Form-Based Codes in the Pearl

[hoodlum]

let me ammend what i said above, form based codes can have architectural standards integrated and therefore they can dictate materials, styles etc.

[Jamie]

Just a note to say thank you (all) for this helpful discussion.  It is useful for our upcoming Pearl Pilot, for which INCOG is budgeting for next fiscal year, which begins July 1.  We're fed up with talking about the FBC pilot and just want to get on and do it, on or about July 1.  Other neighborhoods can then follow our progress and 'see if it's right for them' as the medical ads say.  My understanding of FBC is that a regulating FBC plan for a particular area can be intrusive in terms of architectural detailing if the neighborhood wants it to be so; and it can limit itself to the basics if that is considered more appropriate to the area.  Whilst not wishing to pre-judge what we come up with in our own neighborhood discussions, common sense says it's unlikely that we'll be very intrusive.  The things that interest us most are creating compact, walkable, mixed-use density alongside the efficient use of land, so that locally-owned businesses are able to survive and thrive along the commercial corridors.  We also want to minimize off-street parking, and spread it unobtrusively about the neighborhood, maximize on-street parking, provide bicycle-parking, motor-bike parking.  We're looking for front-facing buildings, avoiding blank walls, leveraging alleys and the existing urban grid.  We favor zero lot-lines, and are concerned about massing.  I think all of the above are contained in the 6th St. Infill Plan approved by the Council in Jan. 2006, so there are not too many surprises. Another thing: no-one in this discussion has yet referred to the importance of creating an attractive 'public realm' - or 'public room', in terms of streetscaping.  FBC is clearly very much about creating an attractive public realm that functions for the pedestrian, and streetscaping is an important 'architectural' element of this.  The urban rhythms created by trees, bollards, pedestrian-scale street-lights, etc.,  are important to this.  We're taking this into account in our planning for the design stage of the 6th St. canal that we're now beginning work on.  Before I close, it's worth checking out 'Home Zones' and 'Woonerfs' (yep, the spelling's right).  We're looking at these for clues as to how to re-claim the inner-city street for those of us who don't drive a car (a mere 30% of the population).

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by hoodlum

...there needs to be some clear defintion...

There already is a clear definition:

quote: Form-Based Code:
A method of regulating development to achieve a specific urban form. Form-based codes create a predictable public realm primarily by controlling physical form, with a lesser focus on land use, through city or county regulations.  

That's the complete opposite of our current zoning laws, which regulate land use very tightly and do very little to create a meaningful urban form.

As several have noted it may, or may not, include stringent architectural guidelines.  And Jamie notes that in the Pearl the probably won't be very intrusive.  Other places may choose differently.

There is no operational difference between FBC and Conservation Districts, btw.  The key distinction is that one ordinance is targeted at  conserving urban (or suburban) forms and the other can be used to create urban forms that simply do not exist (in any cohesive way) in Tulsa.

If there is value to you in this "conserve and create" strategy, then you should embrace the introduction of these tools to Tulsa.  It would be wonderful if designers and clients could motivate themselves to embrace these strategies.  Many will, but unfortunately, some won't, and in the built environment, a few bad apples can really spoil the whole bunch.  Not supporting CDs and FBC will allow that same minority of careless designers and witless clients to continue to produce bad apples, completely unimpeded.  We see this careless mediocrity everywhere we go in Tulsa.  It is really keeping the bar very, very, low.  It deters quality solutions and it is holding Tulsa back.

But supporting CDs and FBC is does not mean you support any particular form or standard or its application in a particular part of town.  It simply says that there are places where this might be appropriate.  There'd be a whole 'nuther, more detailed round of actions before any of these were in place.  You can fight about the details when there are actually details to fight about.

[booWorld]

CDs in Tulsa would serve more as an overlay to our use-based zoning, and I agree that our current Zoning Code does very little to promote meaningful urban form, or efficient use of land, for that matter.

Many designers, clients, and property owners are motivated to embrace both CDs and FBCs right now, but most Tulsans don't give those concepts much thought.  I doubt if most Tulsans even know what CDs and FBCs are. Most of us drive, park, stay indoors most of the time, and accept ugly streetscapes and sprawl as givens - with little or no consideration to the fact that Tulsa doesn't have to be this way.

There are a couple of significant obstacles to the adoption of CDs and FBCs.  The first is the cherished notion of private property rights and the fear fueled by any threat of reducing those rights.  I see this as a big stumbling block to the Neighborhood Conservation District draft ordinance.  Ultimately, I think FBCs would be more satisfactory for most Tulsans than Conservation District overlays because FBCs are by nature more graphic and understandable.  It's easier for most people to comprehend pictures and diagrams than a slew of verbiage about "setbacks from the centerlines of streets determined by adding tabular distances to 1/2 of the right-of-way width designated on the Tulsa City-County Major Street and Highway Plan" or "the vertical distance from the average ground elevation at the exterior walls of building to the highest horizontal point on the structure" and so forth.  What is a horizontal point, anyway?

