Background
A master plan establishes goals and recommendations for a physical setting. But how do planners know if the plans were implemented and successful in achieving the vision? Enter the Master Plan Reality Check. This project, managed by the Research and Strategic Projects division (RSP), takes a systematic approach to measuring the outcomes of past County master plans, using quantifiable indicators based on the targets set in plans.
The Master Plan Reality Check project was initiated in 2017 to analyze the degree to which select a sample of master plans that have realized the timeline, densities, land uses, infrastructure and amenities called upon in their respective recommendations. A further iteration was initiated in 2019 look at more recent plans. Most recently, RSP has completed a reality check analysis of the 2002 Potomac Subregion Master Plan.
By assessing the difference between a plan’s aspirations and on-the-ground reality, these studies attempt to shed light on why some plan aspects materialize as envisioned and others do not.
Master Plan Reality Check Analyses
New! Potomac Subregion Master Plan Reality Check (2024) – Applying learnings from the Master Plan Reality Check and Master Plan Check-Up projects, this Potomac Subregion Master Plan Reality Check comprehensively documents the process, analysis, and findings from an evaluation of the 2002 Potomac Subregion Master Plan. The analysis presented in this report is not meant to be a critique of the plan recommendations, but an assessment of the extent to which the recommendations have been met. It presents the story of the Potomac Subregion over the past 20 years through the lens of its master plan, underscoring which areas have been more successfully implemented and offers takeaways for future master planning.
Master Plan Check-up (2019) – The purpose of the Master Plan Check-up, a continuation of the Master Plan Reality Check (MPRC) study, was to identify a common set of basic indicators that could be easily tracked across all master plans. Following the MPRC, the Planning Board requested staff to explore expanding these types of monitoring efforts to other completed, but more recently drafted, master plans. Using the lessons learned from the MPRC, staff evaluated the 20 master plans drafted since 2010, selected six master plans that were feasible to analyze with this approach, and created a set of consistent indicators for all the plans, looking at residential and non-residential development, community facilities (schools and parks), and transportation.
Master Plan Reality Check (2017) – The Master Plan Reality Check study was funded in the FY2016 work program to analyze the degree to which select master plans have realized the vision, densities, land uses, infrastructure, and amenities called upon in their respective recommendations. By assessing the difference between a plan’s aspirations and the on-the-ground reality among a broad set of planning criteria, the study aims to shed light on why some plan aspects materialized as envisioned and others didn’t.
As with the 1989 Germantown Master Plan analysis, in order to establish a process for a master reality check and evaluate measurable elements that could be applied to subsequent plans, the 1998 Friendship Heights Sector Plan and 1997 Fairland Master Plan were chosen because they had reached their horizon date, or a period of about twenty years where it is reasonable to expect recommended plan elements to come to fruition; there was still staff available with first-hand knowledge of the development of the plans, from beginning to adoption; and it was assessed to have sufficient planning elements which are measurable and for which there is data.
Key Findings from the Analysis of Plans for Germantown, Fairland, and Friendship Heights (2017)
Friendship Heights Sector Plan and Fairland Master Plan Reality Check (2017)