As a result of homogeneous suburban neighborhoods and the commercial expansion of the highway, there is a strong emphasis on the design and shape of our built environment. One of the driving influences is to design places for people instead of cars. The expansive sea of asphalt in front of the shops or a row of unbreakable garage doors in a residential street is vehicle-based design. Interesting streets designed for pedestrian comfort are today the vision of landscaping. This article will first look at managing the rise in land use, its beginnings, and the resulting urban form. Next, alternative growth management techniques using the form of development will be examined.
Chapter One; Land Use Results
Land use controls began in New York in 1870 with the Habitat Acts and have been the primary growth management method in this country ever since. Like any system, there are intended and unintended consequences inherent in the application of a process. In the case of land use growth management, the results have created many soulless, car-oriented places. This chapter explores the history of our current state and examines our behavior and thoughts as a consequence of controlling the growth of land use.
LAND USE AS A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROCESS; BEGINNING OF ZONING
1916. New York; a fair building
A Fair Building was built and its considerable volume caused public unrest. Opponents of the building were outraged at the unprecedented volume of the building casting a 7-acre shadow on the surrounding streets. In response, the city adopted a Zoning Resolution of 1916 that limited the height of the building and required a deadlock for new buildings to allow sunlight to penetrate to street level. In particular, new buildings had to be gradually withdrawn at a certain angle from the street as they rose, in order to preserve the sunlight and the open atmosphere in their surroundings for the good of the city’s residents.
Zoning codified; Euclid v Ambler Realty, 1926
Ambler Realty owned 68 acres of land in the village of Euclid, a suburb of Cleveland. In an effort to prevent and replace Cleveland industrial Euclid and replace it and prevent the change of character of the village, a zoning ordinance was developed based on 6 use classes (residential, industrial and commercial), 3 height classes and 4 area classes.
The property in question was divided into three classes of use, as well as different classes of height and area, thus hampering the development of land for industrial use by Ambler Realty. Ambler Realty sued the village, claiming that the zoning ordinance significantly reduced the value of the land by restricting it to use, which deprived Ambler of his freedom and property without due process. The court concluded that the zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the police power of the village, the ordinance had a rational basis and did not have the character of an arbitrary fiat, and therefore the zoning ordinance was not unconstitutional.
Colors on the map
In time Euclid , zoning was a relatively new concept, and it was really annoying that it was an unreasonable interference with private property rights for the government to limit how the owner could use the property. The court, finding that there was a valid government interest in maintaining the character of the neighborhood and in arranging where certain land uses should occur, allowed for a subsequent explosion in zoning ordinances across the country.
Results of land use control
Planning has long been dominated by land-use issues, which are an unpleasant means of controlling growth, as evidenced by the miles of commercial highway expansion and car-dominated life. The main aspect of land use control is that neighboring land use must be compatible with each other. As a result, vast areas of similar land use have all been developed in the name of compatibility. This then caused the car to rely entirely on traveling from remote suburban homes to jobs, shops, schools and entertainment.
The word suburb was first used in the 14th century to describe a residential area outside the city walls; between the city and the village. These first homes outside the metropolitan area were for the poor and agrarian workers outside the city’s security. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, cities not only became denser, but less healthy and dirty with primitive sanitation. The rich were the only ones who could afford to escape these early urban conditions by relocating to the country in their original suburban development. The first suburb consisted of large lots designed at an English landscape school, such as Riverside outside Chicago and Llewellyn Park outside New York. Preserved open space systems, meandering pathways, stressed cavities all in a natural setting become a suburban design model for these early divisions, all in a very park environment.
A better suburban model?
1929 Clarence Stein and Henry Wright designed Radburn, New Jersey, twelve miles outside New York. Known as the first “Garden City” in America for its open space system, Radburn has been promoted as the “Motorcycle Age,” as it was the first community to plan this car. Radburn has struggled with the established low-density suburban practice by offering small parcel sizes. The average size of the lot was forty-five hundred square meters in front of the street and on the connected open space system at the back. An open space system associated with commercial or civilian use provides a powerful pedestrian circulation system that has been separated from the in-vehicle movement system. The primary technique of separating pedestrians and cars was known as the superblock; a large block of land surrounded by major roads. The houses are grouped around small scenery, each connected by a major assembly line, introducing a superior concept to the suburbs.
