A new development review process
Does the traditional process of development review get us the development/outcome that we want? Does it get us communities with Heart and Soul?
A huge amount of work goes into developing prescriptive regulations, but once new regulations are adopted community expectations have often changed. Community can write broad goals “don't want to be 'anywhere USA' but how does that create a predictable environment for design professionals?”
Citizens and developers want predictability. Especially in VT where one person can appeal a project?
A lot of standards are based on myth that you can regulate good design.
If the community wants it, how can you deliver it?
Good designers and good developers give you good project.
Zoning is better at preventing bad things.
From historic preservation point, how do we preserve our legacies? Regulations might prohibit tight neighborhoods? Are we better off having no regulations?
There are bad developers. We can't just leave it up to designers. Developers employ designers. Developers may be driven by cost.
There are good projects and bad projects, but there is a fundamental problem with the process. Don't create a cohesive whole. Should every community hire someone to create a visual master plan? It can be really expensive.
On conceptual level, don't start with zoning, start with planning. Need planning process that goes to deeper level. What specifically do you want this to be like?
James Kent spoke yesterday-In west annexation may leave blurry lines between communities. Had residents write narrative in master plan about what they liked and why they continued to live there. These were incorporated into development review process.
Middlebury has done a lot to document character and what it translates to. But doesn't mean there is a collective vision.
Does master planning lead to a lack of authenticity. Do we create a “Disney World” historic village?
Functional relationships of neighborhoods- use local materials or built to local environment.
Visualizing density workshop- everyone gravitated to the one that looked most organic. How do you implement organic development? Phasing? Form-based?
Community wouldn't let go of “vice grips.” But you can never think of everything - wise to leave room for open sense. Don't want prejudice, but it is predictable. Middlebury created design advisory process of design professionals. Intent was to try to help applicants to the extent they want to be helped. Hasn't worked out that way- sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.
Iowa City, population 65,000, has a handful of “good ole boy” developers controlling most of development - neighborhoods they build lack character. People are transient. Don't think you can legislate character, but go back to function. Did basic things in ordinance, example required garages on back alley. Require sidewalks so kids can walk to school.
Planning is really important. Having great architects doesn't solve. Authenticity may be clue we need to look at.
Historic towns- architecture is doing crazy things- ugly buildings next to beautiful buildings - but aesthetically held together by other things- trees, sidewalks. Architecture is irrelevant if you have beautiful streetscape.
Developers focus on design of homes, Iowa City tries to focus on functionality of neighborhood. Focus on public spaces- i.e. streets. Focus on function and looks will follow.
If you are master planning, do you start with streetscape and then let the buildings fill in? It is different for small towns vs. larger towns. Smaller review more small projects.
Big cities have more competition among developers, and more variety and choices. In small towns with few developers may get more monotony.
James Kent mentioned importance of small storefronts- found should be no more than 15ft wide. Problem is people who own land and business will argue that no one will buy.
But which comes first - willing developers or regulations?
Middlebury had project that has gradually gone from mixed-use LEED to a box. Developer is saying market didn't respond. Board will play a game of political chicken.
Northampton, MA - beautiful downtown just awarded by APA. Tried to extend downtown zoning along commercial strip. Developers say they can't market.
If you have a vision, your decision should be based on that vision.
If the stuff that happens organically can't happen, example, mini storage is a temporary use. If we hold out are we prohibiting a transitional process of organic development?
But you have to look at that in the meantime.
Middlebury's South Village plan isn't going to happen for 20-30 years because market keeps changing. Won't all be built at once?
If you have a good thing going should you make it bigger if the market isn't ready yet?
What about public-private partnerships to get over the hurdle of the market not being ready? Have economic development organizations, for example.
Is this authentic? Historically things didn't always happen because they made economic sense.
Generic grocery stores look like anywhere USA. Can you use public-private partnership to get individual to create a grocery store in a community? How do you combat globalization?
Example is City Market in Burlington.
Grocery stores have particular layouts they will say they must adhere to. But when they want to be downtown they will change their layout; same thing with big box store. Is most economic to build their usual format.
Had deteriorating grocery store downtown and worked with them to find creative solution for expanding; now very popular and merges into downtown. Grocery store was grandfathered in regulations.
Modular buildings? Idea of building buildings that can accommodate narrow storefronts. Could maintain facade, but create space?
There are more modular applications in Europe.
Module would allow flexibility. Not disposable.
Can be hard from a design point of view, making a building that is flexible. A community could require a building to last for a certain number of years, made of durable materials.
Within a solidly constructed downtown, you could have different uses.
If a town was going to let designers do design, what if you required zero net energy.
Think will happen at some point. Will have standards for how buildings perform.
Would be good to have a better distribution system for information, particularly to smaller communities, about new technologies. Don't have the people with expertise. Michelle Long gave example of providing resources to a business that wants to be bike friendly.
Most efficient way to address energy is collectively. Manhattan has lowest per capita use. Dense, no one drives, have distributed heat/power.
Buckminster Fuller suggested geodesic dome. People said “holy shit” and laughed off. Ideas whose time hasn't come…
May not be true to generalize about people. If you can find a way to help people elevate quality and health, they will. Want to do the best they can if they are given options.
Town in Southern Alberta Canada is going for zero energy approach. Require houses to have solar panels for heat and power. Have collective solar water heating in Okotoks, Canada.
Would towns be better off to focus on infrastructure planning and public spaces (roads and streetscapes) and have form-based guidance, but let designers to the designs within that framework?
Was how old towns formed?
Infrastructure is so expensive now- looking for developers to do.
But when talking about downtown, has to be led by community. Developers would rather go out in a field where it's less expensive.
But the sense of “much cheaper” is artificial. Could change tax policy to change that. If VT didn't allow on-site septic, our problem of sprawl would go away.
Local decisions are happening within the context of state and federal policies.
Morrisville, VT has been asked by State to accommodate alternative truck route. Not a lot of options for where it could go. Have wetlands and wildlife protection areas.
Break into pieces that politically you can bite off. Focus on area where you could write form-based, then peal away another prejudice. Look at hidden design in zoning. Have design competitions and let designers go. How can we nurture that, not just appearance, but energy component? Rewards should be that decisions are less appealable. Is hard to tell a neighborhood you are going to take away their rights to appeal. Don't want to give it up. Have to work on site-by-site basis. Work where people are desperate to do something.
Working on updating plan and regulations in Putnam, CT - will take back this information to go home and review.
Answer won't come from us - hard to see forest through the trees - a radical “bright idea” will come from someone looking in from the outside. We are too enmeshed in process. Don't think our communities are very satisfied with how planning works. Keep asking, “Are we getting the outcomes we want?”
Planning is about incremental changes. Great if someone sweeps in, but incremental processes created all regulations related to a time and place. As circumstances change, keep processes open. Create processes that bring people to the table and continue to make incremental change.