And it was all designed and built with only a handful of zoning codes.  No one needs to be legislating what every street should look like. Form based codes don't result in neighborhoods that look like OTR, they result in things that look more like The Banks and University Park Apartments.  OTR came about because nothing was legislating form and style.

 

I have two problems with this statement.

 

1) UPA and The Banks were built during curing Euclidean Zoning, not FBC. If you have actual examples of FBC creating places like these, please tell. I would love to see examples of poor FBC so I am more knowledgeable on it.

 

2) Just because OTR came about when there was nothing legislating form and style doesn't mean that present day construction would emulate this type of creativity or craftsmanship if regulations were lifted entirely. Nowadays it seems that a reduction in regulation would generally result in cheap construction that feels out of place. Construction was a completely different industry in the 1860's. You seem (as my interpretation sees it) to be promoting the elimination of any building requirements and assuming that we will be just fine. I strongly disagree with that if this is what you are implying.

Simply look at the Gateway Garage and Condos at Central Parkway and Vine or the Crossroads Health Center at Liberty and Vine to see examples of how current zoning has damaged the fabric of those areas. Do you really believe that if zoning was eliminated, the development would have been more sensitive to OTR's character and existing building stock? I'm not saying that the current zoning did a good job, but I would hate to see the consequences of no regulation.

^ Show me a single example of an aesthetically pleasant area that has come out of a form based code.  Seaside, Florida is generally regarded as aesthetically horrendous by architects, yet paraded as a model of urban design by planners.  I used UPA and The Banks as examples because they are local and exactly the type of form that FBC's call for.  Why would anyone want to fill a city up with that is beyond me.

 

I also don't know where I ever said zoning should be eliminated.  I said parts of the current code should be trimmed back.  No parking requirements, more neighborhood overlays, fewer zone types/more mixed use, etc. are just a few examples. The code should be simple and succinct, requiring certain density and setbacks, it shouldn't spell out glazing percentages and floor heights.

 

Put very simply: people like lots of flavors, but if you try to force everyone to have one single flavor, it's going to be vanilla.  FBC gets you exactly that, vanilla cities. 

FBC may dictate form, but they don't dictate style. Perhaps the ugliness of those developments are more reflective of the architect's lack of skill, value engineering, or some other cause.

 

FBCs dictate things like floor area ration, density, etc, not architectural detailing like balconies, cornices, or trimwork.

Form-based codes generally do prescribe things like the amount of windows on the first floor, built-to lines, etc., so in a way it does dictate some level of style.  That's not to say the problem isn't the lack of skill on the part of the designer.  There's countless ways to achieve 70% glass on the first floor of any building in all styles from traditional to contemporary. 

 

Also, don't fall into the Houston trap.  It may not have land-use zoning, but it has all of the parking minimums, setbacks, floor area ratios, and other crap that makes Euclidian zoning so awful. 

 

I would also add that harmony, consistency, homogeneity, or whatever you want to call it is not a bad thing when it's all excellent stuff.  The monotony of suburbia is awful because they repeat the same crap over and over (big box stores, fast food outlets, parking lots, etc.).  The monotony of Paris is one of its strengths.  It may not have a lot of variety, but it's meticulously designed and well cared for.  It also allows the truly monumental buildings, the civic institutions, etc., to really stand out.  This is the pattern all over Europe, where the workaday buildings are pretty simple but still quite nice in their execution, while the grand buildings pop.

I asked this in the streetcar thread before it was split up, but can anyone refer me to good, concise reading material on zoning?  I don't have a planning background, but I'd like to learn more on the subject.

This isn't the best book on the subject, but it's very accessible- http://www.amazon.com/Suburban-Nation-Sprawl-Decline-American/dp/0865477507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334776860&sr=8-1

^ Show me a single example of an aesthetically pleasant area that has come out of a form based code.  Seaside, Florida is generally regarded as aesthetically horrendous by architects, yet paraded as a model of urban design by planners.  I used UPA and The Banks as examples because they are local and exactly the type of form that FBC's call for.  Why would anyone want to fill a city up with that is beyond me.

 

I also don't know where I ever said zoning should be eliminated.  I said parts of the current code should be trimmed back.  No parking requirements, more neighborhood overlays, fewer zone types/more mixed use, etc. are just a few examples. The code should be simple and succinct, requiring certain density and setbacks, it shouldn't spell out glazing percentages and floor heights.

 

Put very simply: people like lots of flavors, but if you try to force everyone to have one single flavor, it's going to be vanilla.  FBC gets you exactly that, vanilla cities. 

 

Just because a place is regarded as aesthetically horrendous by architects doesn't mean it is regarded so by the people for whom it has been built to serve.  I hesitated to post this fearing the response that the general public doesn't find strip malls aesthetically horrendous, but I actually think people do recognize that they're ugly.  They have just been conditioned to accept them in spite of their myriad design flaws.  Place a strip mall next to even lower quality urban infill and most people would say the low quality infill is more attractive.  Place a structure from Seaside, or Kentlands, or some other well-planned development next to a similar structure considered by architects to be more aesthetically pleasing, and I think the results would be more mixed.

 

This isn't the best book on the subject, but it's very accessible- http://www.amazon.com/Suburban-Nation-Sprawl-Decline-American/dp/0865477507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334776860&sr=8-1

 

A great recommendation - unfortunately, I've already read it.  I probably wasn't clear enough in my previous post.  I'm not in the planning profession, but I am fairly well read on New Urbanism and I have a real estate finance background.  What I'm trying to find is something that goes into more detail on the various codes without being so overly technical that I won't understand it.  If it helps, I've understood what has been discussed in this topic, though I was previously unfamiliar with the specific distinctions between form-based and Euclidean codes.

I just bought this book but I've read plenty of articles by the author. She's very good at talking about the history of the urban form, and describing the transect and fbc's: http://www.amazon.com/City-Rules-Regulations-Affect-Urban/dp/1597266922

I figure this is the best thread to post a link to an article about easing parking requirements for developments in OTR:

 

Easing Development Requirements for a More affordable, Pedestrian-Friendly OTR