planning and development around US Sunbelt aerotropolises. And finally, the conclusion puts forward a set of lessons learned and implications for instructors, students, stakeholders, university administrators, elected officials, and professional planners. The key finding is that the land-use-based urbanism strategies discussed in the paper can encourage land preservation in arid cities and above all increase the quality of urban life in desert environments.

2 Community embedded engagements

The role of planners in the USA is mostly shaped by, among others, these four organizations: The American Planning Association (APA), The American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), The Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP), and the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB). Given the vastness and regional differences of the country, one finds rather distinct urbanization patterns depending on whether one is in the Northeast, Midwest, Sunbelt, or Pacific Northwest. Planning studios can be found in the curricula of Urban and Regional Planning programs of all these regions. However, given the unsustainable urbanization patterns in the Sunbelt, and the Southwest in particular, community embedded engagements gained pre-eminence in the mid-2000s onwards with Arizona State University’s President Michael Crow vision of the New American University (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Arizona State University Design Aspirations [image credit: Balsas 2012, p. 494]

Full size image

The former College of Design at ASU had a long tradition of conducting service-learning education not only as part of the regular disciplines’ offerings in architecture, planning, and landscape architecture, but also through extension programs to the community. Design charrettes and brainstorming focus group meetings involving faculty, students, and neighbourhood stakeholders were regularly conducted with neighbourhood organizations throughout the Phoenix metropolitan area in the context of applied design and planning disciplines (Steiner et al. 1999, p. 207). For instance, the Wilson and Balsz/Gateway community design charrette conducted by the Joint Urban Design Program in the early 2000s was turned into a documentary that still to this day serves as a reference to others interested in learning and teaching the intricacies of applied design service-learning charrettes. However, the arrival of ASU President in 2003 augmented the extent and impact of many of these community embedded engagements. The planning projects highlighted in this paper were conducted within these philosophical and practice-oriented approaches (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Locations of the various teaching engagements [image credit: adapted from https://geodata-azmag.opendata.arcgis.com/]

Full size image

2.1 Revitalizing the arizona capitol mall district

The Arizona Capitol Mall District Revitalization Plan (AZMDRP)Footnote 1 (Fig. 2) was the outcome of a senior advanced urban planning studio at ASU. Figure 3a and b shows the Phoenix 1969 master plan concept for the Capitol Mall District and the 2005 proposed streetscape improvement proposed by the students. This studio was part of a larger teaching and community embeddedness project sponsored by the utility company Arizona Public Service (APS) and Phoenix Community Alliance (PCA). This project included two senior studios in spring 2005, one in planning and another one in architecture, and a summer refinement phase and a fall 2005 exhibit at a public venue in the City of Phoenix.

Fig. 3
figure 3

a (left) Phoenix 1969 master plan concept b (right) 2005 proposed streetscape improvement [image credit: courtesy of City of Phoenix (1969) and 2005 Advanced Urban Planning Studio transportation students: Kulikowski, Kulina, Peterson, Randolph, and Woodward, respectively]

Full size image

The planning studio’s component was submitted for consideration for a professional award and won it at the 2005 State Planning Conference. During this studio, 31 senior planning students had a chance to interact with all major stakeholders in the Phoenix Capitol Mall District: The State, the County, the City, and representatives from several neighbourhood organizations. A field trip to Sacramento and San Francisco was organized to examine two fully functional governmental malls (Balsas 2006). The final plan was presented to invited guests and stakeholders in the middle and at the end of the semester.

2.2 Non-motorized Transportation Planning for a University Campus

The Sustainable Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the ASU, Tempe Campus (SNMTP-ASUTempe)Footnote 2 (Fig. 2), (49.6 thousand students enrolled in 2007) and its surrounding area (City of Tempe—176 thousand inhabitants in 2008) were hoped to improve pedestrian and cyclist access and connectivity to campus, improve existing facilities, minimize conflicts between these modes’ competing needs, and encourage the use of non-motorized transportation options, while also providing adequate educational programs (see Fig. 4a, b, c). It was expected that enhancing pedestrian and bicycle circulation on campus and the surrounding area would support the distinctive physical and cultural setting of the university campus within the greater urban context of downtown Tempe and the surrounding Phoenix metropolitan area.

