top of page

Perspectives

Perspectives features personal reflections, discoveries, and stories related to urban planning and development. These are flexible, concise, and conversational articles that explore topics such as policy, urban development, ethics, innovation, and the future of the profession. The section welcomes provocateurs, visionaries, emerging voices, and thoughtful perspectives that challenge conventional thinking in planning.

​

Specifically, the Perspectives section includes the following categories:

​

  • Personal Reflections: Commentary, opinions, and insights on planning practice, professional experiences, ethical questions, or emerging trends shaping communities and the profession.

 

  • Discoveries: Reviews or explorations of new datasets, mapping tools, technologies, research findings, or street-level observations of urban phenomena that others may have overlooked.

 

  • Stories: Narratives about the lived experience of being a planner, as well as stories about the people, places, projects, and planning processes that shape communities.

​

Writing Style

  • Keep It Simple: Use plain language that everyone can understand. Professional yet accessible. Keep it human, and do not be afraid to be casual. Avoid overly dense academic "planner speak." Be the person your peer wants to grab a beer with, not the textbook they want to sell back to the campus bookstore 

 

  • Get creative: Feel free to be poetic or inspirational. If it feels like you, it belongs here. 

​

Technical Specs

  • Word Count: 500 – 1,000 words.  (longer pieces can be allowed at the discretion of the editor) , but keep it lean.

  • Images are strongly encouraged.

​

TOP

Editorial Guidelines (draft)

As a volunteer initiative of the American Planning Association International Division, Urban Planning Post provides a platform for planners and students to share knowledge, exchange insights, and offer personal perspectives that advance planning practice around the world.

The UPP consists of two Parts: Perspectives and Promising Practices.

Promising Practices

The purpose of the Promising Practice section is to provide a curated "Idea Bank" for planners with emphasis on ‘Practice’, on ‘Reusability, on ‘How-To’. Posts are intended to focus on innovative methods, policies, and designs that have proven successful and can be applied elsewhere.

​

What Makes a Practice "Promising"?

We evaluate submissions based on three criteria:

  • Impact: Did it move the needle on a real-world problem?

  • Scalability: Can this be adapted by a city or place of a different size?

  • Clarity: Is the strategy explained clearly enough that it could be helpful to other planners?

​

Submission Specs

Submission Structure 

To maintain consistency and ease of reading, all submissions must follow this standardized template:

 

  • Headline: A punchy, action-oriented title.

  • Project Identity: Name of the project/policy and its specific location (city and country).

  • Keywords: In addition to the above, are there any topics/subjects referenced that would attract those seeking information on them to want to consult this submission.

  • An Overview: 3 – 5 sentence summary of the project and why it matters (<100 words).

  • The Background: the context of the project, in terms of demographic, natural, cultural, historical, urban fabric setting. 

  • Challenge: What specific urban planning issue was this designed to solve? (e.g., lack of green space, traffic congestion, inequitable housing).

  • The Strategy: The "How-To." Detail the steps taken, the tools used, and the stakeholders involved. Focus on the mechanics of the solution.

    • Financial Strategy: Remembering the differences from country to country, Focus on the strategy for funding used, where to look - what is key for any successful implementation.

  • Performance/Metrics: How did the effort do?  Was it successful (sometimes knowing why it was not successful is at least as useful)? What is ‘good’? What would be better?

  • Transferable Lessons: What can other planners take away? Mention any "gotchas" (i.e. problems) or advice for replication in a different city.

  • References: No need to repeat a report, just link to the pertinent passage in the other location. See below.

​

Writing Style

 

Our Voice:

  • Keep It Simple: Use plain language that everyone can understand. Professional yet accessible. Keep it human, and do not be afraid to be casual. Avoid overly dense academic "planner speak." Be the person your peer wants to grab a beer with, not the textbook they want to sell back to the campus bookstore 

 

  • Language: Practical and direct. Use active verbs (e.g., "We transformed..." instead of "Transformation was achieved...").

​

Technical Specs

  • Word Count: 500 – 1,500 words. (longer pieces can be allowed at the discretion of the editor), but keep it lean.