IMO, most Tulsans would not fear an understandable and graphics-laden form-based zoning code as much as they fear the relatively confusing use-based zoning code we have now.  Tulsans have a very independent and stubborn spirit sometimes.  The current effort to adopt a CD ordinance stems in large part from the hatred/fear of teardowns and of McMansions in Midtown.  But at least some Tulsans must adore McMansions, because otherwise there wouldn't be a market for them.  Someone with an expensive Midtown McMansion, however hideously humungous and out of character it may be, is unlikely to take kindly to increased setbacks and other regulations imposed by neighbors as substitutes for retroactive restrictive covenants.    

The second obstacle to the adoption of CDs and FBCs is the bureaucratic juggernaut known affectionately to some as White Chocolate Hot Chocolate Central, and as INCOG to most everyone else.  I was disappointed by both Maria Barnes and by Eric Gomez in their response to the question put to them last Tuesday by Jamie Jamieson about renewing the City's contract with INCOG.  If Tulsa is to move forward with FBDs or with grassroots CDs, then it's imperative that the City detach itself from INCOG's land planning services as quickly as possible.  If it's not achievable by the end of July, then when exactly will it be?  Our current land use planning system is broken.  My view of CDs is that they might work as a temporary patch before an extensive overhaul (by adopting FBDs) can be completed.

This will be an enormous undertaking.  First, Tulsans must decide what we want our city to be.  

"We know we belong to the land."  ~Oscar Hammerstein II                

[hoodlum]

As several have noted it may, or may not, include stringent architectural guidelines

then it is not clearly defined

I am not refering to the techinical definition, but the adapted definition for each case.

if a FBC includes architectural guidelines i don't like it

will they include guidlines in Tulsa? don't knwo yet they need to be defined.

to me the fact that FBC's can

[hoodlum]

guess you can't go back after the fact and edit.

[booWorld]

^ The more ambiguity, then the more job security for INCOG and the more fodder for attorneys.

"So much white chocolate hot chocolate, so little time...."

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by hoodlum

As several have noted it may, or may not, include stringent architectural guidelines

then it is not clearly defined

I am not refering to the techinical definition, but the adapted definition for each case.

if a FBC includes architectural guidelines i don't like it

will they include guidlines in Tulsa? don't knwo yet they need to be defined.

to me the fact that FBC's can

Once the legal and procedural structures are in place for Form Based Codes. Then it is up to the neighborhood to 1. Decide whether they even want FBC in their area. 2. Get together and decide what the specific guidelines are for their specific area.

Setting up the system so that there can be FBC's will not set structural guidelines. FBC's are a legal structure and system, the template upon which the guidelines may, or may not, as the case may be, be placed.

Get it?



But also, just out of curiosity, what do you define as being architectural guidelines? Does that include building height? How about roofline step backs which also relate to height or the appearance of height? Wall planes...would you want a huge, block long, building with no windows,doors or any architectural detail, being put in the middle of what was a walkable street or neighborhood?

Whats wrong with having architectural guidelines in some areas of the city that choose to have them? Have you ever been to Santa Fe? Lots of cities and places that have design guidelines are very attractive and desirable places to live because of their very stringent architectural and stylistic guidelines. Many places are equally attractive because they are diverse and ecclectic. Why not have a city that can have great examples of both types of places? Especially if Tulsa wants to be competitive with those other cities that are realizing the benefits of the architecural guidelines they have in place.

Look at those examples I gave of that area in Dallas. There are architectural guidelines regulating windows, height, amount of wall space and proportion of wall space to windows,,, yet look at the diversity of structures from contemporary to classic. They all work together because of the underlying "form governed by architectural guidelines" not the "style being governed by architectural guidelines".

So, again, what do you mean by architectual guidelines? That can be anything ranging from height, safety features, accessibility, building materials, to style. And why can't some areas of a city be able to have them if they want them?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Whats wrong with having architectural guidelines in some areas of the city that choose to have them?

Nothing, if the choice is truly voluntary.  But that's not how Tulsa's current Zoning Code works.  And I don't know about the proposed Pearl FBCs, but voluntary initiation of NCDs is not how the the current draft of the proposed NCD ordinance would work, either.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Whats wrong with having architectural guidelines in some areas of the city that choose to have them?

Nothing, if the choice is truly voluntary.  But that's not how Tulsa's current Zoning Code works.  And I don't know about the proposed Pearl FBCs, but voluntary initiation of NCDs is not how the the current draft of the proposed NCD ordinance would work, either.

Yes, it is exactly how these things will be initiated.  Form based codes in the Pearl District are happening precisely because the neighborhood group has asked to be the pilot study for Tulsa.  Similarly, NCDs can be neighborhood initiated.  In theory, the TMAPC or City Council could initiate the process, but why would they without neighborhood support for it?  And it says specifically that neighborhoods will develop their own guidelines.  Track record?  EVERY Historic Preservation District was neighborhood initiated.  And the last one, Maple Ridge, failed because they couldn't quite muster enough support.  

This isn't conventional zoning; you have to ask for extra cheese.  Unfortunately, Extra-toppings are against the law in this pizza joint, and for some reason, a couple of you think it should stay that way.  Why?

