Print Page - Form-Based Codes in the Pearl

A nice little article featuring form-based codes and the Pearl District...

quote:
A Movement Afoot
By MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer
3/7/2008

OKC, Tulsa rank low on a “walkable” list, but a local project aims for feet on the street.

Every time he goes back to England to visit relatives, Jamie Jamieson comes home to Tulsa about six pounds lighter.

“Over there, you walk everywhere you go,” Jamieson explained. “A friend once said something like, ‘If walking was a pill, everybody would be queuing up at the pharmacy for it.’ Such are the health benefits.”

Over here, people are lining up at stoplights.

Oklahoma City ranked dead last this week in a study of how “walkable” American communities are, according to a study released by Prevention magazine and the American Podiatric Medical Association.

Tulsa ranked higher, but that’s not saying much. The city came in at No. 409 out of 500 places studied.

Benefiting from the campus itself and the pedestrian- friendly neighborhoods around Oklahoma State University, Stillwater qualified as the most walkable town in Oklahoma. But it still fell in the bottom half nationwide.

Instead of looking at walking as just a form of exercise, the study considered how convenient it would be for residents to walk in day-to-day life, with little or no driving.

Walkable
communities tend to be older ones, built before strip malls and turn lanes took priority over sidewalks and storefronts.

“The modern American city is designed for the benefit of the automobile, not for the benefit of the human being,” said Jamieson, a developer.

“It’s no coincidence that we rank near the bottom for walkability and also near the bottom for health and fitness.”

Suburban sprawl might seem like the inevitable consequence of technology and economics, but Jamieson and other “new urbanists” are proving that small-scale, mixed-use neighborhoods are still viable.

At The Village at Central Park, near Sixth Street and Peoria Avenue, Jamieson is building traditional town houses within an easy walk of both downtown and Cherry Street.

But a place like The Village would be impossible without loopholes and variances in local zoning ordinances, he said.

“A truly walkable community — with shopping and housing and office space all within an easy walk of each other — is literally against the law in most places,” he said.

Zoning laws typically designate separate areas for residential and commercial development, forcing people to drive several miles for daily errands.

Jamieson and other new urbanists favor form-based coding — regulating how a development fits into the broader neighborhood.

“The emphasis is on the pedestrian and not on the driver,” explained Christine Booth, president of the Pearl District Association.

A one-square-mile neighborhood that includes The Village at Central Park, the Pearl District recently gained permission from the Mayor’s Office to become a pilot project for form-based coding in Tulsa.

The area is now waiting for the Indian Nations Council of Governments to implement the coding.

With parking tucked behind buildings and storefronts hugging the sidewalks, formbased coding will make the area more attractive and healthy for residents, Booth said. But, perhaps more importantly, it will make the Pearl economically sustainable in the age of high-priced gasoline.

“In the long term,” Booth said, “walkability is going to be a vital part of making a city livable.”

Michael Overall 581-8383
michael.overall@tulsaworld.com

The 10 most “walkable” cities in America

1. Cambridge, Mass.
2. New York
3. Ann Arbor, Mich.
4. Chicago
5.Washington
6. San Francisco
7. Honolulu
8.Trenton, N.J.
9. Boston
10. Cincinnati

The 10 least “walkable” cities in America

500. Oklahoma City
499. North Las Vegas, Nev.
498. Gadsden, Ala.
497. Davenport, Iowa
496. Mount Pleasant, S.C.
495. Enid
494. Laredo, Texas
493. Springdale, Ariz.
492. Clarksville,Tenn.
491. Lafayette, La.

Source: Prevention magazine and the American Podiatric Medical Association

It is kinda (http://"http://www.formbasedcodes.org/definition.html") about architectural standards, but in a macro way, not the minutia:

quote:
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.

Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks.

So, can you support a code that says, "Since every other building on this block is adjacent to the sidewalk, yours should be, too."?

To me, that seems like a common sense. A developer could wreck the continuity of a "main street" type street by throwing strip-mall type building (parking in front, building in back) onto that street.

But, there are a lot of developers who don't understand, or don't care, about these kinds of details. And the zoning code places emphasis on the wrong things, IMO. Why should I care if you are cooking chickens or selling hot-rod parts inside that building? If the building looks decent and adds to the continuity of the neighborhood...that's what counts to me.

I think there can be quite a variety within a given form. That is what much of art and creativity is all about.

One example of how a basic floor height, setbacks, wall planes, roofline "form" can still result in very unique and creative designs is to check out the Uptown area in Dallas. There is block after block of 4 and 5 story buildings. Some mixed use, some not. You can basically do any style you can imagine from contemporary to classical within the designated "form".

