unfolio posts on The sidewalk has no ideology
of a few days ago.
...it would be be very easy to politicize urbanism, but very difficult to do it effectively. Both sides have substantial reasons to agree with it, so while there may be partisanship on certain parts or reasons, looking at the big picture largely eliminates any effects of politicization.
If politicize is meant to have a clearly ideological and/or partisan flavor, then that is well-said. Clearly there may be differences of judgment even among close allies of the proper action in any given situation and hence the public discussion may be contentious and hence "political." But that doesn't mean that it has to be ideological.
As one small example, the core of New Urbanism is based (though it is verbalized differently) on the Three Rules. It turns out that implementation of such a view of the ideal town does not require complex zoning codes and intense regulation. but the simplest codes, requiring only simple governmental intervention.
It turns out that implementation of such a view of the ideal town does not require complex zoning codes and intense regulation. but the simplest codes, requiring only simple governmental intervention.
Could you elaborate on this a bit?
BTW, do you know of any towns that give tax breaks for buildings that conform to pattern books, or something like that?
Posted by: praktike | Mar 12, 2004 at 09:30 AM
Many of the pioneers may disagree with you, David. I still remember Duany or one of that group basically saying that architects have so lost their way that rigid, specific design codes are required. I would guess that Kunstler probably believes that.
Of course, your Three Rules presupposes that the details are not as important as the big picture, and they may feel that the details are more important?
Posted by: Brian Miller | Mar 12, 2004 at 02:18 PM
praktike.
i mean the three rules. They (with their coda) set forth the essence of urban-ness. A code for neighborhood commercial areas does not have to go a whole lot further than expanding and clarifying (there will always be "But...") on them.
Tax breaks? I hate the idea. They are a gimmicky means and easy to abuse. To answer your question, no I have never heard of such a thing. I don't think it should be even remotely neccesary. Why would one need them?
Brian.
"Columns" (to use my metonym) are more important than whether the parking lot is adjacent to the sidewalk? I don't think that's very convincing. Do you?
I couldn't possibly know what the founders of NU would say on this subject but I would be very very surprised if they would put forth the notion that the architectural detailing of a building takes precedence over its site plan.
Posted by: David Sucher | Mar 12, 2004 at 08:39 PM
The 1982 code for Seaside, Fla., fits on one page. It's arranged in a grid: Along one axis are 8 different land uses, along the other axis are the building elements (yards, porches, outbuildings, parking and building heights). The diagrams in the grid show the disposition of the elements in the buildings' lots.
When Duany says "rigid" codes are needed, he means a sentence like "Roofs shall be a hip or gable with a pitch of 8 in 12." You wouldn't believe the amount of grief Duany received from architects who considered this rule to be a fascistic limitation on their creativity. And by the way, not all new urbanists agree that such rules are necessary.
The most fully elaborated NU code is Duany's SmartCode (selected pages at http://www.dpz.com/pdf/3000_Smartcode.pdf). A slim booklet can replace a stack of telephone-book-sized plans, including the regional plan, comprehensive plan and specific plan.
The form-based code for Columbia Pike in Arlington, Va., is by Geoffrey Ferrell and Victor Dover. It does not grant tax breaks; however, projects that conform to the code receive expedited administrative processing and permitting. (see http://www.co.arlington.va.us/forums/columbia/current/)
For more about new urbanist codes, see the "Council Report III/IV" (http://www.tndtownpaper.com/debate.htm).
Posted by: Laurence Aurbach | Mar 13, 2004 at 09:49 AM
You make some point, David. We can certainly agree that the bewildering complexity and level of regulation may be excessive. There are still noxious land uses that I'm not sure a form-based code alone can address. I'm still not sure I would, for example, want to live across the street or next to an auto body/paint shop. Or a drive-through restaurant. I guess I still see a need for more complex use-based regulations.
I didn't mean that any of the NU advocates would believe that the column is more important than the location of parking. I meant simply that some of the writings I have seen do specificy design in more detail than the form-based codes alone.
Posted by: Brian Miller | Mar 15, 2004 at 02:38 PM
All codes retain limitations on noxious uses. No one wants to throw out the baby with the bath water.
That being said, I can't help but think of this new luxury apartment building (http://www.whitneybethesda.com/) that is immediately adjacent to a Chevrolet dealership with, yes, an auto body shop (http://www.chevychasecars.com/).
Monthly rents range from $1,425 to $3,550.
Posted by: Laurence Aurbach | Mar 15, 2004 at 10:46 PM
True. And, I would be the first to admit that the endless lists of "permitted uses" in zoning ordinances are often quite silly. They are easy to administer, though. I find performance based codes interesting, where specific issues like noise, glare, smell, litter control, garbage removal, and (I am a planner) signage controls are specifically outlined to limit the noxious effects of some uses on others.
I would point out, though, that Chevy Chase is a somewhat unique circumstance. Patio Man wants commerce to be kept as far away as possible. Any commerce-even the neighbor running an office out of his house with the occasional client.
Posted by: Brian Miller | Mar 16, 2004 at 10:06 AM