[booWorld]

I'm not up-to-date on the Pearl FBC process as I stated in a previous post, but I have read the proposed NCD draft ordinance.  Half of a neighhorhood can request extra cheese for themselves and for an equal number of neighbors who might happen to be lactose intolerant.  I'm not arguing against extra toppings for anyone who actually wants them on their own slice of the pie.  I'm arguing for the right of individuals to keep their diets free of INCOG and unwanted extra calories imposed by their neighbors.  If pizza served with extra cheese and white chocolate hot chocolate sounds tasty to you, go right ahead and indulge.  But I'll pass, thank you very much.

Please don't force me to consume something that makes me gag just thinking about it.  I might just hurl all over your pretty little uniformly patterned, period-themed, uniformly stiched and tailored tablecloth.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by hoodlum

if a FBC includes architectural guidelines i don't like it

The best answer you are going to get is that FBCs and conservation districts might end up having some sort of architectural guidelines associated with them.  It all depends on what the particular neighborhood wants.  In theory, the NCD can regulate "scale, size, type of construction, distinctive materials", and site planning features like platting, setback, and alleyways.

The proposal that's on the table for Conservation Districts is simply the enabling legislation that will allow neighborhoods to ask for NCDs.  If it's approved, there won't be any actual districts, only the possibility for them.  That's why there aren't, and cannot be, any standards for you to review and bless (curse).

There's no point in adopting a "toothless" NCD policy.  You and Steve are in Lortondale, right?  What help would an NCD be if it couldn't prevent infill with steeply pitched roofs and high street facades?  You might as well have nothing at all...which is all you are entitled to now.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

I'm not up-to-date on the Pearl FBC process as I stated in a previous post, but I have read the proposed NCD draft ordinance.  Half of a neighhorhood can request extra cheese for themselves and for an equal number of neighbors who might happen to be lactose intolerant.  I'm not arguing against extra toppings for anyone who actually wants them on their own slice of the pie.  I'm arguing for the right of individuals to keep their diets free of INCOG and unwanted extra calories imposed by their neighbors.  If pizza served with extra cheese and white chocolate hot chocolate sounds tasty to you, go right ahead and indulge.  But I'll pass, thank you very much.

Please don't force me to consume something that makes me gag just thinking about it.  I might just hurl all over your pretty little uniformly patterned, period-themed, uniformly stiched and tailored tablecloth.

Fine then.  Forget the fact that every single subdivision in Tulsa built in the last 25 years has restrictive covenants that are far more intrusive than anything NCDs would produce.  

If you don't trust yourself or your neighbors enough to allow yourselves to attempt produce something beneficial, then I guess you have no choice.

[hoodlum]

i think we are mixing our Form Based Code discussion and our Conservation District discussion. I am only talking about Form Based Codes.

There are two discussions here and it is hard to do this over the computer because the discussion rely on the definition of specific words.

As I have stated before i agree with form based codes, i don't have problems with codes regualting:

scale (which is building height, bulk width etc.) however if say Broken Arrow or jenks had codes regulating scale they would forever sprawl as there is no precedent for anything much larger than 3 or 4 stories.

set backs (spatial relationship between a building and a sidewalk/street)

to me these are the issues that can create a uniform pattern of development where emphasis is put on smart growth and livability.

My definition of Architectural Standards comes from the Form Based Codes institute:

Architectural Standards. Regulations controlling external architectural materials and quality.

I have no problem with the quality issue as a lot of building going on in this area uses a lot of substandard building materials.

However the regulation of Materials bothers me, architecture should be a manifestation of the present; embodying materials, technologies and construction techniques of today.

I am sure i will catch flack for this know but architecturaly I have serious issues with the projects you showed from dallas, they are not really stylistically any different, as a style I would say that they are for the most part large boxes decorated with different parts and pieces of a made up styles such as contemporary, tuscan or french. They are kind of like Mr. Potatoe heads with the fireman set or the police man set or even the woman's eyes and lips.

I have been to several places where architectural standards are in place and unfortunately they resemble 90% of the other blandness that you find through out the United State as far as architecture goes.

There are some cities that regualte their Architectural Styles so stringently towards some sort of historical style that existed in that city a hundred years ago and has made that city famous, that you can no longer tell the difference between old and new. History is obfuscated by Architectural Review Committees who force everything in a city like say Tulsa, who has an amazing architectural history, to look like Zios, which is an architectural style that never existed here.

Of course I went to school for architecture and i believe we could being doing 500% better design for our built environment and i come from a school where it is completely inappropriate to copy historical styles.

But i am excited about FBC becasue i think they can have a positive effect on the development of Tulsa. I just don't want to see large area of Tulsa, for instance Utica Square, become little fake Las-Vegas Italian streetscapes when we have our own historical legacy of progressive interesting architecture that we need build upon.

sorry i don't know how much more i can type about this with writing a novel. perhaps at some point I can make it to a gatherin and we can talk about then. Great discussion though.

Thanks everyone.

[hoodlum]

my god i need to check my spelling and grammar but alas when you are typing as fast as you can so you can go pick up your wife to take her to the U2 in 3D show sometimes you miss things...a lot of things.