Architectural standards

[michaelskis]

Does any one have examples of strict development and architectural standards for suburb communities (around 45,000) to promote smart growth and pedestrian friendly design? I was thinking about how limited we are in development and placement regulations. One thing I have also noticed, some communities require the front door to be closer to the street than the garage door, or even side facing garages… does anyone have any of these?

 

[boiker]

Narrow lots, mixed neighborhood oriented uses, and small setbacks are my keys to encouraging effective pedestrian travel.

we don't have any officially adopted, but one day....

 

[SGB]

Look for for and dimensional requirements, not necessarily architectural.

Diverse architecture is the stuff new urbanism/smart growth/traditional neighborhood design (blah, blah, blah, etc) is made of.

 

[michaelskis]

We do have dimensional regulations as per residential districts, but it does not dictate all that much when it comes to appearance. I have seen several communities that prohibit the garage door from facing the street, as well as places that require particular architectural materials. We currently do not have any mixed use zones, but we do have a few cases where I would wonder if it is spot zoning…

 

[Cardinal]

Michael - Many of the regulations are centered around the garage door. Often, it can't face the street, or can't make up more than a certain percentage of the front facade, or must be set back from the mass of the house, etc. I think you will find that covenants deal more often with the issue than do zoning and subdivision codes. One of the questions I have to ask, though, is to what extent modern residential designs are making it difficult to create good neighborhoods. Bland architecture and cheap materials certainly don't provide much of an excuse to stroll. To me anyway, the same is true of most of the "high-end" houses, with their brick veneer and tacked-on details. Boiker's first suggestion, narrow lots, might address much of this problem.

 

[vaughan]

I know that both Fort Collins and Brighton, Colorado have specific design standards for subdivision development, and both can be found on the respective city websites. Like most people are saying, there is specific language in there dealing with the garage door (only 1 in 4 can have the garage sticking out from the front of the house,etc...) . Additionally, it seems that a lot of people incorporating design standards give a "menu" approach- you've got maybe nine choices for different attributes to the design, but no two houses in a row can share the same ones (or some such variation).

 

[Maister]

I was thinking about how limited we are in development and placement regulations.

All I can say is welcome to southwest Michigan. Around here 'zone' is a four letter word, a necessary evil to be tolerated in the smallest doses possible (much like taxes). This is a very conservative area and property rights are the order of the day (a view supported by the local courts as well). Until there's some kind of mass paradigm shift, you aren't going to find many politicians willing to support adoption of MORE development and placement regulations. Those who do so run the risk of being labelled 'not in touch with their constituency' and shown the way out. Don't worry, in about 20 years time we may be willing to consider ideas that east coast communities are already implementing today.....

 

[michaelskis]

I am going to bump this thread and ask the same question that I did 21 years ago, but for follow up with more best practices examples.

Afterall, just because it is a Taco Bell, does not mean that you need to allow it to look like a Taco Bell. While not as Smart Growth or as New Urbanist as I would like, it is still better than a Taco Bell.

 

[MacheteJames]

Better than the usual taxpayer EIFS box they plop down on high-throughput arterial parcels.

Has anyone ever run across one of these corps just saying "no" to meeting such standards? I had a hotel project years ago that just refused to budge on making design alterations to meet standards because it ran afoul of their own internal corporate design guidelines. I think they ended up just not moving it forward beyond the pre-application stage.

 

[michaelskis]

Better than the usual taxpayer EIFS box they plop down on high-throughput arterial parcels.

Has anyone ever run across one of these corps just saying "no" to meeting such standards? I had a hotel project years ago that just refused to budge on making design alterations to meet standards because it ran afoul of their own internal corporate design guidelines. I think they ended up just not moving it forward beyond the pre-application stage.

I had a fast-food restaurant at my last municipality threaten to walk. I called their bluff after they asked me, "Do you think that McDonalds would tolerate this kind of thing." I just asked them if they have ever been to Freeport Maine and to look up the story on their McDonalds. The reality is these corporate entities will run the numbers well before they even show a hint of coming into a municipality and will always show the cheapest "Corporate Model" before they show you what they used to see if the numbers would pencil.

