Across the United States, planning systems are firmly in the midst of a digital transition. Most major jurisdictions now offer online access to planning registers, digital submission of applications, and publicly accessible zoning maps. Yet the evidence from US cities shows that digitisation, while widespread, has delivered uneven results. Systems are often fragmented, siloed, and limited to document access rather than analytical or decision-support capabilities. In only a small number of cases does digitisation begin to move toward what might reasonably be described as “planning intelligence”.

This article examines how digital planning operates in practice across the US, drawing on concrete examples from cities, counties, and regional authorities. It distinguishes between access-oriented digitisation and more integrated or intelligent systems, and considers what lessons this experience offers to Ireland and other jurisdictions with similarly complex planning frameworks. Digital vs. Intelligent Plannin…

The structure of the US planning system

Any assessment of US planning technology must begin with the structure of the planning system itself. Planning authority in the United States is highly decentralised. There is no national planning register, no unified data standard, and no mandated software platform. Instead, planning is administered at multiple levels: municipal, county, and in some cases regional authorities, each with discretion over processes and tools.

This institutional structure has direct technological consequences. Each jurisdiction selects its own software stack or vendors, often incrementally and department by department. Planning, zoning, building permits, environmental review, and inspections are frequently managed by different departments using different systems. Even within a single city, land-use approvals and building permits are often handled on entirely separate platforms, with limited real-time data exchange.

As a result, the US planning landscape is characterised by variability. Large cities such as New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco have invested heavily in digital portals and open data tools. Smaller cities and towns may still rely on paper-based workflows or basic online forms. Regional bodies such as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency operate under different constraints again, balancing cross-jurisdictional coordination with limited resources.

The research makes clear that this fragmentation is structural rather than incidental. It reflects governance arrangements, procurement practices, and the absence of national standards for planning data or digital workflows. Digital vs. Intelligent Plannin…

Where digitisation has succeeded

Despite these constraints, digitisation has delivered real and measurable benefits in many US jurisdictions, particularly in terms of transparency, accessibility, and procedural continuity.

New York City provides a strong example. Its Zoning Application Portal allows the public to search and review all active land-use applications, including drawings, environmental reports, and supporting documentation. Combined with the ZoLa interactive zoning map and downloadable GIS datasets, this represents a substantial improvement over paper-based registers and in-person file inspection. Similar advances are visible in Los Angeles County’s extensive public GIS portals, which allow users to explore zoning, land-use designations, and planning activity spatially. Digital vs. Intelligent Plannin…

San Francisco’s Property Information Map integrates parcel data, zoning controls, permits, and planning approvals into a single public-facing interface. Applicants can submit and track permits online, and the public can interrogate planning data without engaging directly with city staff. In Atlantic City, the shift from entirely paper-based zoning permits to a unified digital platform has reduced processing times, improved inter-departmental visibility, and enabled remote working during the pandemic.

Across these cases, digitisation has succeeded most clearly where the goal is access: making information visible, searchable, and retrievable. Online submission and payment have reduced administrative friction. Digital registers have improved transparency. GIS tools have made spatial constraints legible to a wider audience.

These gains are not trivial. They change who can participate in planning processes, reduce reliance on physical offices, and lower barriers to information. The research consistently shows that moving from paper to digital records alone can shorten timelines and reduce lost or incomplete applications. Digital vs. Intelligent Plannin…

Where fragmentation persists

At the same time, the research documents persistent fragmentation beneath the surface of many “digital” systems. Chicago provides a particularly stark example. Applicants are required to navigate multiple online portals, Hansen, ProjectDox, and additional systems, none of which are fully synchronised. Comments may appear in one system but not another, requiring users to manually cross-check platforms. Some steps still revert to paper, such as mailing printed plans that were originally submitted digitally. Digital vs. Intelligent Plannin…

This pattern is not unique. New York City’s planning and building permit systems operate separately, with limited real-time integration. Los Angeles’s BuildLA portal provides a unified front-end but connects to distinct back-end systems operated by different departments. San Francisco historically maintained separate databases for planning approvals and building permits, requiring custom integration or manual data transfer.

Fragmentation has concrete consequences. Applicants duplicate data entry. Staff act as intermediaries between systems rather than analysts. Errors and delays emerge not because information is unavailable, but because it is stored in incompatible or disconnected formats. In smaller jurisdictions, fragmentation can be even more pronounced, with legacy software or manual processes persisting alongside newer tools.

