Archive for October, 2010

The city of Indianapolis uses a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances as their main tool of city planning (see current zoning codes; or see Indy’s zoning synopsis).  The purpose of our zoning code is to resolve conflicts between land uses by separating them (Euclidean style).  Obviously, there are some land uses that don’t fit well together.  A quick example would be an adult entertainment venue next to an elementary school.  Nobody thinks that these activities belong next to each other, so the natural solution is to just keep them separated by a healthy distance.

The West Washington Street corridor from Eagle Creek to I-465 is typical of Indianapolis zoning patterns

The problem is that conflict resolution solely by separating land uses is a bad way to run a city.  When land is abundant and cheap, such as in suburban or rural areas, developers can just move a little further down the line.  But in dense cities, and cities trying to become more dense, land is no longer a commodity.  It is a precious resource.

Type D-3 zoning does not encourage urban development, even though it is recommended for many neighborhoods in the city in the city

In this case, conflict resolution by separation is not the best choice.  Cities have begun to realize what every schoolteacher already knows – teaching people to share is a better solution.  Critics of zoning have found the following problems with conventional zoning ordinances:

• it is a favorite tool of NIMBY-ism; high density projects are often thrown out in the rezoning process
• it can be used to block lower-income residents from finding jobs and affordable housing in good neighborhoods
• it turns the traditional, compact American neighborhood into an illegal form of development
• it forces sprawl by preventing co-location of compatible uses, by forcing unpopular uses to the outer fringe of cities, by spreading buildings apart, and by mandating minimum parking requirements
• it prevents the evolution of dense neighborhoods because the initial low density land uses mandated by the code cannot be reconfigured without a huge investment or legal challenge

The worst failure of zoning, and all of our city planning in fact, may be that it does not prevent our worst nightmares:  an ugly building next door with lots of new auto traffic.  I believe a major reform is necessary.

The New Urbanists have a solution to this zoning problem, and it’s called Form Based Codes.  In fact, Duany/Plater-Zyberk have cooked up a freely available template that any city can use as an alternative process, it is called SMARTCODE.  Based on Smart Growth neighborhood principles, it’s an easy way for cities to get what they want from the zoning process without spending a decade rewriting their own codes.

Form Based Codes encourages urban development that creates places

(image source)

Several US cities such as Miama, FL, Petaluma, CA, and Montgomery, AL, have enacted Smartcodes, and there are add-on modules for issues such as sustainability, light pollution, and other problems that can be addressed by zoning.  Form based codes may be Indy’s best shot at getting good urban design in areas surrounding the central canal or Lucas Oil Stadium.  Form based codes would be a great way for Indianapolis to regulate zoning in way that makes city planning possible and maximizes the benefit from public investment in our urban spaces.

The concept of an alternate compliance method is not new for Indianapolis.  In fact, the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative is working great for Indy’s Office of Sustainability.  Because of this alternate compliance method, projects can now meet stormwater requirements with rain gardens, green roofs, and several other “non-conventional” practices.  Incorporating an alternate form-based code with expedited permitting process similar to the sustainability code is a great way to make our city more walkable, interesting, and beautiful.

Recently the question has been raised how to fix an ugly building, mostly in regards to the Di Rimini (and here and here and especially here).  It is a hard question to answer without first discussing what “ugly” means. While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are obvious problems with treating a building purely as sculpture and ignoring its contribution to the urban environment beyond aesthetics.

Ugly

Buildings can be ugly in many ways.  Some turn their back on the street, showing a blank concrete or sheetmetal wall.  Some use such cheap materials that their facades disintegrate within a decade.  Some are unconscionable mixtures of architectural styles that blend into an incoherent bloody mess.  Some are multiple offenders.

Fortunately, designers have many ways to improve a building’s appearance and functionality without wiping the slate clean.  An industrial building in my neighborhood serves a good first example.  The structure was built right in the heart of the historic district and presented a brutal precast concrete face to the neighborhood.

Ugly

Adaptive reuse by a local firm in 2008-2009 resulted in a new appearance and some good activity within the space. By using a modern scheme of awnings and accentuating the windows, the designers drew out the positive aspects of the building.  It’s not a perfect fix, but it shows that the space is cared for and that the owners care about its place in the neighborhood.

The renovated building now hosts a design factory, an architecture firm, and technology firms

The updates were simple but effective

Another example of an ugly building is the site at the corner of Virginia and Washington.  One of the most important street corners of Ralston’s original plan for Indianapolis, it has been host to some of the best and the worst buildings in Indy history.  The fun part about this one is that the votes for best and worst flip around depending on who you ask.

The original building was a ornate flatiron style building called the Indiana Trust building.  (See Vance-Block building history).  This was demolished in 1959 to make way for a modern building for Merchants Bank. It lost the urban density, street-level retail, and historic urban texture of the previous building.  The new structure also introduced a drive-thru and a facade meant to be appreciated at 40mph.

The "Zipper Building" was a famous Modernist landmark

The quest for modernism claimed another victim in 1959, but the result was a structure that some hoped would be even more timeless in its beauty.  The debate over the new building was a reflection over a more universal debate:  what is the role of historic preservation in our cities?

The new owners changed the facade of the zipper building in 2007.  I will recuse myself for professional reasons and not offer an opinion on this one, but I am interested in what people think.  Was the loss of a modernist building just another missed opportunity to preserve our heritage, or does the new facade and street level commercial space fix an ugly building that was never meant to be there?

The new Broadbent building recalls the historic buildings once on site

The newer design allows for a more active streetscape

Most importantly, do these examples give us any ideas on how to deal with our current stock of ugly buildings?  Should we enthusiastically preserve ugly buildings as part of our urban history or should we focus on converting them into buildings that fit downtown?