Figs. 4 a
figure 4

(top) Overview of the Arizona State University, Tempe campus b (left) Long-term bicycle storage locker near ASU c (right) Mini-roundabout with bicycle public art motif in the vicinity of the ASU campus [image credits: author]

Full size image

ASU has a unique position and stature within the community which provides an opportunity to University planners and administrators to collaborate with the City of Tempe, so that both the University and the City can champion and encourage the use of these fully sustainable modes of transportation. Walking and bicycling is more concentrated on college campuses as compared to major cities, which allow these campuses to help reshape existing transportation patterns. The plan was to be used as a guide to inform future decision making about developing and enhancing infrastructure, bicycle and pedestrian projects, programs, and policies on campus and in the surrounding community (Ellin 2011).

2.3 Planning the Phoenix’s Aerotropolis Edges

This submittal entitled Phoenix East Van Buren and Wedge Plans (PEVB&WP)Footnote 3 (Fig. 2) included two plans for the north and south neighbourhoods adjacent to Sky Harbor International Airport. Inspired by Kasarda and Lindsay’s (2011) aerotropolis model, the Phoenix’s Aerotropolis Edges refer to the East Van Buren corridor and the South Mountain Industrial area (see Fig. 5a, b, c). The Phoenix East Van Buren Revitalization Plan (2008) was aimed at recommending neighbourhood revitalization strategies for a first-tier suburb characterized by motels, used car dealerships, various medical and educational facilities, affordable housing, light industry, vacant land, and surface parking lots. The Wedge, South Mountain Industrial Plan (2010), focused mostly on the commercial and industrial land uses of the former Okemah community in South Phoenix.

Fig. 5 a
figure 5

(left) Housing quality inventory b (right) housing typology inventory [image credits: 2008 Advanced Urban Planning Studio housing students: Dolberg, Hooper, Miranda, Ross] note: ¼ and ½ mile are 0.4 and 0.8 km c (bottom) overview of Sky Harbor International Airport from the South Mountain neighbourhood [image credit: author]

Full size image

The Okemah was an African American community established by migrant workers from Oklahoma and Texas at the turn of the twentieth century. The area has been transformed from its early beginnings of farm work-related livelihoods to an area punctuated by landfills, warehouses, small businesses, adult entertainment venues’, light industry, salvage yards, and construction materials depots (York et al. 2014, p. 844). The planning exercise aimed to find planning strategies capable of halting the conversion of industrially zoned land to other uses, while encouraging the redevelopment of a modern pollution-free eco-industrial park (Park and Leigh 2017; York and Boone 2018).

3 Reflections on the award’s criteria

The research methods consisted of comprehensive reviews of specialized literature on planning education, land-use planning, neighbourhood revitalization and retrofit, campus planning, non-motorized sustainable transportation planning, and industrial development. Since no published literature on how innovative award-winning teaching can lead to improved planning practice was found, the analysis and recommendations put forward in this paper have value not only for instructors and students but also for planning professionals and scholars. The evaluation criteria for the Arizona Planning Awards consisted of the seven elements mentioned in Table 1.

Table 1 Arizona Planning Association’s awards evaluation criteria [credit: APA (2005)]
Full size table

This paper states that students ought to go beyond the delivery of planning documents to their instructors and clients, and to seek recognition from their professional associations and future planning colleagues. Furthermore, planning instructors ought to also be able to theorize the pedagogical implications of their teaching methods and the ways in which students and faculty can have more fulfilling and rewarding academic lives. Awards’ competitions have specific rules (call for awards, submittal guidelines, fee involved if any, due date for submittals, and awards ceremony date) that once met enable submittals to be evaluated usually by a panel of volunteering planning professionals.Footnote 4 The composition of the awards’ committee varies from state to state. Traditionally, it comprises a number of practitioners and one (or more) representative(s) from academia. Although the deliberations of the panel members can be demanding and controversial at times, when a consensus is reached and a submittal is deemed excellent, the award-winning entry is sure to receive added recognition and visibility not only within academia but also from the community at large (Morrison 2016; Park 2020, p. 543). Next, there is a discussion of the community engagements in terms of the sevenfold planning awards criteria. Table 2 synthesizes essential data on the four ASU award-winning projects featured in this article.

