Different Take on Planning/Smart Growth

[Trace One]

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..

[Roland Beinert]

They actually did something like this with an old mall in Madison, WI. They started with condos around the edges. I think they built a new parking structure, as well. I moved before they finished it, though, so I have no idea how successful it was or whether there were parking problems.

[Mike G]

I remembered that graphic after reading the two articles from the beginning of this forum. Unfortunatly that is not mine, it was taken from http://www.re-burbia.com/. I was trying to understand what Mr. Rybczynski was talking about in the articles. I certainly was a bit confused as academics often do to me, but I think he has something interesting to say. Still I’m not rushing out to buy another book.

If you see this graphic as a model for urban development I think it works much better than a specific site. The point that I was trying to make was that many current models of planning follow the top image. Large planned community, zoning codes, building and development codes, Big formulaic plans.

The second image is a response to this development (be it smart growth, infill development…): “…(What) Rybczynski describes (as) the imperative for a new breed of ecologically friendly city, built to meet the challenge of sustainability in an age of global environmental crisis.” Many “small plans” as Rybczynski phrased. How do we get there? Rybczynski doesn’t offer many particulars.

Nick you asked how do you get this image through the planning review board? You make a good point, currently this site or model of development doesn’t fly in most places. While the review process is definitely needed it could be a problem for both good and poor quality development projects alike, and perhaps keeping entrepreneurs and innovators out of this process. Instead they go to the margins of urban areas where their previous formula still works.

[Trace One]

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..

[Boilerplater]

“Come check out my new apartment! It has an AWESOME view of a McDonald’s drive thru and the cooking smells are just heavenly!”
Sorry, but that’s the 1st thing that came to my mind. I like it in concept otherwise. I just like to be as far from fast-food odors as possible. Such a place would be hellish for me.

[nca]

Mike,

I think what you described in the latter part of your message is the scenario typical here in northern Colorado. There is so much open/rural land primed for development that there is no financial basis for infill or denser development such as in the second image. I could visulaize myself drawing something like this for one of the many fast food/MU/retail sites I’ve had the opportunity to design in rural towns lately and my boss or the client arguing that it is, as I think you pointed out, way too much of a commitment on the developers part, and that restaurant/retail in the middle would arguably have a hard time leasing/getting along financially.

An interesting issue I’ve encountered working on commercial projects in which I have 2 or 3 or more adjacent lots is that it’s difficult to make an agument for shared parking and how you break up the parking lots themselves while meeting the lot area and building envelope requirements set by the broker or developer. This is why we end up with so many nasty(imo of course) mini mall centers still. It’s a tough argument to make to a developer or broker I’m finding to say that an establishment just doesnt need so much parking. There have been a few projects in the area that have successfully gone straight to model #2 with vastly underparked lots and are successful as far as I can see. Then the developer comes to us and asks us to do that, but I must use the old parking ratio, which defeats the entire purpose. Thats why I’ve said in the past that it’s essentially ‘above me’ as a designer. More flexible planning decisions need to be made to allow creativity in site design–ie making lost of ‘small plans’ so I get it.

It looks like we’ll be writing a new ‘form-based’ code for a small town. I’m excited to get a hands on perspective of the differences between form-based and traditional and how form based might accomodate small plans better.

[Jason T. Radice]

Having an extensive retail background, I can safely this is not a realistic scenario. The grease, the view, the traffic idling at the drive-thru, plus the blocked visibility of the store. What would be required is a different type of building for the McDonalds…a new prototype store. Not that a McDonald’s cannot fit within a more urban context, it just can’t with that type of store. Another thing most don’t realize is how much parking a restaurant generally needs, usually a full 1/3 more than code requires (depending on the type of restaurant). If a restaurant does not have enough parking, or enough tables, and customer turnover, it will go out of business. Visibiliity is also VERY important to these types of businesses. Better to tear down and start over. Besides, the depth of the front units shown is like 15 feet! Not at all realistic. You need at least 30′ depth for flexibility of tenants.

[Trace One]

Agree with the 15′, but I take this graphic much more diagramatically. When did the back building become a McDonalds?

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

When the high end restaurant left because the customers could not find it, did not like avoiding the kids skateboarding in the parking lot, and the buying power of the “walkable” demographic only allowed for fast food.

[Trace One]

Ha. very funny. Maybe it’s a medical center. Or a gym/bar for the people living in ths housing on the street. We liked to use ‘artists lofts’ as a possible flex use type space, when working on the City of charlottesville Zoning ord. Artist lofts – or magic wand stores..

[Barry Watkins]

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.

[Steve Mouzon]

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.

[nca]

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

[Steve Mouzon]

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

[Jason T. Radice]

You can tell by the roof, It’s McD’s old prototype design. Building as logo.

[Author]

Posts