Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Mouzon on June 22, 2010 at 7:37am

FWIW, this was Galina Tachieva's submission to ReBurbia. She's writing a book, which should be released shortly... it's the Sprawl Repair Manual. As for the parking, what we've seen repeatedly is that the parking requirements go down for places that are mixed-use. A few people (like me) actually walk to work, so I don't need two parking spaces (one at home and one at work.) For those who drive, they're generally gone to work while most of the people are working in the shops and offices, so again, you don't need as many. And in the bottom example, she's showing parking on the street... you'd be shocked at how many cars you can park on the street. And it not only slows cars because the travel lanes are narrower, making it safer for pedestrians, but it also puts all those parked cars between people on the sidewalk and the traffic, affording even greater protection. One bald-faced plug: My new book, the Original Green, also discusses many of these issues in the context of sustainability.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nca777 on June 22, 2010 at 8:22am

I ordered your book Steve. I'll be looking forward to it, thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Mouzon on June 22, 2010 at 8:43am

Thanks, Nick! I'd love to hear what you think once you've seen it!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason T. Radice on June 22, 2010 at 9:44am

I've seen the opposite with regards to the parking, very often you need MORE parking. This is due to the residents keeping their cars parked all day, and then you add the outside traffic. There is no reliable formula for it, as parking needs vary wildly from development to development. It is totally dependant on the ratio and type of housing unit, proximity to offices, tenant mix of retail/restaurant, and the type of developments around it. This is especially true on the weekends for mixed use centers in the suburbs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Mouzon on June 22, 2010 at 10:07am

Jason, it's most predictable at either extreme. At one end is the suburban pad site, not walkably connected to anything. We can accurately predict the maximum number of building occupants and the cars it will take to get them there. At the other end is a highly mixed-use, compact, and walkable neighborhood where there are many things to walk to and delightful walking experiences to get there. The better the urbanism, the fewer people choose to have cars. I live in South Beach, which is predominately 2-3 stories, and it's so good that 45% of the residents don't even own a car. I do, but only drive once or twice a week when I have to go off the beach. So the parking needed for individual businesses here is very low, because so many people walk or bike instead.

In between these two extremes, of course, it's less predictable. As a rule of thumb, if you're referring to individual developments rather than neighborhoods, then the context in which these developments are located is unlikely to be walkable enough to help substantially.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trace One on June 21, 2010 at 10:51am

three words, Nick - Parking Exempt Zone..

To me there is nothing in the second drawing, however, that makes it more 'small scale' - I don't see that..The design with street wall and mixed use is just as easy to legislate through zoning..I found that the trouble CAN be that you can build it (and designate it mixed use) but that does not mean that is what wants to occupy these spaces, or to occupy that part of town..
I geuss then you get the 'flex-spaces' that can go in many different directions..

And yes, I agree, very good graphics - makes it easy to talk about..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trace One on June 21, 2010 at 12:45pm

I don't mean to be argumentative (trying NOT to be!) but in my experience image #2 is fairly standardized in zoning ordinances I have worked with..I am sure it depends on what part of the country you are in..but zero lot line, parking in back, mixed use, is part of the ordinance of the City of Charlottesville since the nineties, and was definitely not ground-breaking at that time..Perhaps if one is in the less dense areas of our great united states they are still sticking with the first design plan, which is certainly extremely standard, extremely standard..But ordinances that require the second scheme (which has it's drawbacks - sometimes a 10' setback, as opposed to zero lot line, to allow for landscaping, is preferable to some developers), are not new..Perhaps part of this dialogue is going over my head..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry Watkins on June 22, 2010 at 5:13am

Rybczynski's comments are great arguments for code reform. Government should set the pace via coding that allows for developers to fill in the details via small incremental changes over time. Centralized control and big government projects are something Americans decry and for good reason. To be responsible citizens we ought to be designing places with SmartGrowth in mind, but at the same time the design has to respond to local context and should be locally generated and controlled.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nca777 on June 22, 2010 at 3:21pm

As I understand, Barry, this is the basic premise of the Smart Code. (?)

We're just about to get started in working on writing new Form-Based/Smart Code for a small, rural town in Colorado. It will be bboth mine and my bosses first experience with it, but I'm very optimistic.

The project was actually brought to us by a private developer. We had to givea presentation to the town officials, which they were receptive to. Something feels strange that all parties are not at odds with one another--for better or worse I don't know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Mouzon on June 22, 2010 at 7:31pm

Good luck, Nick! I'm extremely high on the SmartCode for many reasons. It really is the biggest revolution in coding since the Euclidean code. FWIW, I developed the Sky Method as a highly incremental development mechanism that bypasses the broken American development financing system by developing in tiny nibbles, not broad strokes. Check it out and let me know what you think: FWIW, the Sky Method's operating system is the Transect, which also drives the SmartCode. The Sky Method could actually be done as a major Plug-In to the SmartCode.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nca777 on June 22, 2010 at 8:52pm

Thanks Steve.

I'm excited at the possibility of implementing some of the new methodologies I've learned about here in the real world. Call me a nerd, but I think this is all pretty exciting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hazel Borys on June 24, 2010 at 9:34am

Hey, Nick, you might find this study of most of the other places undertaking similar character-based zoning helpful to you. As you make changes, please note them in red, and send it back to me at hazel@placemakers.com. Cheers!

Attachments:

• CodeStudy_100622.xlsx, 95 KB

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Folio