Review: A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design

pedestrian paths, was “arguably Bacon’s most successful project, in terms of realizing a complete ‘design idea’” (Heller 2013, 134). Bacon also embraced what Heller refers to as a “policy entrepreneurship” approach to urban development. In other words, he was politically savvy and spent a great deal of time marketing and promoting his vision for the city and specific projects. Bacon realized that in his role as a city planner, he had limited power and control over the final outcome of projects, with ultimate decisions residing in the hands of privatesector developers, elected officials, or other agencies such as the city’s Redevelopment Authority. Thus, in order to achieve his vision, he understood that he had to gain buy-in from the public, sway decision makers, and effectively sell his ideas. To do so, Bacon invested time and energy in elaborate plans and models, participated in public forums, and tried to work closely with others involved in a project. The results of Bacon’s “entrepreneurial style” (Heller 2013, 88) were a mixed bag, according to Heller, illustrating both his success in marketing his ideas and his ultimate lack of power. Heller does often point out that Bacon demonstrated a keen adeptness at negotiation and compromise, key attributes of a planner interested in moving projects forward. The book and the story of Bacon’s career remind contemporary planners of the importance of a having a big vision, even if it is risky or pushes the boundaries, and the central role that selling a plan to the public and powerbrokers plays in implementation. Heller also discusses some lesser-known aspects of Bacon’s career, many of which foreshadow modern planning concerns. For instance, he was often a strong advocate for community engagement in planning, which was not the norm during the era of urban renewal. He also expressed, sometimes privately and more so after retirement, growing concern over the nation’s automobile dependence and advocated for more walkable, car-free urban spaces. Until the end of his life, Bacon was an ardent urbanist who advocated for more inclusive, functional, and livable urban spaces. Overall, Heller’s book provides an extensive and detailed history that provides an in-depth portrait of how Philadelphia’s iconic city planner, Ed Bacon, developed his approach to planning and development. The book debunks widely held beliefs about Bacon’s power and reconceptualizes his role as an advocate, savvy participant, and urban visionary. The book’s content is extremely well documented and provides the reader with a new perspective on many of the city’s rather famous midcentury plans and development projects. Aside from the rich historical narrative, which is valuable in and of itself, the book succeeds at making clear connections to contemporary planning practice. It reminds us of the importance of having a grand vision, understanding the political nature of planning and development, being able to communicate ideas, particularly for the physical form of the city, and selling the plan to the public and those in power. Heller’s book has very few weaknesses. The author could have situated the narrative more firmly within a broader framework of national urban renewal and post–urban renewal trends, but for most readers the context provided is sufficient and the book only adds richness and nuance to our broad knowledge of urban renewal–era planning and of Ed Bacon. Heller’s Ed Bacon: Planning, Politics, and the Building of Modern Philadelphia is a terrific contribution to the literature on planning history, the politics of urban planning and development, and the value of physical planning. The book adds to our broad understanding of the forces that have shaped our cities, particularly in the mid-twentieth century. It also speaks to the role that planners play in complex urban systems, wherein planners must navigate a web of actors that span the public, private, and nonprofit sectors and find strategies for influencing projects, policies, and decision making. The book is easily readable and accessible to a wide audience. While not a textbook on planning history, the book would make a good addition as supplemental reading or for student book review projects, particularly in courses on planning history, physical planning, or the politics of planning.