I always wondered why they completely re-did those fences not a year after it was built. Great planning from the looks of it.
On the semantic definition of who can rightly be called a "planner" - I think some of you may want to step back and realize that the average citizen/civilian isn't privy to, nor really cares about the bureaucracy involved at City Hall. Whoever is making these decisions (walling off a park and ride, adding HOV lanes to lighted intersections, adding pedestrian bridges, designing excellent freeways, whatever) is going to be lumped into a generic "planner" pool by the lay public. They don't particularly care what the official departmental title is.
And I'm not sure that they need to for most instances. Passing the buck by industry-specifc labels and departmental finger pointing is quite possibly why some people have such a poor view of civic planning in general.
Or perhaps we need a more generic term so as not to offend someone's degree. It's one of the reasons I use the word "planner" in quotes from time to time. ie: someone who plans how things are designed and constructed in our city. Not an official legally-described term.
I work in IT. This is a field that can't even decide amongst itself what to call us (I guarantee you there are folks on this very forum who would be offended by my use of the term "IT" to describe what I do). Trust me, the general public (and specifically my customers/clients) don't give a rat's ass how we're organized internally, nor whether my being called an "engineer" passes legal muster according to Canadian legal definitions. They just want things to work as requested, and in my opinion making that happen is much more important than getting offended because a lay person doesn't understand my precise job duties nor which degree I happen to have. I'm perfectly willing to accept "it's IT's fault" - because at the end of the day, when the larger "we" screws up, it is.