Uptown Dallas
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8430/uptowndallasstreetlifefk4.jpg)

(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4761/uptowndallas1uy4.jpg)

(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7266/uptowndallas2kv9.jpg)

(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7792/uptowndallas6dj1.jpg)

Mixed use parking garage
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/4845/parkinggarage1fy0.jpg)

You can overlay or add to the Form Based Codes, stylistic requirements to make an area context sensitive. Say in a bricktown area designate a certain amount of brickwork on the building. Or an area that is historic, whether it be colonial or craftsman. It wouldnt matter if the building were a garage, an apartment, a factory, a grocery store, mixed use, single use, it could be anything as long as it fit into the designated context.

The main thing is the Form not the function of the building and on top of that you can add "looks" if you want.

quote:
Originally posted by hoodlum

yes

typically Architectural Standards define materials, aesthetics etc. this block is all neo-tuscan so your building has to be neo-tuscan as well.

yes i can support scale and sighting of the buildings just not aesthetic and material mandates.

I'm following you, and I agree. And that's not what form based codes is. It's not about regulating taste. It's about avoiding urban design catastrophes and preserving (and creating from scratch), places that are compatibly designed.

Architectural Standards is a "sometimes" thing, but I don't think it's very important. A broader definition that covers the "configuration, features, and functions" is fine. To me, that certainly has design implications, e.g., massing, building placement, fenestration, street rhythm, but that's not the same as dictating styles.

I mean, you can stick rafter tails and divided light windows on an ordinary suburban snout-house and it will still stick out like a sore thumb in a bungalow neighborhood.

However, I don't believe the opposite is true. If an infill building preserves the setback and rhythm of the street, and if it preserves other functional features found on bungalows, e.g. a large front porch and a rear yard garage, then it's likely to "fit in" whether the architectural details are craftsman, Spanish eclectic, post-modern, or French provincial.

quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:
Originally posted by hoodlum

yes

typically Architectural Standards define materials, aesthetics etc. this block is all neo-tuscan so your building has to be neo-tuscan as well.

yes i can support scale and sighting of the buildings just not aesthetic and material mandates.
I'm following you, and I agree. And that's not what form based codes is. It's not about regulating taste. It's about avoiding urban design catastrophes and preserving (and creating from scratch), places that are compatibly designed.

Architectural Standards is a "sometimes" thing, but I don't think it's very important. A broader definition that covers the "configuration, features, and functions" is fine. To me, that certainly has design implications, e.g., massing, building placement, fenestration, street rhythm, but that's not the same as dictating styles.

I mean, you can stick rafter tails and divided light windows on an ordinary suburban snout-house and it will still stick out like a sore thumb in a bungalow neighborhood.

However, I don't believe the opposite is true. If an infill building preserves the setback and rhythm of the street, and if it preserves other functional features found on bungalows, e.g. a large front porch and a rear yard garage, then it's likely to "fit in" whether the architectural details are craftsman, Spanish eclectic, post-modern, or French provincial.

Well put. Even some of the old neighborhoods in Historic Mid-Town show how this works. On the one hand people often say, "Well how can you dictate or say there is a certain style for the area when even the original old houses ranged from Tuscan, Spanish, Colonial, Gothic, French, etc.?" Each street genrally followed similar rules of set-backs, garage placements, wall plane and window proportions and massing.

Look at those photos of the apartments in that Dallas neighborhood. The general amount of window and wall space is the same regardless of the style. You dont have huge swaths of boring, blank walls. Also note how regardless of style, the wall planes and masses are broken up with either setbacks or material and color changes.

Here are some examples of wall plane height and massing and articulation of walls and windows. Add to it set backs and placements of garages or parking and you pretty much have form based codes. It doesnt matter what the building is used for, or what style. However you can add context sensitive and unique style overlays when you want.

(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/186/figure6ga1.jpg)

(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7642/stac15198xj0.jpg)

(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5553/figure9ard1.jpg)

(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3041/buildingscaleyt9.jpg)

(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2518/recommendedwindowdimensnu8.jpg)

(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/41/thisnotthis107nx4.jpg)

don't get me wrong

I know what the purpose of form based codes are and i applaud them i just think that before these are implemented there needs to be some clear defintion as to what these will and will not effect. Form based codes "can" dictate Architectural Standards such as materials and styles. I agree with the generalized idea of form based codes i just want to make sure that they don't begin dictating styles, materials etc.

Steve

i think that form based codes would work well in our neighborhood, but i also believe that another layer of protection is necessary in our neighborhood. In my research into conservation districts something like that would be good in our neighborhood...however... here is the thing about Lortondale, we have a completely intact architecturally significant neighborhood and i have been told those involved with the city and the formation of the conservation districts that we would be better served through an HP designation as opposed to a conservation district.

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).

quote:
Originally posted by hoodlum

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

There already is a clear definition (http://"http://www.formbasedcodes.org/"):

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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 (http://"http://www.tmapc.org/tmapcworksession/Conservation%20District%20complete%20info..pdf") 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.

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.

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little

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.

I completely trust myself enough to allow myself to produce something beneficial for me.

I don't necessarily trust my neighbors enough to allow them to attempt to produce something beneficial for me or themselves.