Table 2 Comparative data on the award-winning projects
Full size table

3.1 Discussion of the awards’ criteria

3.1.1 Originality/innovation: Uniqueness of concepts and/or refinement of procedures

The Capitol Mall District studio dealt with several traditional planning concepts and procedures, such as campus planning, social equity, affordable housing, work–live environments and infill development, transit-oriented development, and transportation demand management (TDM). Its true originality was in the way it blended all of these concepts in a cohesive and integrated plan under the umbrella of Civic Stewardship and Collaborative Governance approaches. This included the recommendation of a new Capitol District Development Corporation (CDDC) to replace the then Legislative Governmental Mall Commission (LGMC). The CDDC would be a fully integrated and proactive planning and development entity capable of conducting strategic planning, partnering with other public, private and non-profit agencies, assuring sustained financing, and implementing development projects, contrary to LGMC’s mainly reactive and passive roles of simply reviewing development applications. Sustainability was a brand-new paradigm in Urban and Regional Planning in the mid-2000s. The growing awareness that natural resources are finite and that the budgets of public institutions were drastically being reduced was leading planning professionals to devise and implement different types of plans.

In transportation planning, sustainability meant using each mode of transportation to its full potential. While automobile transportation has been the dominant paradigm for a good century now, non-motorized modes, such as walking and bicycling, have gained increasing attention in federal, state, and local planning processes and plans. The Sustainable Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the ASU, Tempe Campus, was the outcome of a graduate seminar on sustainable transportation and public health held at ASU in Spring 2008. Seven planning students analysed the conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists at the Tempe campus and its adjacent area and proposed new ways of making the campus area safer, more convenient, and more comfortable for its non-motorized users. Although Sisson (2006, p. iii) analysed the environment related to college cycling and the travel demand and mode use patterns for ASU, to the best of our knowledge none formulated a specific strategy to increase bicycle ridership or footfall traffic.

Therefore, the Sustainable Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the ASU, Tempe Campus, is likely to be the first plan of its kind to propose non-motorized planning recommendations for the Tempe campus. The originality and innovative aspects resided in the use of an all-encompassing framework with hard and soft components as well as a five E’s approach to non-motorized transportation planning: engineering, encouragement, enforcement, education, and evaluation. The Phoenix East Van Buren and Wedge Plans submittal encompassed two plans for the areas immediately north and south of Sky Harbor International Airport—ranked as the 10th busiest airport in the nation. They represent a considerable effort by a total of 39 undergraduate students, 2 teaching assistants and one instructor, who collectively researched the historical evolution, the problems and opportunities of these two areas, and managed to generate planning visions, goals, objectives and recommendations for the betterment of two central Phoenix neighbourhoods.

The comprehensiveness of the work done by all those involved shows a commitment to place revitalization and redevelopment, and also a deep appreciation of the needs of the people, who work, live, go to school, and recreate in these two areas. The creative and unconventional strategies were found in sensitive and labour-intensive research processes, which led to thorough data analysis, case study reviews, and community-based recommendations.

The East Van Buren Revitalization Plan done in Spring 2008 was an attempt at integrating previous studies and articulating a myriad of land use, transportation, housing, economic development, and social recommendations. The Wedge: South Mountain Industrial Plan, was done in Spring 2010, and above all, it represented a willingness to improve a truly industrial area with a lot of redevelopment potential. The centrality of these two Phoenix neighbourhoods and the many economic challenges they have faced over the last two decades (Lara-Valencia and Garcia-Perez 2018, p. 1107)—in part because of very rapid urban growth and bust cycles throughout Phoenix, now the fifth largest city in the USA (1.6 million inhabitants in 2019) and one of the metro areas that was impacted the most during the 2008–2010 global financial crisis and ensuing great recession, and the key role played by Sky Harbor International Airport—justified a joint submittal to reinforce city, state, non-profit, and private efforts to help revitalize and retrofit the core of the metropolis (Dunham-Jones and Williamson 2008; Talen 2011). This was understood early on in the academic engagements, and the students responded professionally and enthusiastically during the research and final presentation stages of the deliverables.

3.1.2 Transferability: validity of the approach(es) to reach comparable planning goals elsewhere

The Capitol Mall District studio comprised a specific plan to address the strengths and opportunities of the Phoenix Capitol Mall District. However, the methodology and research strategies used, the type of analyses and public participation processes, and even the type of policy recommendations can definitely be transferred to other capital cities nationwide and, even to governmental civic districts of many cities and towns in Arizona. These civic districts are usually mono-functional in nature, and our recommendations for how to deal with this idiosyncratic condition, although place-specific, can be transferred elsewhere depending on local circumstances. It should be emphasized that the robust work involved looking at case studies elsewhere in the country and distilling best practices and lessons learned was invaluable in acquiring knowledge and tailoring it to the local Arizona reality. Hence, this plan reflected a two-way transferability of knowledge and skills between the national level and the Phoenix case and vice versa.

