Different Take on Planning/Smart Growth

[Jason T. Radice]

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.

[Steve Mouzon]

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.

[Noah Mabry]

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.

[nca]

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.

[Steve Mouzon]

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.

[nca]

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.

[Andrew Garulay, RLA]

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.

[Hazel Borys]

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!

[Barry Watkins]

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.

[nca]

Thanks Hazel. I’ll get back to you.

[Hazel Borys]

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.

[Debra Wheeler]

Always a good philosophy in my book, Jason.  Thanks for the post.

[Author]

Posts