I certainly do NOT trust INCOG staff to produce something beneficial for me or my neighbors.

"Then we'll get a three-bedroom house with a white picket fence and a gun and a lawyer, so smile!
Gonna get a homeowner's loan;
Gonna get an unlisted phone,
Gonna get away from a town gone insane.
And we'll get a three-bedroom house -- affordable three bedroom house...
With a great big pit bull on a chain!" ~Laurence O'Keefe

Great topic...I wish there was discussions like this in the municipality and at town hall meetings on a regular basis. This is a concept of thinking that will take time to adapt to but should be considered nevertheless.

I have one question for everyone. There is a concern about keeping up with facade technology and style. I agree, bureaucracies don't tend to keep up with these things very well. So, my question is this;

Is there a way to simply require a builder to spend so much on the facade that it would ensure proper quality? In other words, a % of an amount on the building permit MUST go toward the facade of the building.

I can see holes in my idea, but I am curious what other think. If we can somehow link the incentive to something not related to the actual materials used, perhaps we can achieve the same result.

quote:
Originally posted by 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.

Oh, we saw that too. It's really pretty spectacular.

I think that setback is important, and the scale is important with the street facade, i.e., the plane of the building that is nearest the street, usually at the setback line. But, if you want to increase the mass of the structure, you can often do it towards the back half of the structure and still preserve the continuity along the street. And detached rear-yard buildings, even two-story ones, are perfectly fine with me. But I also think there are certain architectural features associated with the front facade that help define a neighborhood and should be regulated, e.g., front porches and garage placement.

As for materials, eh, I'm pretty ambivalent. Sadly, that's the first thing people without design knowledge run to and it's the thing that has the least impact on the outcome. You can incorporate every material in the neighborhood and still end up with a jumbled mess that sticks out like a sore thumb. It's not the material, it's how it's used.

PS: Don't worry about spelling. But, if you want, Firefox has a built-in spellchecker.

quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little

I think that setback is important, and the scale is important with the street facade, i.e., the plane of the building that is nearest the street, usually at the setback line. But, if you want to increase the mass of the structure, you can often do it towards the back half of the structure and still preserve the continuity along the street.

Seems I've heard this idea discussed recently -- hmmm -- oh, yes -- Michael Bates mentioned it on KFAQ AM1170 radio. I'm not sure if I should trust anything the talking heads say on that station, however.

quote:

And detached rear-yard buildings, even two-story ones, are perfectly fine with me.

Those accessory buildings are fine with me too, but some of my neighbors absolutely despise them.

quote:

But I also think there are certain architectural features associated with the front facade that help define a neighborhood and should be regulated, e.g., front porches and garage placement.

Those types of regulations don't really bother me either, as long as they are unanimously agreed upon and self-imposed.

quote:

As for materials, eh, I'm pretty ambivalent. Sadly, that's the first thing people without design knowledge run to and it's the thing that has the least impact on the outcome.

I thought the first thing people without design knowledge ran to was the white chocolate hot chocolate dispenser.

quote:
You can incorporate every material in the neighborhood and still end up with a jumbled mess that sticks out like a sore thumb.

Now, that's one of the truest statements I've ever seen posted on this forum -- EVER.

"Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same,
There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same." ~Malvina Reynolds

quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok

This is a concept of thinking that will take time to adapt to but should be considered nevertheless.

I agree wholeheartedly.

quote:

I have one question for everyone. There is a concern about keeping up with facade technology and style. I agree, bureaucracies don't tend to keep up with these things very well. So, my question is this;

Is there a way to simply require a builder to spend so much on the facade that it would ensure proper quality? In other words, a % of an amount on the building permit MUST go toward the facade of the building.

I can see holes in my idea, but I am curious what other think.

That type of requirement won't work. According to the City of Tulsa's website, the contract amount for the renovation of Boston Avenue between 3rd and 10th was $5.5 million. That's an average of $785,000 per block; $2,000 per lineal foot of street; $25 per square foot. I'm assuming that since most of the sidewalk work was done between 3rd and 7th, then the averages are higher for those four block, and lower for the other three. In general, the quality of the new sidewalks is less than the quality of the old sidewalks was. Spending lots of money doesn't necessarily guarantee quality.

A certain amount of money could be spent on an expensive but relatively fragile material.

A certain amount of money could be spent on an excellent facade panel system, but the installation of the panels could be lacking.

As the percentage of building cost dedicated to the facade rises, then the percentage which could be spent on other components of the building must be lower. The foundation needs to be fully funded and built, otherwise the entire building could collapse. The plumbing system would require a certain portion of the building budget, otherwise occupants would be in deep you-know-what. Who decides how much of a building's cost will be devoted to each component and system? A bureaucrat? A building contractor? A neighborhood association?

"Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same,
There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same." ~Malvina Reynolds

The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Development & New Businesses => Topic started by: dsjeffries on March 07, 2008, 02:23:30 am