The non-motorized transportation campus plan focuses mainly on the Tempe campus; nonetheless, its methodology, type of analyses, and recommendations can also easily be transferred to any other campus community (academic, business, medical, etc.), or even to any small town in the USA or abroad. Case studies of other college campuses with official non-motorized plans and planning processes were analysed, from which it was learned (i) the value to prioritize walking and bicycle infrastructure improvements via Universal Design practices for able and disabled individuals, and (ii) the need to implement promotional behavioural modification campaigns, instead of simply meeting the needs of individual drivers. Those case studies were the University of California—Berkeley, the University of Colorado—Boulder, and the University of Connecticut—Storrs (see Table 3). The plan submitted for a student award reflected a two-way transferability of knowledge and best practices between the Tempe campus and the most innovative thinking and practices elsewhere in the country.

Table 3 Comparative analysis of bicycle planning measures at ASU and exemplar cases [credit: adapted from Atwood et al. (2008) and updated with information gathered from the universities’ websites in April 2018]
Full size table

The Phoenix East Van Buren and Wedge Plans were made with standard planning research methods. Combined qualitative and quantitative data gathering techniques and analysis were used throughout. Central to revitalization and redevelopment planning was the study of plans done elsewhere and the understanding of local idiosyncrasies, trends, and contexts that may have shaped the proposals within those plans and the discussion and eventual adoption of important strategies for the areas being researched. Other jurisdictions (and other universities) experiencing and researching similar urban situations could be interested in adopting concepts, ideas, and proposals from these various plans and not only help to revitalize communities but also to train the next generation of city planners.

3.1.3 Quality: professional excellence

The Arizona Capitol Mall District Revitalization Plan was an undergraduate student plan; nonetheless, its high quality and standards revealed that it could have been written by a team of consultants or practicing planners. The narrative was thoughtful and well-articulated with illustrations; the analyses were clear, and the different chapters of the plan had a very professional character. This was quite a tremendous achievement given that the plan was a collaboration of a large number of students (31).

The Sustainable Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the ASU, Tempe Campus, was produced by a small group of graduate students in the masters of urban and environmental planning at ASU. Nonetheless, the plan as a whole reflected a high quality of content and professionalism, to the point where it could have been easily prepared by a team of transportation planning consultants. The analyses were properly backed-up by evidence, and the arguments and policy recommendations resulted from the technical discussions and case studies analyses in a coherent and articulated fashion. The illustrations and graphics were also of high quality, all properly sourced and credited. To the best of our knowledge, the plan was well written, well organized, and technically sound.

The Phoenix East Van Buren and Wedge Plans were also thoroughly and professionally researched to the likings of planning consultants with many years of professional planning experience. One ought to remember that the work was conducted by undergraduate students with little or no planning experience, besides their own motivations to excel in school and their commitments to help improve Phoenix’s grow and prosper. Advanced urban planning studios tend to be exclusive opportunities for students to integrate and apply the skills gained throughout their time in college to real planning situations in the local area. Students produced these corridor and industrial retrofit plans with the data, methods, and new technologies available to them in a university setting. With the exception of the Arizona Capitol Mall District Revitalization Plan in 2005, which was externally funded, the other three plans were the outcome of classroom exercises with regular class, group, and individual visits to and fruitful interactions with stakeholders in the various study areas.

3.1.4 Comprehensiveness: the entirety of the planning issue

In the Capitol Mall District studio, students considered the revitalization of the capitol mall in its entirety. Students looked at the major functional sectors: historical, administrative, socio-economic, physical, transportation, and governance in general; and the following issues in particular: governmental expansions, demolitions, and relocations; homelessness and poverty, social services, affordable housing, neighbourhood revitalization, streetscape improvements, zoning code enforcements, fiscally sound economic analyses, transportation demand management, transit-oriented development, civic stewardship, and collaborative governance issues. This academic engagement used an array of comprehensive planning methods ranging from data gathering from various sources, such as census, official governmental publications, real estate reports, and HUD documents, to stakeholder group meetings, semi-structured interviews, local and regional field trips, and best practice analyses, and theories.

