Good planning doesn’t mean good design

 

Kevin Abbott; Thanks for the visionary essay, which interpret the fast growing challenges the urban planners are currently exposed to. Your true statement: "Good design remains a human craft, and so far, no technology has mastered that" is wonderfully great; whilst (as I cordially believe) the Urban Planning is an epistemic merit spiced by data and numbers..!!

The 3rd Millennia's changed business climate along with new technologies has enforced the Planners to be principally Designers, to look after "Physiques" rather than "Spiritualization", with strong effective seeds that mastermind the new young Planners.. The beneficiaries are not the end-users (People & Communities), but the managers of the Spreadsheets and Dashboards..!

It is no more a civilized endeavor for human excellence, but for business, feasibility and politics..

Regretfully, many parts of the world has no advocacy for humane measures..!

Kevin AbbottKevin Abbott   • 2ndPremium • 2ndUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a AuthorUrban Design, Development and Placemaking Specialist, and now a Author

Good planning doesn’t mean good design
As someone who has been deeply involved in the creation of new cities, laying out their structure, massing, and the key components that support a place-based promise—I’ve seen a thing or two over the years.

One area I’ve taken a keen interest in is the growing digital convergence between 3D software, urban planning, and development economics. This evolution has accelerated with the rise of AI and will continue to shape how we deliver future cities. But the last decade has taught us some especially important lessons: that while technology has improved many workflows, it has not necessarily improved place outcomes.
I’m young (or old) enough to remember the arrival of 3D CAD and early tools like SketchUp, when we could rapidly model shapes, add volumes through floor counts, and generate development areas that plugged neatly into a team's P&L spreadsheet. It was our first attempt at a digital design-and-development pipeline. Things quickly escalated: Revit, BIM, and eventually Digital Twins brought integration and simulation. But somewhere along the way, design began to play catch-up, too often reduced to adding lipstick to a massing model.
This shift didn’t free design to do things better, it freed developers to become de facto planners and designers, able to iterate quickly with technical support, but often without meaningful design process. The urgency to hit market, generate 3D massing, and push them through rendering software left little time for design to evolve, or to add the real value that great places demand.
Increasingly, I’ve been asked to review built outcomes, and explain why certain designs didn’t work and why a place feels ‘placeless’ despite solid economic indicators. Massing models often don’t deliver the economic returns they were meant to. The answer? Places are more than just bedrooms, offices, and retail.

Projects that allowed design to evolve alongside planning and economics have been more successful. When design considers real human interaction; how buildings meet the public realm, how people move, how they engage with space, then we see places with social energy and economic value.

Yes, AI and digital convergence improves efficiency. But good design remains a human craft, and so far, no technology has mastered that. So, the question becomes: is your development worth the risk of skipping that step?
The value of placemaking, with all its long-term economic and social benefits depends on design that challenges, tests, and evolves through process. Not through the push of a button.
Have you seen this trend in your own work? I’d love to hear how others are navigating it.