Form-Based Building Code

[Tiko]

An interesting article in the Chronicle today about "form-based" building codes. Basically, limiting building size based on form factor and appearance from the street:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/4697828.html

[musicman]

it will be interesting to see whether this will be a circumvention of the state property code which dictates how land can be used.

[lockmat]

Searched for Form Based Code, and this is the thread Mother Google gave me.

After reading this blog, this, I read David Crossley's response in the comment section. One point he made kind of popped out at me. Read and let me know if you agree with it or not...

There has been some research that suggests Houston has suffered from over-regulation (http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/2/) and other work that suggests Houston has nearly as much regulation as non-zoned cities (Teddy M. Kapur,

[jgs1419]

Does Houston's form based code really favor suburban development?

There are probably tens of architects on this board better positioned to answer this question than me but that won't stop me. I think the Code of Ordinances favor suburban type development by dictating setbacks, street widths (ROW), and parking requirements. The setbacks force parking to the front of the building as it doesn't count as the 'building'. Street widts/ROW limit pedestrian traffic by codifying the distance between intersections, setback from major streets, etc. The parking requirements generally don't contemplate shared parking. A mixed use facility might need customer parking during the day and resident parking at night. The code of ordinances requires parking for each use based on sf or occupancy and many times you end up with more parking than practically required - that in turn limits land use, which in turn provides the strip center aesthetic that pervades the City.

I'm sure there are more informed opinions on the topic but those are the three things that come to mind.

[lockmat]

There are probably tens of architects on this board better positioned to answer this question than me but that won't stop me. I think the Code of Ordinances favor suburban type development by dictating setbacks, street widths (ROW), and parking requirements. The setbacks force parking to the front of the building as it doesn't count as the 'building'. Street widts/ROW limit pedestrian traffic by codifying the distance between intersections, setback from major streets, etc. The parking requirements generally don't contemplate shared parking. A mixed use facility might need customer parking during the day and resident parking at night. The code of ordinances requires parking for each use based on sf or occupancy and many times you end up with more parking than practically required - that in turn limits land use, which in turn provides the strip center aesthetic that pervades the City.

I'm sure there are more informed opinions on the topic but those are the three things that come to mind.

Does anyone know the history as to why setbacks and parking minimums were implemented in the first place?

In my totally uneducated mind of the topics, I figured setbacks were for possible future road expansion?

Parking I don't really understand. It seems to me that the market would dictate that. If a business, restaurant, store etc is expecting business, I'd figure they'll find a way to accomodate their customers. To not do so would be business suicide(especially in Houston). And the developers would do it to, or else they wouldn't be able to lease the places out.

[BryanS]

Does anyone know the history as to why setbacks and parking minimums were implemented in the first place?

In my totally uneducated mind of the topics, I figured setbacks were for possible future road expansion?

Parking I don't really understand. It seems to me that the market would dictate that. If a business, restaurant, store etc is expecting business, I'd figure they'll find a way to accomodate their customers. To not do so would be business suicide(especially in Houston). And the developers would do it to, or else they wouldn't be able to lease the places out.

If a business is expecting business... they'll let the customers park in a residential neighborhood. If you are running a business, you better have the parking - on your property - to accommodate your customers. This can be especially problematic in older neighborhoods. In some neighborhoods, that are typically over 50 years old (where the deed restrictions have expired), you could find your neighbor's house next door is suddenly a mexican food restaurant. Where are people going to park?

[David Crossley]

Some catch-up about this thread:

One, I've been making that statement - that urbanism is illegal in the City except in the Central Business District - in print and in speeches for a couple of years. No one has ever contradicted me. I've said it several times in front of Marlene Gafrick, and she doesn't object. In fact, during the first CVS Midtown fight, CVS made the case that their design was precisely what the code calls for and they weren't in the business of fighting against code. So they built a purely sub-urban store.

Two, I've heard stories over the years that certain powerful Houston citizens were terrified about Woodway becoming a "canyon" of buildings up to the sidewalk, and that was the impetus for the code. Just stories, but I've heard them several times.

Three, the street-widening motive is one that really needs to be fought. Does Manhattan widen streets? The wider the streets, the less safe and livable the area is.

Four, the parking issue. I hear this often, that failing to provide onsite at-grade parking is poison to the development project. But I have to wonder why that is only true in Houston. In any event, shouldn't the so-called market decide that?

Five, the neighborhood parking issue is one that you simply can't understand if you've lived in a pedestrian-transit city like New York. The notion that the street in front of someone's house would be private in some way is just amazing. Of course, it's probably the same issue that makes some people not want sidewalks in front of their house, because then people would walk by.

Finally, there is another important aspect to the codes in addition to the purely sub-urban direction. That is, in Chapter 42 there is a definition of the "Urban Zone" that is purely nonsensical. It is that everything inside Loop 610 is Urban. And then it says that everything outside 610 is Suburban. So the little sub-urban neighborhood of Afton Oaks is urban and the the entire Uptown district is suburban, even though it has more jobs than downtowm Miami or San Diego and has 30,000 residents.