The Sustainable Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the ASU, Tempe Campus, was fairly comprehensive in its analyses and recommendations. It covered not only the Tempe campus but also its adjacent area. This is still to this day one of the busiest traffic areas in the city of Tempe. The plan’s comprehensiveness was reflected not only in the breadth of demographic, socio-economic, housing, transportation, and parking analyses, but also in the deepness of the design best practices, standards and principles, case studies, and recommendations. Furthermore, this campus plan also included funding sources, considerations about its implementation, and a phasing schedule.

One of the most important aspects of the Phoenix East Van Buren and Wedge Plans was the attempt at being comprehensive and at resolving the highest number of problems with the latest and most established planning knowledge in the USA and abroad. Both plans covered issues ranging from land use, transportation, housing, built environment, economic development, to incentives, regulatory frameworks, and social issues (Ramírez de La Cruz and Park 2008). While these may seem like basic elements in any revitalization or redevelopment plan, the comprehensiveness of the research process, the established visions and the proposed goals, objectives, and recommendations, demonstrated a thorough and genuine interest at being holistically about improving our community liveability.

3.1.5 public participation: the extent of the public consultation

The Arizona Capitol Mall District Revitalization Plan involved extensive public participation during an entire semester. The public participation events included: A kick off meeting with representatives from the State, the County, the city, and several other community stakeholders. This meeting was followed by a larger stakeholder meeting with practicing planners, public officials, residents, members of the Legislative Government Mall Commission and students totalling about 50 people. Students also had individual meetings and interviews with residents, neighbourhood leaders, village and senior planners, and Central Arizona Shelter Services leaders. Invited guests gave lectures and seminars at ASU and also attended students’ mid- and final semester presentations. The Arizona Capitol Mall District Revitalization Plan was presented and broadcasted live via the internet to the Legislative Governmental Mall Commission in February 2015. There was also a travel exhibit through various public facilities in order to display the plan and to receive additional feedback. This plan was developed as a paradigmatic example of the community embedded projects President Michael Crow has urged schools and departments at ASU to implement under his New American University initiative (Crow and Dabars 2015).

The Sustainable Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the ASU, Tempe Campus, was done with public participation at different stages throughout the research process. The students were responsible for collecting data, reviewing published literature and other plans, doing pedestrian and bicyclist counts, inventorying existing facilities, and synthesizing their findings at different stages throughout the semester. During the research and plan writing process, students contacted and interviewed different stakeholders from police officers to urban and transportation planners and engineers on- and off-campus, as well as their fellow student colleagues and instructors. The plan and its final recommendations were presented at the end of the semester to campus officials, other planning instructors and the interim director of ASU’s School of Planning.

The Phoenix East Van Buren and Wedge Plans had reasonably different levels of public participation. The 2008 East Van Buren Revitalization Plan had a much higher level of public participation and involvement of local stakeholders than the 2010 Wedge plan. The reasons for this difference have to do mainly with the complexity of the issues encountered in the area north of the airport centred on the East Van Buren corridor, which allowed us to interact more with neighbourhood leaders, planners, elected officials, police officers and others interested in improving this central Phoenix area (Shermer 2013).

As in the other planning exercises, stakeholders were involved at different times during the semester. Stakeholders attended focus group meetings and participated in mid-semester and in final presentations. The final East Van Buren Revitalization Plan was presented as a community event at the Wilson Elementary School in order to achieve higher visibility and community acceptance. The Wedge plan included interviews, talks by invited guests, a survey and a final presentation attended by a representative from the City of Phoenix.

3.1.6 Role of planners: the function(s) performed

In the making of the Arizona Capitol Mall District Revitalization Plan, students learned first-hand what planners do (Hoch 2020). Students were given a specific task to develop a strategic revitalization plan for the Capitol Mall District, and they did it rather effectively. This was a real-world planning project and not only a theoretical exercise. Students were given some leeway in identifying and framing the problem. Then, students gathered data, analysed it and proposed alternative solutions in a phased approach. They realized that planning is not only about providing a vision but facilitating stakeholders the opportunity to articulate their own vision, and most importantly, to develop ownership of the problem and be committed to the implementation of recommended proposals.