Suburbia HO! [1945[1945
After World War II, there was a dramatic, national housing shortage. The lack of housing during the war coupled with the return of millions of young men, many who started families, created a critical shortage of housing. Between 1950 and 1960, new suburban development on the outskirts of American cities drew 20 million residents. One response to the demand for suburban housing has been the development of new communities of primarily single-family homes. The pattern of development of these new subdivisions borrowed from historic suburban antecedents; unfortunately, most of these suburban design ideals are lost in translation, retaining only design techniques.
The war effort resulted in the industry being more efficient (production lines) and producing much more cost-effective products; specifically applies to cars and housing. While suburbs were historically exclusively the domain of the rich, they were now open to the working class. So cars and the freedom they provide have opened up suddenly new suburbs in Central America.
Abe Levitt built a mass-produced housing for the war effort. This bargain product translated to a potato farm on Long Island with Levittown. It has become a home community of 14,000 loosely based on a historic suburb model; However, translation has lost open spaces, conservation of natural systems, pedestrian orientation, and stressed views. All that’s really left is the winding streets.
The houses were small two bedrooms, one bathroom with a kitchen from the street, no garage or parking, on a quarter-acre lot. The price was affordable, breaking away from the elitist past of earlier communities. It became a status of working-class status that was “received” in previously unreachable suburbs. To evoke a vision of the past exclusive suburbs of past prices, the streets were laid out in a meandering pattern of English landscape school. However, given that it was flat farmland, there were several natural properties that provided the basis for the organization of the landscaping. The poaching pattern of the subdivision design was a mere effect without the design purpose of Riverside or Radburn.
Ranch House; 1954
Levittown also introduced a ranch house (wide and deep) illustrating the suburban mantra of cheap, plentiful land. The remodeled floor plan moved the kitchen toward the back of the yard while adding a trolley to the front. This was based on the Radburn model which made the yard a family private retreat while the front yard was the domain of the car (the primary transportation option) which was proudly displayed in front of the house.
The result of the suburban pattern
Combining a lack of strong pedestrian orientation with mandatory parking or garages, Leavitt remodeled suburbs for the car. The curved streets were for cars. The front yard had no purpose other than parking the car and ceremonial aesthetics as the family retreated toward the private sanctity of the yard. A new and prevalent suburban model has emerged. Huge sections of mono-land use (which are compatible with each other) all connected by a dendritic system of roads (arteries, collectors, locals) that are incompatible with residential use. This leads to a linear configuration of commercial use along major thoroughfares, and then leads to the scale of cars as the dominant development theme for commercial highway lanes.
Color map results
Land use compatibility requires that different land uses be physically separated as a mitigation measure. This, in turn, causes similar land uses to be grouped together, separating housing from jobs from retail to civic. The only means of transition between land use requires travel; usually by car. This exhibit is an example of “compatibility” from a land use / zoning perspective. A neighboring aerial photo of a detached family home in the background is “packed with walls and physical separation” from commercial use. However, the only way to buy milk at a nearby grocery store is to drive your own out onto the collector streets to bypass the artery street and reach a commercial purpose that is actually close to the living space. Because similar land use is considered compatible, vast areas of the community end up with the same land use. basic needs are excluded from residential areas. A classic example of this homogeneous pattern of land use is the single-family spread that spans the landscape. Neighboring land use similar causes far greater problems than mixing incompatible uses; poor and expensive public services, a wider carbon footprint, increased fossil fuel consumption and lost time in transport are the result of this development pattern.
Colors on the Epiphany map
The colors on the map achieve nothing for compatibility. I learned this when homeowners argued with me that the proposed 75-foot-wide plots behind the wall with landscaping were not yet in line with their 90-feet wide plots. Land use compatibility is all a shame.
Auto Dominance; Passenger behavior
The only possible measures of land use compatibility are physical separation or similar land use that is grouped. This has led to a large range of homogeneous land use which has created complete dependence on the car for daily activities such as work, work, shopping, school or fun. The following behavior patterns are listed below:
• About a third can be classified as aggressive drivers.
• Six out of 10 admit that they sometimes exceed the speed limit.
• Sixty-two percent sometimes get frustrated behind the wheel.
• Four out of 10 get angry.
• Two out of 10 sometimes rage on the road.