 

  • Visuals: At least 1–2 high-resolution images, charts, or maps You must have the rights to use these images or use Creative Commons/Open Source visuals with proper attribution. Each submission should include:

    • One "Hero" Image: A high-quality photo or rendering that captures the essence of the project.

    • One Technical Graphic: A map, a diagram of the process, or a data chart showing the results.

    • Visual material specifications:

      • Maximum file size: 5 MB per image.

      • Accepted file formats: JPG, JPEG, or PNG.

      • Both color and black-and-white graphics/photos are accepted.

      • Maps and other visual materials should be clear and legible. If the submitted materials are not of sufficient quality, the editors may request that the authors resubmit them.

 

  • References/Links: When applicable, include an external link to the official project page, the full policy text, or the final report with proper attribution.

TOP

Consideration for all Submission

Use of AI
AI is a co-pilot, not the captain.
 
We’re all for experimenting with new tools—AI can be a great spark for a stalled draft or a new perspective or checking editorial errors. Please remember that at the end of the day, it’s your name on the page. We ask that you stand behind every word you share. 
 
​Here are a few general rules: 
 

  • Never "set it and forget it." You are 100% responsible for every word, fact, and opinion in your post. Always do a final "human-pass" to ensure the piece reflects your actual thoughts. 

 

  • Use AI to brainstorm outlines or find a tricky word, but don't let it rewrite your personal stories. If a sentence feels too "perfectly polished" and loses your voice, rough it up a bit. We want the "you" in the story.

 

  • If AI did the heavy lifting to structure the entire piece, just give us a quick "Heads up." A simple note at the bottom, like, "I used AI to help brainstorm the framework for this post," keeps things honest and builds trust with your readers.

 
Please note that your article could be run through https://www.zerogpt.com/,  and if the content is mostly AI-generated, your submission will not be considered. 
 
For a deeper look at guidance for using AI in your work, check out the APA’s Planning Ethics and Generative AI. Link: https://www.planning.org/blog/9295637/planning-ethics-and-generative-ai/

Political Discussion
Planning is intrinsically political. Discussions of planning and urban development will often involve policies, governance approaches, and ideological perspectives associated with political parties or movements. At UPP, we encourage thoughtful and constructive discussion of these issues as part of professional and civic discourse.
However, the following are not permitted:

  • Content whose primary intent is to attack or promote a political party rather than discuss planning-related policies, strategies, or impacts.

  • Personal rants or inflammatory commentary directed at specific politicians, public officials, or individuals.

  • Partisan content that does not contribute meaningfully to planning, urban development, public policy, or community outcomes.


The "No-Go" List
We want UPP to be a space for genuine connection. To keep the "vibe" right, we try to avoid content that feels like it belongs in an ad break. We generally won’t publish pieces that:
 
1. Lead with the Sales Pitch, Not the Lesson
We know that many of the best planning insights come from projects led by consulting firms or innovative new tools. That’s great! We love hearing about them. However, if a post feels like a brochure for a business, a course, or a specific program, it’s probably not for us.
The Rule of Thumb: If you're sharing a project you worked on, focus on the how and the why—the lessons that help other planners—rather than the "hire us" subtext.
 
2. Aim to “Bamboozle”
Planning can be complex, but our writing shouldn't be. We steer clear of anything written with the intent to confuse, over-complicate, or intentionally mislead the reader. If you can’t explain it simply over a coffee, it might need another pass. We value transparency and plain language over technical buzzwords. 
 
3. Chase Clout Over Contribution
There’s nothing wrong with building a reputation, but UPP is a place for community, not just a ladder for a social media presence. If a post feels like it was written solely to gain "clout" or build a "personal brand" without offering real value to the reader, it likely won't resonate here. Let the quality of your insights build your name, not the other way around.
 
4. Rely on “Machine-Borrowed” Expertise
AI is a brilliant assistant for smoothing out syntax or brainstorming an outline, but it shouldn't be the "brain" behind your piece. We ask that you don't use AI to write about concepts you don't already understand. If you don't know the "why" behind a finding, a machine won't truly know it for you. We want to hear your lived experience and your hard-earned knowledge.

TOP

bottom of page