The urban planning approach was slightly different from the architecture studios, which at some point during the semester claimed that “they [stakeholders] could not develop a vision, so the meetings should be stopped and the students allowed to take over the project” (see Mayo and Gore 2013). The planning students encapsulated many of the following roles: Gathering and synthesizing data, developing political savviness, facilitating consensus, recommending strategic actions, respecting social equity concerns and the long-term impact of resource allocation decisions, as well as being responsive to the integrity of the planning profession.

In the making of the Sustainable Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the ASU, Tempe Campus, students sharpened their knowledge of what planners do in their profession. Students were asked to produce a sustainable non-motorized transportation plan for ASU’s Tempe campus and that was what was delivered at the end of the semester. Throughout the semester though, students learned that producing a non-motorized transportation plan involved a lot more than writing a document and doing technical drawings and illustrations. It also included identifying and understanding the meaning and full implications of the sustainability concept applied to transportation planning, as well as following an interactive process of gathering, synthesizing, presenting and revising their findings and recommendations until reaching an acceptable and well-articulated final plan.

During the making of the Phoenix East Van Buren and Wedge Plans, the students and instructors realized that industrial planners attempt to improve communities through the means available to them. In practice, this takes them to do many different tasks and activities during the making and implementation of plans. As the members of the various award panels know quite well, among others these tasks ranged from collecting and analysing data on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) firms, synthesizing findings according to Commercial Real Estate Development Association (NAIOP) and Urban Land Institute (ULI) standards and best practices, reviewing previous high-technology and advanced manufacturing studies, becoming familiar with industrial zoning and warehousing regulations and plans, doing windshield and ground reconnaissance inventories and surveys, conducting meetings, writing reports, producing professionally looking graphics and working with stakeholders to attempt to implement those plans. The students who worked in the corridor and the industrial retrofit plans were involved in many, if not all, of these multiple urban planning tasks.

3.1.7 Effectiveness/results: The furthering of planning, its impact, and implementation ability

When the students enrolled in the advanced urban planning studio in Spring 2005, they likely did not realize would much there was to learn about planning. They knew that previous ASU involvement in the mall district had led to the construction of a $2 million Human Services Campus. But perhaps they did not fully understand the real implications of this sponsored project. The land use and campus planning group researched the current status and location of all properties owned by the state and heard State officials express the desire to centralize many departments and services in the Capitol Mall District in an attempt to increase efficiency.

The five key proposals of the plan ended up being: (i) relocating about 300 thousand square feet of state office space back to the mall, which would save approximately $4 million annually in leased space, (ii) building an Arizona art and history museum as a gateway to the capitol district, (iii) implementing a decentralized network of satellite human services campuses, (iv) promoting infill and mixed-use development in the capitol district, and (v) increasing connectivity to the area, while promoting civic stewardship and more responsible collaborative governance.

Our plan stated that the centennial celebration in 2012 would be a major opportunity to fully implement the plan and promote the most symbolic area of the state—its Capitol Mall District. During our discussions with the stakeholders, the Chicago’s world fair of 1893 was evoked often as an example of a possible result of this project’s efforts. The independent nature of the students’ work helped to spark a debate about the need to address the revitalization of the mall district. Arizona’s then Governor, Janet Napolitano, was made aware of the Arizona Capitol Mall District Revitalization Plan and assured us that she would be using it to bring all stakeholders to the table in order to dignify this abandoned Phoenix neighbourhood. The symbolism and statehood associated with the district deserved no less than that.

The Sustainable Non-Motorized Transportation Plan for the ASU, Tempe Campus, was well researched, articulated, and most importantly, implementable. The final recommendations followed best practices in non-motorized transportation planning from throughout the nation and abroad. Both instructors and students collectively believed that planning recommendations ought to be ahead of their time in order to generate discussion, adoption, and implementation. Even though plans might have funding considerations and phasing schedules, their effectiveness and results need to be measured by the commitment that their stakeholders can dedicate to their implementation. And this commitment was assured to us by a university official responsible for campus and facilities planning (Fink 2012). The robustness of the sustainability concept in its socio-economic, socio-ecological, environmental, transportation, and financial aspects (Steiner 2022), together with the innovative and vanguard milieu still encountered at the most progressive university campuses, such as ASU Tempe, will likely show us the ultimate benefits of such a non-motorized transportation plan.