The following behaviors appear to mitigate the consequences of commuting:
• Take the less direct routes 68%
• Leave sooner or later 60%
• skip the scheduled stop of 40%
• Changed work schedule 24%
• Approaching business 20%
• Changed / left work 14%
If transit is available, Americans still choose to drive their cars even at significant prices:
• Six in 10 Americans have public transportation
• Only 10 percent use it regularly.
• Ninety-three percent drive is more affordable.
• Eighty-four percent drive to work alone.
• 80 percent of solo drivers are not interested in car reunions.
• Transferred to transit 4%
Auto Dominance; Road design
Auto dominance is so complete that development codes have been written to facilitate the use of cars at the expense of people. Vehicle-friendly engineering development standards are now a standard for our communities. Broader roads need higher safety margins so buildings are off the street as a development requirement. Roads become congested and need to be widened. An increasing number of travel lanes can reportedly move more cars faster, but a homogeneous development pattern only creates longer and longer journeys. Typical development standards are as follows:
Orange, Florida County Building Refund Standards
Main artery, urban 70 on the right
Smaller arterial, city 60’s on the right
Collector, urban 55 ‘from right
Auto Dominance; Development standards
With great dependence on the car for mobility, roads and surrounding development have evolved to tailor-made high-speed roads. The range of thoroughfares has been “improved” to better accommodate the maneuvering of cars and as such the orientation of the development has shifted to street parking lots with buildings in the back of the lot out of sight. The lack of visibility was resolved by large, attention-grabbing signs reduced at high speed.
Auto Dominance; Compatibility
These road development standards have resulted in the creation of a car environment. The roadmap is harmful use from a compatibility point of view, so align it with similarly harmful uses (automatic commercial dominance) all designed in a non-human scale. No wonder housing needs to be physically separated from this “place” in the name of compatibility. Roads only become more harmful; Therefore, the land use option is a line of line with identical damage, such as a commercial one, in the name of compatibility. The suburban model is dominated by the need for cars with the resulting suburban design standards that are based on the dimensions and manageability of the car, and man is reduced to second-class standards.
Land use and automatic use
Land uses are categorized by travel generation and uses are then more or less intense according to the number of trips generated by that use. Auto is the common denominator in all land use equations. This can also be seen with travel destinations. The shortest average travel destination is 6.9 miles due to its homogeneous land use pattern.
Trip type% Miles driven
I’m traveling 18 11.9
Purchasing 20 6.9
Recreation 27 11.0
Other 38 9.3
Auto Dominance; Wasted time and money
For the nation as a whole, the average daily commute takes about 24.3 minutes; Thus, Americans spend more than 200 hours each year commuting. This far exceeds the two weeks of vacation that workers often take over a year. The average trip costs $ 6.00 a day or $ 1500 a year. Over a working life, this would equate to $ 800,000 if invested wisely.
The prevailing choice of apartments
Single-family subdivisions have evolved over the last 100 years from the realms of the affluent to the prevailing housing choices for most Americans. In 2002, the National Home Builders Association said “American home buyers love big homes and big homes and are willing to live in remote suburbs and take longer trips to have more space inside and outside the home. 76% prefer a conventional single-family home.”
It’s time for a change
There is a growing mood for dealing with suburban illness and its absolute dependence on the car. There needs to be an alternative to land-based growth regulations, and one such alternative comes from the model of new urban development.
CITY DESIGN ; ORIGINAL APPROACHES
People have been gathering in urban areas for thousands of years; from the early Greek cities to the towns of the mean-evil country to the pre-auto-industrial cities in the US. These cities were people before the introduction of cars. And yet, there are many examples of successful urban sites that are consistent with the car but have retained original human proportions.
The delivery of food through organized farming practices enabled people to start living together in hamlets, villages, towns and, eventually, cities. These were the first urban places because, before that, he had been in a rural setting all his life. These urban places became denser as population grew, with cities organized around the street as a site of multimodal transport, including by foot, wagon and rail.
Savannah, Georgia 1733
Historic Antiquities for Town Planning is located in Savannah, Georgia. This city was planned from the beginning with a different motive than today; making place. There is a balanced land use program with a focus on creating people-oriented spaces for residents, workers and guests. The city of Savannah was founded in 1733 by General James Oglethorpe, based on a recurring pattern of squares. Each square sits in the center of the section. The plots to the east and west of the squares, which were linked to the main east-west axis, were originally considered “trust parties” in the urban plan and intended for large public buildings, such as churches, schools or markets. The rest of the ward was divided into four areas called tythings, each of which was further divided into ten residential lots.
