Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by nca on June 24, 2010 at 12:04pm

Thanks Hazel. I'll get back to you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hazel Borys on June 24, 2010 at 12:46pm

My pleasure, Nick. I should add that currently, the criteria for getting in this SmartCode and other form-based codes study is to meet the FBCI criteria for form-based codes:

1. Is the code's focus primarily on regulating urban form and less on land use?

2. Does the code emphasize standards and parameters for form with predictable physical outcomes (build-to lines, frontage type requirements, etc.) rather than relying on numerical parameters (FAR, density, etc.) whose outcomes are impossible to predict?

3. Does the code require private buildings to shape public space through the use of building form standards with specific requirements for building placement?

4. Does the code promote and/or conserve an interconnected street network and pedestrian-scaled blocks?

5. Are the diagrams in the code unambiguous, clearly labeled, and accurate in their presentation of spatial configurations?

If the above criteria are met, but the below criteria are not, the document falls in the "FB Guidelines" category:

1. Is the code regulatory rather than advisory?

2. Are regulations and standards keyed to specific locations on a regulating plan?

As always, input welcome on suggested modifications to the criteria, as well as additions to the code study itself of codes that meet the criteria.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Noah Mabry on June 22, 2010 at 10:59am

I'd like to add a definitive "uuuuhhhhh, ok". I have worked for a both a public planning agency and a planning and architecture firm here in Columbus so I've seen both sides of this coin (albeit to a somewhat smaller extent due to my so far short and sputtering career.) I would agree that good design and planning are done by a cooperation between public and private entities, and with careful consideration of long term goals and overall context. I am pretty sure thats not much of a revelation to anybody.

I don't think, however, that a blanket "government bad, grand design competitions bad, private development good" statement is valid though. And the idea that because of what happened in cities in "the last 40 years" can't be applied in such a broad manner either. Poor design and beaucracy affected some projects where as gutting of public funding by free marketers of projects that never got a chance to play out hurt as well.

Overall I refer back to the posters who say that Rybczynski basically doesn't say a whole lot in the article, but what he does say isn't all that radical.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry Watkins on June 24, 2010 at 11:10am

I don't think Rybczynski is saying "government bad", but that the ideal is acheived when the free market is freed up by government. I think we need to be cautious at every turn when we're talking about the future of our cities being directed by a central national (US) government agency. Local control is imperitive and local designers need to be able to design in context. Nobody at the national level is saying otherwise as far as I know, but citizens need to be involved in this process. The SmartCode is indeed a great model code. It is made to be locally calibrated, but also gives a great basic framework for designing with Smart Growth principals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Garulay, RLA on June 23, 2010 at 4:20am

It seems to me that putting too many details into a zoning ordinance causes more problems than it solves. The more detail that is written in, the less discretion the boards have to use. The thing that makes success is flexibility, at least to some point.

We have several specialized zones in one of the villages. They are so specific that they keep re-development from happening. One has a 60' landscape setback (building setback is 30', don't ask me how that works) on one of the main drags that is developed on both sides by little more than asphalt and roof. 'Sounds great? The problem is that there are no deep lots along the way. Things get proposed that will reduce impervious, green things up, and displace hellish looking development, but they don't meet the ordinance by 100%. They do use some discretion, but so far as I can tell, only one very small project was approved in this particular zone (many have been heard) and the rest have been withdrawn because the developers can not overcome the added burdens. Four years later it is still asphalt, roof, and run down strip retail.

It only changes if it can be carried by development. Too much burden keeps change from happening and you are stuck with what you have. Too little and it is a free for all.

• ▶ Reply

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