The Phoenix East Van Buren and Wedge Plans were made to help further state, regional, and local planning goals and principles in the Southwest. It was recognized from the onset that these plans’ success would not be immediate, but it was truly believed that it could reinforce other planning documents in the state of Arizona and in the City of Phoenix. The implementation of certain proposals in these two plans was dependent on the availability of funding, while others would require mainly political leadership and bold steps in order to be carried out. Usually, the students end their involvement with these plans when they graduate and pursue their own professional careers. However, there was a sense of eagerness to help materialize and implement the visions and recommendations (see Fig. 6a and b).

Fig. 6
figure 6

a (left) Sketches of before and after streetscape improvements b (right) Proposed land-use recommendations [image credits: 2008 Advanced Urban Planning Studio students: Allen, Aspen, Lappitt, and Nuttall, and 2010 Advanced Urban Planning Studio student: Herrera, respectively] note: 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 mile are 0.32, 0.48, and 1.29 km

Full size image

From an educational perspective, the ultimate goal of helping students acquire and apply a set of planning skills that will allow them to become conscientious professionals was achieved. Senior undergraduate urban planning studios are important disciplines in the training of future urban planners. The communities where these educational experiences take place benefit tremendously from the work produced by the students, and it is up to their most influential leaders to bring most, if not all, relevant recommendations to fruition.

4 The pressing urgency of urban revitalization, low-carbon transportation, and clean industry

Most US cities have local authority buildings that play a major role in the organization of their urban spaces. In particular, state buildings often confer a preeminent status to capital cities (Montès 2014). In particular, state buildings often confer a preeminent status to capital cities. Interestingly, many state capitols are located in second tier cities rather than larger cities (e.g. Albany, New York; Sacramento, California; and Springfield, Illinois). Capitol malls are unique places in the urban landscape of capital cities. Not only do they possess impressive examples of monumental architecture and ceremonial public space, they are also frequently embedded within fully functioning neighbourhoods. Capitol malls represent a state’s identity and symbolize the power and responsibility of state governments. Although many capitol malls encompass not only official buildings but also museums, public art and memorials, their character tends to remain mostly institutional in nature.

As states grow in size, political importance and economic activity, there is often a need to expand state facilities within the mall district or to relocate services elsewhere nearby. Further research and scholarship needed on the revitalization and upkeeping of capitol mall districts include urban design analyses of their characteristics and how they interface with adjacent neighbourhoods. Innovative research methodologies might include not only desk research and literature reviews, but also surveys, inventories, interviews, focus group meetings, ethnographies, and storytelling accounts about how those places are used daily, during celebratory occasions, and also during reactionary moments of protest against the effectiveness of unpopular public policies.

Further research and applied scholarship on non-motorized transportation planning on college campuses are seriously needed throughout the Sunbelt (Godwin and Price 2016), and especially in Arizona, a state highly dependent on automobiles for daily transportation (see Fig. 7). This dependence is a direct consequence of its spread-out land-use patterns, and, in certain cases, also of individual and household preferences. Emphasis on low-density development makes it difficult to provide and utilize other means of transportation besides automobiles. Older, more central and slightly denser neighbourhoods in the centre of the Phoenix metropolitan area have successfully attempted to incentivize alternative modes of transport, including light rail, bicycling and walking.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Modal share of ASU Tempe users based on % trips in 2013 [credit: self-elaboration based on Volosin et al. 2013]

Full size image

Future studies of non-motorized sustainable transportation planning on college campuses ought to analyse existing access and mobility conditions, review existing circulation and parking plans, and devise appropriate strategies, plans, policies, and actions aimed at improving walkability and bicycling for everyone. The non-motorized sustainable transportation planning efforts on the ASU Tempe campus implemented to date illustrate how a group of committed students and faculty can incrementally help to reduce automobile dependence, while creating, safer, more convenient, and more comfortable walking and bicycling conditions for everyone.

The recommendation for further research and scholarship on industrial and commercial planning around US Sunbelt aerotropolises results from the realization that in this day and age and geo-climatic region there is pressure to either not plan industrial areas or to convert some centrally located industrially zoned lands for sports, entertainment and, also in certain cases, residential uses (Lester et al. 2013; Buhigas and Pybus Oliveras 2016). Examples of mostly consumption-oriented land uses in central areas of metro Phoenix, AZ, Orange County, CA, and Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, include: Shopping malls, big box retail stores, autoplexes, hotels, and theme parks.