This definition is something it seems to me architects should get to work on. Urban should describe urban characteristics, not geography. So you would wind up with, say a light rail station intersection being designated urban and possibly the single-family house areas a couple of blocks away be sub-urban.

[musicman]

In fact, during the first CVS Midtown fight, CVS made the case that their design was precisely what the code calls for and they weren't in the business of fighting against code. So they built a purely sub-urban store.

vs what? there were many midtown residents saying that CVS should put housing above the store, etc. they aren't in that business either. if you want to regulate it to the point for forcing a property owner to put a certain design of building, etc, it will only increase the price of construction and may limit who would be interested in the property i.e. hinder potential development

Five, the neighborhood parking issue is one that you simply can't understand if you've lived in a pedestrian-transit city like New York. The notion that the street in front of someone's house would be private in some way is just amazing. Of course, it's probably the same issue that makes some people not want sidewalks in front of their house, because then people would walk by.

This is a big quality of life issue and people go before the planning board frequently to complain about lack of parking and increase in traffic through the neighborhood. if you live on a street like this, the appraisal district board member told me that they'd lower your property value if you point it out during your protest and have pics. i know someone who's successfully used a similar strategy in the heights when she protested

[BryanS]

Five, the neighborhood parking issue is one that you simply can't understand if you've lived in a pedestrian-transit city like New York. The notion that the street in front of someone's house would be private in some way is just amazing. Of course, it's probably the same issue that makes some people not want sidewalks in front of their house, because then people would walk by.

It's not about privacy, or owning that section of street in front of your house. It's about safety, and not *blocking* access to my property. When the neighbor's house next door, which might have been converted into a Mexican food restaurant, catches fire... and then the fire starts to encroach onto your home... how are the fire trucks going to get down a narrow street, lined with cars, bumper-to-bumper, on both sides?

[David Crossley]

It's not about privacy, or owning that section of street in front of your house. It's about safety, and not *blocking* access to my property. When the neighbor's house next door, which might have been converted into a Mexican food restaurant, catches fire... and then the fire starts to encroach onto your home... how are the fire trucks going to get down a narrow street, lined with cars, bumper-to-bumper, on both sides?

Yes, I understand the issues. The fire truck thing has been much debated around the country, and urban approaches to streets and roads is doing very well in that discussion. In any event, all I was saying is that I have lived in a place for quite a while where cars were basically a nuisance and beside the point. The person in that environment who doesn't have a car really doesn't care about the car issues except insofar as they degrade the pedestrian environment. Parked cars make that environment safer, so they tend to like that. It was just an observation about how different perspective can be.

[David Crossley]

There were two separate efforts involving the CVS development. The important one had entirely to do with the placement of the building on the property and its access from the crosswalks. There was already the very urban Post Midtown project on two corners, and a little urban park on the third. Simply moving the store to the sidewalk at the corner and having a door there would have solved the whole thing. Would have been a great intersection.

The effort to expand the uses of the property immediately, by having either housing or offices or both on a second floor, was really just a reasonable suggestion, but no one envisioned any sort of requirement to do that. That could happen in some places around the Urban Corridors project. But it was way secondary to the first goal about placement.

[musicman]

There were two separate efforts involving the CVS development. The important one had entirely to do with the placement of the building on the property and its access from the crosswalks. There was already the very urban Post Midtown project on two corners, and a little urban park on the third. Simply moving the store to the sidewalk at the corner and having a door there would have solved the whole thing. Would have been a great intersection.

so all the other strips centers in midtown must really give you heartache.

The effort to expand the uses of the property immediately, by having either housing or offices or both on a second floor, was really just a reasonable suggestion

so having a business add housing on top is a reasonable suggestion? LOL if you were the property owner and wanted to build a store and people made this "reasonable suggestion" i'm sure you'd ignore it just like cvs did. it would cost you too much money!

[BryanS]

Yes, I understand the issues. The fire truck thing has been much debated around the country, and urban approaches to streets and roads is doing very well in that discussion. In any event, all I was saying is that I have lived in a place for quite a while where cars were basically a nuisance and beside the point. The person in that environment who doesn't have a car really doesn't care about the car issues except insofar as they degrade the pedestrian environment. Parked cars make that environment safer, so they tend to like that. It was just an observation about how different perspective can be.

If you live *in* downtown (Herman Lofts, Rice Lofts, those kinds of places), and you work downtown... then you probably don't need a car... and is probably similar to the other places you have lived.

The CVS, located in midtown, fits the area well. Mostly, midtown is the college 2.0 crowd, and a lot guys who went to Texas universities need room and space to park their trucks. And their girlfriends need places to park their Honda Civics. We shouldn't try to force or transform midtown into something its not. The CVS is a legal structure.

[lockmat]

Thought I'd pass this site along...

Form-based Codes Institute

http://www.formbasedcodes.org/index.html