Beware big urban renewal plans

writes Jonathan Glancey, in "Paris should beware these grand architectural designs," in the Guardian, in response to urban renewal schemes for Paris. See "A New Paris, as Dreamed by Planners" from the New York Times. I think this article is similarly relevant to an urban renewal scheme for Stockholm, "Bold Plans Prove That a City’s Future Needn’t Be Set in Concrete," and for big project planning generally.

From the article:

Big plans mustn't be allowed to smother Paris. No single architect can ever right the city's wrongs, or come up with ideal, universal solutions. Plans on anything like a big scale will need the involvement of many different people and sectors of Parisian society if they are to have a chance of working. They need to be matched by hundreds of small plans that will allow the streets of Paris from the Marais to Marne-la-Vallée to flourish in a way that is all their own.

This is relevant to planning in various DC districts such as Poplar Point in Anacostia or Reservation 13 in Capitol Hill East.

Yes, this seems counter-intuitive as I am a strong proponent of planning. At the same time, I propose "grand plans" within the context of fine grained planning at the block and building level, with multiple designers and developers, and the ultimate focus on urban form, urban design, and placemaking.