The research highlights that fragmentation is often the result of incremental digitisation: replacing paper with digital forms without rethinking workflows or data models. Digitisation, in these cases, reproduces existing silos rather than dissolving them. Digital vs. Intelligent Plannin…

Why digitisation alone does not create intelligence

A central finding across all cases is that digitisation does not, by itself, produce planning intelligence. Most systems present information but do not interpret it. They rely on planners, applicants, and the public to read, synthesise, and apply complex documents manually.

Zoning maps show designations but do not calculate development capacity. Planning registers host environmental impact statements but do not summarise key issues or flag inconsistencies. Online forms accept submissions but rarely assess their substantive compliance with policy or regulation.

This distinction becomes clear when comparing standard digital portals with emerging AI-assisted tools. In most cities, planners still spend significant time checking applications for completeness, identifying missing documents, or interpreting public submissions. These tasks are labour-intensive precisely because digital systems stop at storage and display.

The research explicitly notes that digitising a flawed or complex process can result in a flawed digital process. Chicago’s hybrid paper–digital workflows illustrate this clearly. Without integration or automation, digitisation can shift burdens rather than eliminate them. Digital vs. Intelligent Plannin…

Emerging trends toward integrated planning tools

While still limited in scope, several jurisdictions are beginning to experiment with tools that move beyond basic digitisation toward integrated or intelligent systems.

In California, cities such as Los Angeles, Lancaster, and San Jose have piloted AI-powered permit pre-check tools. These systems automatically assess uploaded plans against encoded zoning and building rules, flagging errors or omissions before human review. Early evidence suggests that these tools can significantly reduce incomplete applications and shorten approval timelines, particularly for standardised case types such as post-disaster rebuilding or accessory dwelling units. Digital vs. Intelligent Plannin…

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has adopted AI to check applications for completeness and accuracy at intake, with longer-term ambitions to support scenario modelling and regional planning analysis. This represents one of the clearest examples in the research of intelligence being applied not just to process efficiency but to policy exploration.

Sandy Springs, Georgia illustrates a different trajectory: embedding AI across planning operations, from transcription of meetings to analysis of public consultation feedback. Here, intelligence is applied to qualitative data, helping planners identify recurring themes and concerns that would be difficult to synthesise manually at scale.

These examples share several characteristics. Intelligence is used to augment, not replace, human decision-making. Tools focus first on routine, high-volume tasks. Deployment is incremental and often framed as pilot programmes. Importantly, these cases remain exceptions rather than the norm across the US. Digital vs. Intelligent Plannin…

Lessons for Ireland

Several lessons emerge from the US experience that are directly relevant to Ireland and comparable jurisdictions.

First, digitisation delivers clear benefits but does not automatically resolve structural inefficiencies. Without integration, digital planning systems risk reproducing departmental silos and manual coordination burdens.

Second, transparency and intelligence are distinct goals. Making planning information accessible is necessary but insufficient if users must still interpret large volumes of complex material unaided.

Third, the absence of shared standards is a critical constraint. US cities repeatedly reinvent similar systems, limiting interoperability and comparative analysis. This fragmentation makes it harder to build higher-order tools that operate across jurisdictions.

Fourth, early evidence suggests that targeted intelligence, particularly in validation, compliance checking, and summarisation, can yield disproportionate benefits. These gains are most apparent where application volumes are high and requirements are standardised.

Finally, the US cases caution against assuming that AI adoption is inevitable or uniform. Progress is uneven, data on outcomes remains limited, and many tools are confined to pilots or narrow use cases. Gaps in evaluation and long-term governance remain evident.

For Ireland, the implication is not that US systems should be replicated, but that their experience clarifies the difference between being digital and being intelligent. Digitisation is a foundation. Intelligence requires deliberate design, integration, and institutional alignment.

The US planning system demonstrates both the possibilities and the limits of digitisation. It shows how far access and transparency can be improved, but also how easily digital tools can stall short of meaningful intelligence. For jurisdictions grappling with rising complexity and constrained resources, the lesson is clear: the next phase of planning reform is not about putting more documents online, but about enabling systems to interpret, connect, and support decisions in ways that paper, and PDFs, never could.