The Wedge, South Mountain Industrial Plan, called our attention to have public authorities place the same level of care in their production-oriented land uses as their private counterpart developers place on their often heavily publicly subsidized consumption-oriented uses (Hatuka and Ben-Joseph 2017; Esmaeilpoorarabi et al. 2018). Eco-industrial parks comprising a variety of lot sizes, an array of complementary businesses, multiple levels of utility generation and sharing arrangements, renewable energy sources, and coordinated management practices of grounds, labour pools, and access to capital, as well as the timely attenuation of environmental and social impacts appear to characterize the most productive advanced manufacturing areas in other parts of the nation and the world (Botequilha-Leitão 2012; Williamson and Dunham-Jones 2021).

5 Implementing further Town-Gown collaborations

Typical land-based urbanization strategies usually lead to auto-dependent, low-density, and eventually expansive suburban development, with increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Overall, European land-use planning strategies have privileged relatively more compact and multifunctional urbanization patterns (Gerber et al. 2018). In the USA, in spite of a growing awareness of smart growth legislation and new urbanism models, the built environment of many Sunbelt metropolises, such as Phoenix, Arizona, still reflects the preferences of successive generations of families who intended to partake in the highly sought after private property “American Dream” (Heim 2001; Blomley 2017).

This paper analysed a set of planning studio projects taught at Arizona State University which aimed at attempting to retrofit existing central city neighbourhoods through various land-use- and evidence-based planning and urbanism strategies. As stated earlier, the ensuing projects represent innovative attempts at transforming planning practice and scholarship in the US Southwest and Sunbelt regions of the country via engaged collaborations between academia and civil society, and activism (Ramírez de la Cruz 2009, p. 218).

Town-gown collaborative projects offer many rewards for all those involved (Greenstreet 2012). The author’s experience revealed that most students want to do excellent work independently of the external recognition that their academic work will possibly garner in the future. Although winning a professional award was not the main motivation in conducting the research leading to the final products discussed in this article, many students felt a sense of added responsibility when they were informed that their senior colleagues had won awards for their work in earlier years. Frequently, students asked to have access to earlier studio reports and presentations. Many students were prompted to go above and beyond what they read and saw in many of those award-winning reports.

Planning awards more broadly serve to strengthen the significance of Urban and Regional Planning in society while helping regional chapters bolster membership (Abbott 2020). Awards reinforce the social relevance and service function of the planning profession while helping to shape the core values of the practitioners. This paper explained how various undergraduate and graduate applied urban and environmental planning disciplines at ASU during the second half of the 2000s were able to win state-level professional planning awards. With the exception of the first studio project, which coincide with the author’s first year teaching at Arizona State University, all other projects were identified, proposed to the students and the stakeholders, and championed through by the instructor of record.

To recap, the composition of the awards’ committee varies from state to state. Traditionally, it comprises a number of practitioners and one (or more) representative(s) from academia. The awards’ criteria were thoroughly explained above. Overall, the standards of evaluation tend to result mostly from the adequacy of the submittals to the awards’ criteria and said adequacy is extensively discussed by the members of the awards committee during their meeting deliberations. And finally, the state planning awards are usually announced at the annual state conference, if there is one.

It was stated that students ought to go beyond the delivery of planning documents to their instructors and clients by seeking recognition from their professional and cognate associations and future colleagues. Although competition is frequently fierce, earning awards and distinctions for the work performed brings added recognition, visibility, and stimulus to reaching higher levels of professionalism. Strong buy-in from the communities engaged in the academic collaborations is critical to the success of planning studios and other applied disciplines (Neuman 2016). Table 4 offers a set of lessons learned and implications for those who wish to venture out in this type of academic collaborations.

Table 4 Suggested takeaways for stakeholders
Full size table

In conclusion, although the idea one might have of twenty-first century Phoenix might resemble a sea of laissez faire monotonous land-use development made up of master planned and gated communities, shopping malls, resorts, golf courses, a grid-iron street network of major arterials and local streets, highways, and above all automobile dependence, it is our conviction that this paper has put forward sensible land-use-based urbanism strategies comprised of more compact development, sustainable transportation, infrastructure efficient, low-carbon energy, and greenway and environmental planning aimed at not only encouraging land preservation in arid cities (Andrade et al. 2019), but above all increasing the quality of urban life in desert environments.