Non-zoning ways to influence built design?

[C.]

Zoning has the single greatest influence in determining the shape and form of a building. What other factors have a say in determining the shape of the end use? For example, some lenders will refuse to do a construction loan for a retail building if they deem there isn't enough parking for it to be viable. I'm not talking about downtown properties but suburban retail centers large and small where to bulk of prospective customers are arriving by car.

I'm always saddened when I look at public housing in the U.S. that follow the towers-in-a-park concept.


from http://www.wfuv.org

Zoning encourages this type of disgusting development. It separates residents from jobs, breaks the grid, reduces eyes on the street, and creates a concentration of poverty. What could go wrong? It just breeds many social problems.

If such a development could be remade, who has a say, outside city planners and zoning, that can achieve a more desirable community?

[James Bond Agent 007]

Not sure if I really understand the question, but ...

... I hope it goes without saying that the demographic target of your development will have an influence on the design of the project. If you're building luxury apartments as opposed to middle-of-the-road apartments, for example, you're likely to get a fancier design.

BTW, I hope it also goes without saying that basically no place in the US anymore builds stuff like that shown in the picture. Thankfully.

[mhays]

Sounds like badly-written zoning, not zoning itself.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by CIA

Zoning encourages this type of disgusting development. It separates residents from jobs, breaks the grid, reduces eyes on the street, and creates a concentration of poverty. What could go wrong? It just breeds many social problems.

I'm the last person to praise zoning (as it is currently implemented) but you're conflating a lot of things here.

"Towers in a park" is an architectural fashion, coming from European modernist architects in the 1920s. It has now passed out of fashion, so you don't see much of it being built anymore. It has nothing to do with zoning; zoning may require setbacks, but not to the extent shown in the photo.

(Also, I don't agree with your claims about project housing - the failure of highrise projects was more about management than architecture - but that's a separate discussion.)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CIA

I'm always saddened when I look at public housing in the U.S. that follow the towers-in-a-park concept.

The image shows the Hammels projects, in Far Rockaway, Queens.

Putting aside the fact that these projects replaced seasonal bungalows, so there wasn't any urban context to begin with, this specific typology hasn't been built since WW2.

NYCHA stopped building the "midrise cluster" housing project model by the mid-1940's. The later project construction of the 1950's and 60's tended to be highrise "tower in the park" type design.

In any case, we're talking about a broad housing typology that hasn't been on the radar in at least 50-60 years. And it has nothing to do with zoning, or concentrating poverty.

[C.]

It's a tricky question, and I phrased it incorrectly. What I meant to say is this:

If public housing or similar development like the image shown above was partially redeveloped, who are some of the actors that will have influence over the new design, excluding the role of city planners.

The zoning currently requires setbacks and does not allow for mixed uses. Indirectly, the zoning is supportive of the concepts of the "towers-in-the-park" architectural style. It would be difficult to change unless the developer or public housing authority was under pressure to undergo a rezoning process.

Assume the public housing authority is content on rebuilding the way it was before unless getting pressure from these other actors. The residents are also relucant to change, and especially lose their green space surrounding the building.

I gave the example of construction lenders. In limited circumstances, they may call for the design of the building to be changed and their calls would have to be adhered to in order to get the construction financing. Can anyone else influence the design like that?

[UPChicago]

Zoning did not produce that...... building codes have more influence on design than zoning does unless its form based zoning. A lot of the "projects" aren't even built on traditional zoning lots, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of PD for ones erected in cities that had ordinances on the books.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CIA

The zoning currently requires setbacks and does not allow for mixed uses. Indirectly, the zoning is supportive of the concepts of the "towers-in-the-park" architectural style. It would be difficult to change unless the developer or public housing authority was under pressure to undergo a rezoning process.

NYCHA is rebuilding basically every housing project that can be rebuilt. Wherever there's a parking lot, or empty patch of grass, they're trying to sell to developers.

It isn't because they care about urban planning or good design; it's because NYCHA has financial problems due to big federal cuts. But it's forcing better streetscapes.

NYC is basically the only major U.S. city that didn't destroy its public housing. It's trying to basically keep the existing buildings, while fitting in new buildings wherever possible.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NYCHA is rebuilding basically every housing project that can be rebuilt. Wherever there's a parking lot, or empty patch of grass, they're trying to sell to developers.