And while this is going to ruffle some feathers, but if they are not willing to really 'invest' in our community, I am not sure it is the type of company that my community would want anyways. Fast food, QSR as they want to be called now, is not well received here anyways.

 

[MD Planner]

I am going to bump this thread and ask the same question that I did 21 years ago, but for follow up with more best practices examples.

Afterall, just because it is a Taco Bell, does not mean that you need to allow it to look like a Taco Bell. While not as Smart Growth or as New Urbanist as I would like, it is still better than a Taco Bell.
View attachment 65457

See I don't know if it really is better. I'm a big fan of design standards done properly but in the context of that building sitting in a sea of parking, with no connection to any surrounding building I kind of fail to see the point.

 

[michaelskis]

See I don't know if it really is better. I'm a big fan of design standards done properly but in the context of that building sitting in a sea of parking, with no connection to any surrounding building I kind of fail to see the point.

Oh I agree, but that get's into site design, which is a different thread. The community that I am in right now can do a much better job, but it was never really a walkable community and we have ton's of outparcels like this. I am working to change things, but it won't be a large sweeping change for site design as well.

 

[bureaucrat#3]

In one of my former jobs, Waffle House walked. It was in a downtown edge location and we wanted better architecture and the entrance had to face the sidewalk. They wanted to use the standard box and the entrance facing the parking lot "for security reasons." They came back a couple of years later and got the new Council to allow part of it.

I worked on a similar located Waffle House right before COVID. They were willing to meet all of our architecture and historic requirements. COVID pushed the project off and then they decided to change their location requirements back to more highway locations.

 

[DVD]

The problem I keep getting is that's not how their building is designed and they can't make little tweaks because it ruins their kitchen or some BS.
They also want to face all the parking and don't like the idea of side parking. People will walk to the restaurant. Maybe not Waffle House people, but they'll walk.

 

[Wannaplan?]

...standards... to promote smart growth and pedestrian friendly design

The more time I spend in this profession, the more I believe that it's the places that have their main destination areas along five-lane throughways that want the standards. It's as if the leaders know their area is a suck-hole and are desperately trying to apologize to everyone by showing them that, yes, we too can get new beautiful boxes for recompense of past mistakes. Just look how pretty next door is! Unfortunately, it's too late, the land has been carved up in a way that is difficult, nay, impossible to reverse, because the road system is established with all that necessary infrastructure for public services in the right-of-way.

Ahem, yes, that pretty box will most assuredly make it better. Keep telling yourself that. (Not you michaelskis, but all the local officials today who have been converted to Design Standards Evangelists.) Given current retail trends, that pretty box will be as valuable as a wet paper bag in ten years unless our culture changes and shifts in significant ways. I'm not pulling a Kunstler-esque doomsday scenario here, but the writing has been on the wall for nearly five years.

It would be interesting to query local officials as to why they've become Design Standards Evangelists. I suppose there are two main camps. The first says we made past mistakes, we've become a suck-hole, and we know we can get that pretty box because just look at how next door gets them. And the second camp says, we need that pretty box becasue we don't want to become a suck-hole like next door. See how that works?

I try not to be cynical about this, there is nothing wrong with pretty boxes per se, but if your community is spending precious limited resources on getting those pretty boxes, then there is something fundamentally wrong with local mindsets, if I could just spitball here. Thanks for reading. I wish I was more articulate about this, I am not a researcher, just sharing my observations and analysis. Time to get back to Tik Tok

 

[michaelskis]

The more time I spend in this profession, the more I believe that it's the places that have their main destination areas along five-lane throughways that want the standards. It's as if the leaders know their area is a suck-hole and are desperately trying to apologize to everyone by showing them that, yes, we too can get new beautiful boxes for recompense of past mistakes. Just look how pretty next door is! Unfortunately, it's too late, the land has been carved up in a way that is difficult, nay, impossible to reverse, because the road system is established with all that necessary infrastructure for public services in the right-of-way.