Washington, DC 1791
Pierre L & Enfant has developed a Baroque plan for Washington that features ceremonial spaces and large radial avenues while respecting the country’s natural contours. The result was a system of intersecting diagonal avenues leaning over the grid system. The streets radiated from two of the most significant construction sites that needed to occupy houses for Congress and the president.
In 1891, Daniel Burnham was the lead planner for the 1893 Columbia Exposition in Chicago. Burnham’s concept sought a plan that suggested permanent buildings of monumental scale; dream city. Burnham used classic motifs as the general aesthetics of fairs and buildings to blend in with other architectural styles.
The Garden Cities of Ebenezer Howard
Howard designed the prototypical 6,000-acre city, with a downtown area of about 1,000 acres and a population of 30,000. Factories, warehouses, etc. had to be found on the outer ring of the city. In front of the roundabout. The rest will be agricultural property developed for agricultural purposes.
Historically, urban design was a form based on creating unforgettable, likeable places. Land use was a problem, but the primary design principle was form. Older cities had to deal with urban fabric processing to make room for cars. The Greenfield development has taken the opposite approach; development recognizes reliance on the car and boils down to the car with a corresponding loss of space for people.
Dramatic change; Seaside 1982
Seaside history began in 1979, when developer Robert Davis inherited 80 acres of land off the coast. Davis hired Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk to make his vision come true. They toured communities like Key West in Florida; Charleston, South Carolina and Savannah, Georgia and neighboring Grayton Beach reveal the physical fabric that produced both the visual comfort and social interactions that made these communities famous.
Traditional neighborhood design or new urbanism was a reaction to the state of suburban development. In the 1980s, designers began examining widespread suburbs. Multiple car-dependent residents living in family homes spread across the landscape set increasing demand on roads and the resulting congestion on the roadway proved unbreakable. Other public infrastructure, such as schools and parks, has fallen below acceptable levels of service. TND was a modern adaptation of the historical pattern of development from the past of small-town America; compact development with a complete combination of compatible, street-oriented uses with a strong pedestrian orientation.
The most dramatic new urban factor is the change from car-dominated design standards to human and pedestrian design standards. Compare that to regulations aimed at form of development (not land use) and there is a completely different way of thinking about growth management. A new thought pattern is being implemented as witnessed by Miami 21; Adoption of the Dade County Model Code in September 2009. There are now entire New Urban Communities offering the benefits of the principles of new urban design over land use controls. One key difference is that compatibility is governed by the intensity of development, not usage. Denser areas of the community move into less dense areas. This greatly improves the control of two-lane street design. Controlling the size of roads, there are less harmful uses that require significant compatibility measures. In fact, the scale of New Urban communities is for man; pedestrian. The car is still easily located, but not to the detriment of the community resident.
According to the National Real Estate Association and America for Smart Growth; 2004, 61% of home buyers who should soon buy in a smart growth community with the following community characteristics:
• A mixture of housing types
• Shopping and schools within walking distance
• Public transportation available
A recent study by the RCLCO (Smart Growth Market; 2009) found that “Due to its compact design, pedestrian friendliness, protection of natural features and other approaches to smart growth, it is significant that consumers not only prefer new urban communities, but also those who are willing to pay a premium for living in such communities. ”
In 2004, the National Real Estate and American Smart Growth Association linked the following 61% of buyers who would like to buy in the smart growth community soon with the following:
• Community Features:
• A mixture of housing types
• Shopping and schools within walking distance
• Travels less than 45 minutes
• Public transportation available
The RCLCO finds a link between the life stage and the desire to live in the New Urban community as follows:
• Empty nests
• Over 60 years of age
• Less than 40 years old
• Over 50 years for close shops and restaurants
• Baby boomers
Recently, public opinion has shifted from conventional suburban development to a new urban lifestyle. This has led the development industry to explore conventional practices and examine other approaches to the housing market. This ties in with other current trends, such as green practices and long-term sustainable initiatives.
Today, the emphasis on planning has rightly shifted from land use controls to these goals:
• Low impact development
• Multi-modal transport
• Urban design
• Form based code
All these concepts are inherent in compact development. With increased density and intensity, compatibility is paramount. Therefore, land use control is the wrong model to use for compatibility. New urbanism with its form of development approach is much more in line with compatibility measures.