|
. general characterization of the community, such as suburban, The study focussed on the crafting of effective and
<br /> rural, small town,closelyknit,ethnicallydiverse(or3 • , appropriate design guidelines rather than design review
<br /> homogeneous),low-density,slow-paced,upper-middle class, mechanisms. Based on a qualitative evaluation of existing
<br /> and so on. design guidelines,the following recommendations for
<br /> - Design guidelines of small town or rural communities improvements are made.
<br /> appear to be very much like those of urban communities. Like
<br /> - their urban counterparts,small towns place heavy emphasis on 1. Design guidelines should clearly define what each
<br /> ` community means by compatibility with community
<br /> architectural design details, rather than maintaining
<br /> :h= harmonious relationships between the natural landscape and character or harmony with existing surroundings.Legal
<br /> � man-made structures. problems involving public design control often center
<br /> •-' ' around the issue of arbitrariness. The courts have criticized
<br /> ... =s,
<br /> codes for having Interpretation of Compatibility and Harmony.There are a local "va gue standards that are beyond
<br /> number of ways that communities have tried to use design any real definition or interpretation"but have validated a
<br /> community's ordinance if it contains narrowing standards.
<br /> criteria and standards to ensure compatibility with community
<br /> character. Arcata,California, seeks a"sensitivity to existing 2. A citywide urban design study should precede the
<br /> •::''` architecture."Concord,California,requires the cornice lines, determination of community character or image that is
<br /> ; openings,and materials of new structures to be similar to to be protected,enhanced,or created.Citywide urban
<br /> Y'~ those of adjacent buildings;Honolulu,Hawaii,limits new design policy,although ignored by the majority of
<br /> residential development P to that which is compatible P with the communities responding to the survey,has an important
<br /> ?: existing character and lifestyle,in both rural areas and built-up role to play;it helps to integrate the different
<br /> neighborhoods;and Norfolk,Virginia,requires that"If a characteristics of special districts. A community's physical
<br /> z. .' covered porch is being constructed and if at least one adjacent setting,on a regional as well as local scale,should be
<br /> building has a covered porch,then the height of the cornice or studied before establishing criteria to judge compatibility
<br /> soffit line of the porch should be consistent with the height of with community character.
<br /> the adjacent porch(es)."
<br /> •
<br /> Most design standards overemphasize"similarity"when 3. Survey(s)of citizens'perceptions of the character or
<br /> expressing the concept of harmony and compatibility. The image of the community should be conducted to form a
<br /> compatibility standards in some communities attempt to make basis for design guidelines.A consensus between citizens,
<br /> the business sector,and developers on what matters in
<br /> a new development conform to the design vocabularies
<br /> ' terms of community character can lay the political basis for
<br /> adopted by existing developments communitywide, while
<br /> others require compatibility within the same block. Building support of a design review system.
<br /> • scale and massing,trees,and landscaping are the elements 4. Application of public design control should be limited to
<br /> most often required to be compatible with the adjacent specially designated community areas.Public design
<br /> structure or development. (See the codes of Antioch,San Jose, controls that are applied to carefully determined areas are
<br /> and Norfolk, California). Such overemphasis on similarity of more flexible,effective,and appropriate than those applied
<br /> °''`` design.
<br /> innovative discourages design
<br /> � g gcommunitywide or to an entire zoning district. An
<br /> ` h Some communities(e.g., New Castle,New York,and exception may be made made for very small communities
<br /> • Pacifica,California)are known to have ordinances that with a high degree of sociocultural and physical
<br /> ` include both compatibility requirements and anti-look-alike homogeneity.
<br /> x f� regulations(Duerksen 1987).The communities in this survey
<br /> 5. Content and organization of design guidelines should
<br /> , • also attempt to incorporate the concept of contrasting
<br /> relationships into their compatibility requirements. As be simple and focussed,with clear priorities for
<br /> ': agenda,criteria,and standards.An illusion exists that
<br /> ••, described below,a few communities attempt to cope with the
<br /> problem of"too much compatibility." design guidelines with many control elements and a high
<br /> •, , �.
<br /> specificity in standards are more comprehensive. Design
<br /> ;:i• Avoiding Monotony and Excessive Uniformity.A small criteria responding to the interests of a broad segment of
<br /> number of communities stress the avoidance of sameness, the community's population should receive emphasis. An
<br /> "' "=u identifiable character maybe submerged byguidelines
<br /> •t because of the potential damage caused by lack of innovation. g' For example, Poway, California,encourages greater variety that emphasize all elements of control equally by
<br /> in housing design for multiple-family residential development, assigning the same degree of specificity.
<br /> while Imperial Beach and West Hollywood,California,
<br /> • 6. The level of specificity of guidelines,criteria,and
<br /> • iF suggest that harmony can also be achieved by means of standards should be controlled.To avoid monotony or
<br /> 5t;t.' contrast. Nevertheless, seldom does a community successfully
<br /> an unreal or stage-set image,limit the specificity of
<br /> gib:.. .., present in their guidelines how harmony or compatibility can controls. One way to increase articulation without
<br /> Fa
<br /> be implemented without copying existing styles, much less resorting to higher specificity in design standards might
<br /> ,< how innovation or creativity in design might be achieved.The
<br /> ° be to provide more alternative design solutions as
<br /> �_=
<br />
|