Ahem, yes, that pretty box will most assuredly make it better. Keep telling yourself that. (Not you michaelskis, but all the local officials today who have been converted to Design Standards Evangelists.) Given current retail trends, that pretty box will be as valuable as a wet paper bag in ten years unless our culture changes and shifts in significant ways. I'm not pulling a Kunstler-esque doomsday scenario here, but the writing has been on the wall for nearly five years.

It would be interesting to query local officials as to why they've become Design Standards Evangelists. I suppose there are two main camps. The first says we made past mistakes, we've become a suck-hole, and we know we can get that pretty box because just look at how next door gets them. And the second camp says, we need that pretty box becasue we don't want to become a suck-hole like next door. See how that works?

I try not to be cynical about this, there is nothing wrong with pretty boxes per se, but if your community is spending precious limited resources on getting those pretty boxes, then there is something fundamentally wrong with local mindsets, if I could just spitball here. Thanks for reading. I wish I was more articulate about this, I am not a researcher, just sharing my observations and analysis. Time to get back to Tik Tok

I don't think you are being cynical at all. Was professional planners we and a realization of what good planning is. The flip side is elected officials answer to the public who think that good design is cul-de-sac neighborhoods on 1/3 acre lots with no sidewalks is good design. This results in an inherit auto-dominate community. That is what I inherited and while the group of elected officials that I have now are starting to understand the benefits of good urban design, they still realize the crap that we have. So in many ways, you are right. This level of architectural design is an apology to the people for crap site design.

By the way, the picture that I posted is in Madison Mississippi. Their architectural standards are phenominal and they hold everyone accountable. Their Kroger, Walmart, and other national retailers are in buildings that look nothing like the typical prototype buildings. But the new stuff that is being built is not only high quality architectural design, it is also really good site design too. I just pulled the Taco Bell because as a chain, this is what I would classify as near bottom barrel and for it to look like this as a new build too says something.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

I will caveat my comments from the outset that, although I am trained as a planner, I have never actually worked as one and my entire professional career has been spent primarily on the economic development and workforce development side of things, so I've never really gone too deep into codes and architectural standards and all that...

TLDR version: I think looking at the zoning changes in Troy, MI over the past ~15 years might be a good case study in how to improve density and walkability for an already nearly-built-out community.

We have two communities here in Metro Detroit that might be worth looking into: Birmingham and Troy. They are neighboring cities but have been built out quite differently over the decades.

Birmingham, MI has about 22,000 people in it's 4.8 square miles and a very walkable (by Metro Detroit standards) downtown core. Most of the downtown and much of the eastside of the town (what is referred to here as "The Triangle" and "The Rail District" are covered by a form-based code that very strictly prohibits new drive through facilities. The one drive-through that has opened since we've lived here is for a Tim Horton's and is actually entirely inside the building and has a couple very sharp turns. Driving past, you would not know it had a drive-through. The only other fast food in town with a drive-through is a KFC that has been there for decades (it's on a very prime piece of real estate and I imagine the franchise owner is looking at a nice payday once they decide to finally close up shop). We've got a few other national chains like Jimmy John's, Jersey Mike's, Tropical Smoothie Cafe, and some local fast food or QSR but none of them have drive-throughs and they all open directly to a sidewalk along whatever street they are on. Looking at CoStar, Birmingham has some of the highest retail and commercial real estate prices in the Midwest and it has long been a desirable location regionally. The city and neighboring Bloomfield Hills have some of the highest MHIs in the state and there are >10,000 people who commute into the downtown core for work, primarily in higher-paid jobs in advertising/marketing, law, finance, engineering/architecture, real estate, and (the generic) "consulting". The downtown core is also a destination for higher-end retail shopping with a mix of some national chains and local boutiques (and currently waaaayyyy too many furniture stores for some reason). If a retailer or fast food place or QSR crunches their numbers and sees that we have a demographic that fits their customer profile they have shown in the past that they have been willing to play ball with the city's strict design standards.

