Form-based codes vs. design guidelines (vs. historic preservation)

This is an interesting exchange from an e-list, discussing form based codes (adds design to traditional zoning regulations, with a greater focus on the impact on overall urban form rather than being only focused on what can be done on a lot):

Dean wrote:

In my experience, a community will go through several phases of 'design sensitization':

1) Historic Preservation, or Conservation, District (spurred on by some development threat to an older adored community neighborhood, or a threat to the character of the neighborhood's architecture from poorly designed re-muddles)

2) Design Guideline (after there's a realization that the form-giving and oversight components from Historic Districts could benefit some non-historic areas of a city -- CBD's, or Main Streets. DG's also allow for transitional rules from one zone to another, which is generally lacking in Historic Districts -- you are either in one or out, and the rules apply or don't), and then

3) Form-based Code (attained after the two previous steps were proven successful).

'Course, at each one of these steps a failure could occur (inexperienced staff, over-reaching or over-zealous oversight committees, political favoritism, or a general backlash from businesses -- which can usually be traced back to one or all of the before-mentioned reasons). If that happens, I think the progression stops cold.

Bill writes:

This progression is a very common scenario!

Moving from 2) to 3) can vary a long way from this description, however -- here are just a couple of ways:

A-- The guidelines WERE NOT successful -- either because they were too vague to be deemed "fair" by those affected; or administered in a less-than-evenhanded way, often by a lay board that tried hard but ended up with inconsistent decisions; or were just out of sync with the community, for instance intending to promote a particular architectural style that wasn't widely accepted.

B-- The guidelines WERE successful under their own terms, but weren't a sufficient tool to achieve important community goals that the framers had thought they could achieve. I think of Sedona AZ's highly successful design guidelines that make sprawling development as pretty as it can be, using architectural motifs that help make Sedona such a distinctive place. Sedona's interest in form-based codes is an acknowledgment that design guidelines don't control critical aspects of development such as the creation of an urban block structure where it doesn't exist, and the careful placement of buildings to create mutually reinforcing walkable urbanism.

-----------
DC hasn't made the progression from historic preservation related design guidelines to a greater recognition that design and the overall quality of urban form matter throughout the city, whether or not an area is designated a historic district or a building is landmarked.

Part of this is resistance on the part of developers and the politicians they control. Another is a degradation of the understanding of beauty and quality and history. For a city that has a real history, one inextricably bound with the nation, it is amazing how much of focus of people on history tends to not go much beyond the last 50 years.

The Office of Planning and the Transportation Planning unit of the Department of Transportation produce a lot of decent plans, but the meta-questions aren't really being addressed in a substantive way, as we see in the arguments within neighborhoods over most planning processes.

And there doesn't seem to be significant recognition of the importance of the built environment to DC's competitive advantage.

In the two years since the passage of the present 2006 Revised Comprehensive Land Use Plan in DC, I am now even more convinced that a point I made frequently in various testimonies is true: That the Urban Design Element should be considered the primary element within the Plan, that it should guide how the other elements are expressed. The #2 Element should be Transportation. (But written 10 times better than the DC Element is written currently, see the Arlington County Transportation Plan for guidance). Then Land Use as #3.

When all elements are considered equal, zoning regulations that guide the decisions on a property by property basis will trump everything else. It doesn't matter how well all the various elements read, especially when developers don't read them, and the pressure is on to favor developers (see "Neil Albert keeps the RFPs coming, but can he deliver" from the Washington Business Journal), not the overall quality of the city's built form.