Troy, MI, primarily to the NE of Birmingham, has about 85,000 people in their 34 square miles and is anything but walkable. The north and west side of the city are generally higher income while most of the east side is upper middle class and some pockets of lower income towards the SE side of the city. It's one of the most diverse cities in Michigan with a lot of South Asian (particularly Indian), Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and some second generation Poles, Romanians, and Slavs. Troy is also one of the region's employment centers with more than 110,000 people commuting into the city each day. There are a lot of corporate headquarters in the city (Kelly Services, Magna Powertrain, Meritor) as well as the NA headquarters' of a bunch of automotive suppliers and regional HQs for banks like PNC and Comerica. There is also a ton of retail in the city, primarily along Big Beaver Road (which is 16 Mile Road for those familiar with Detroit's Mile Roads). At the far western end of Big Beaver Road is the Somerset Collection - an enclosed shopping mall that first opened on the south side of Big Beaver in the early '70s with Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus as anchors. In the mid-90s the mall expanded to the north side of Big Beaver with an 800' enclosed "skywalk" going over all 8 lanes of Big Beaver. Beginning in the 1990s and on through around 2010 or so, the city saw a lot of sprawl with a bunch of strip mall style development along Big Beaver east of I-75 (which is about mile further east from The Somerset Collection). There is also Oakland Mall in the SE corner of the city which opened in the late '60s and has the stereotypical sea of parking around it (Somerset has some parking garages and smaller surface lots). There is quite a bit of strip mall development around Oakland Mall as well. More recently, Oakland Mall has faced the same struggles that a lot of regional malls across the country have while the higher-end Somerset has thrived. Troy doesn't have a downtown to speak of but they do have a city campus with their library, city hall, a large community/sports center, and a few other facilities and it's very centrally located at the NW intersection of Big Beaver and Livernois. Sometime in the 2010s the city decided they wanted to increase density along Big Beaver and were tired of the huge parking lots in front of the strip centers that had opened over the last few decades. Now that so much shopping was being done online, most of these centers had a ton of excess parking, but because the area is still a regional destination for retail, the stores were, for the most part, not shutting down and the strip centers maintained low vacancy rates. The city decided to allow new development in the parking lots as long as the developments faced right out to Big Beaver, and they also put in some heavy restrictions on drive-through facilities. A lot of the retail property owners and developers said nobody would want to build on those smaller footprint areas, especially without a drive-through but they have been building and filling things out nicely over the last decade. There are now also some new multifamily-residential and hotel developments in the area and it's becoming a lot more common to see people out walking to shopping and restaurants along Big Beaver. It's still not really what I would consider walkable for most people but it's a big improvement over where it was a decade ago.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

^Re-reading the original posts from MSkis and then my rambling response, I realized I started talking about architectural standards and the pivoted to zoning changes. I got called away in the middle of my response and must have lost my train of thought sometime between then and when I came back to finish it up.

While the zoning changes in Troy have helped to increase walkability, I'd say that the form based code that Birmingham uses for their downtown "Principle Shopping District" and in the overlay areas of the Triangle work pretty well to set some architectural standards and preserve walkability while not being too onerous for developers. The standards aren't focused so much on the use of the property (though there are still some restricted and prohibited uses, but those uses are prohibited everywhere in the community) but they regulate where the front door opens to, how much glazing there can and cannot be on the first floors, what type of outdoor signage can be used, what types of materials can be used on the exteriors, etc. As long as a Starbucks or Qdoba is willing to forgo their drive-through; have 90% of the exterior finish be brick, glass, or cut stone; and an interior storefront with a transparent area equal to 70% of its facade, etc. there's no problem. From what I gather, the city has not had a difficult time attracting national chains because of any thing in the form based code. I think the bigger impediment has generally been the size of available properties and parcels.