It isn't because they care about urban planning or good design; it's because NYCHA has financial problems due to big federal cuts. But it's forcing better streetscapes.

NYC is basically the only major U.S. city that didn't destroy its public housing. It's trying to basically keep the existing buildings, while fitting in new buildings wherever possible.

This is what I'm looking for -- financial pressures is forcing NYCHA in this case to look at infill development. Presumably NYCHA will need a rezoning change for the infill, but are forced to take this action due to finances. By creating the infill on open space and parking lots, it would change the existing layout and design of the overall complex.

A quick Google search finds an image that illustrates this point. The rendering shows new townhomes being built on the open space of a towers in the park type development. It feels more urban. Retail may also work if located on a street that would support it. The retail and townhomes would bring jobs and services to the are and help promote a more mixed-use and mixed-income community.

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Zoning did not produce that...... building codes have more influence on design than zoning does unless its form based zoning. A lot of the "projects" aren't even built on traditional zoning lots, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of PD for ones erected in cities that had ordinances on the books.

Building codes, usually set by the state, has an influence on the design of buildings.

To recap, construction lenders, the need for infill development due to financial pressures, and the building codes can influence, one way or another, the design of a new building or building going through partial redevelopment. Are there any more?

[C.]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sounds like badly-written zoning, not zoning itself.

In my experience, most zoning is badly-written, or at least written in another era, and nearly impossible to change.

[C.]

Originally Posted by ardecila

(Also, I don't agree with your claims about project housing - the failure of highrise projects was more about management than architecture - but that's a separate discussion.)

Management played a role, but so does design! Mixed-income townhomes or midrises, near transit, near employment and other job centers would likley be a much different experience for residents than concentrating them in an area of the city with little jobs, poor transit access, and poor services. These were design choices made that doomed them to failure from the beginning.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CIA

This is what I'm looking for -- financial pressures is forcing NYCHA in this case to look at infill development.

If you want a real-world example of NYCHA infill, look at the NW corner of 9th Ave. and 25th Street in Chelsea. That's a mixed-income building built maybe 5-6 years ago. It might have been the first NYCHA infill project.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7479...8i6656!6m1!1e1

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CIA

Management played a role, but so does design! Mixed-income townhomes or midrises, near transit, near employment and other job centers would likley be a much different experience for residents than concentrating them in an area of the city with little jobs, poor transit access, and poor services. These were design choices made that doomed them to failure from the beginning.

Hmm, I don't think so.

First, NYCHA is probably the most successful public housing agency in the U.S. and also probably built the densest. So it doesn't appear that density necessarily makes public housing worse.

Second, NYCHA is most concentrated in Manhattan. There's more NYCHA housing in Manhattan than public housing in LA/Chicago/Houston/Philly combined. Pretty sure there are jobs in Manhattan.

Similarly, there aren't exactly issues with transit access or services in Manhattan.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by CIA

Building codes, usually set by the state, has an influence on the design of buildings.

Cities can and usually do adopt their own building codes.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Hmm, I don't think so.

First, NYCHA is probably the most successful public housing agency in the U.S. and also probably built the densest. So it doesn't appear that density necessarily makes public housing worse.

Second, NYCHA is most concentrated in Manhattan. There's more NYCHA housing in Manhattan than public housing in LA/Chicago/Houston/Philly combined. Pretty sure there are jobs in Manhattan.

Similarly, there aren't exactly issues with transit access or services in Manhattan.

What you also conveniently fail to mention is that the NYCHA's projects never really became warehouses for the poor the way public housing projects in other cities did. To this day, the NYCHA's demographics skew more towards the middle class.

[rellott]

....Houston?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by CIA

Management played a role, but so does design! Mixed-income townhomes or midrises, near transit, near employment and other job centers would likley be a much different experience for residents than concentrating them in an area of the city with little jobs, poor transit access, and poor services. These were design choices made that doomed them to failure from the beginning.

Management in a broader sense. The whole idea of public housing mid-century, as embodied in the Housing Act of 1949, was to provide a limited amount of public housing only to those people who were most needy. This was different than European social housing programs, which aimed to serve a much broader swath of the middle class, and different than various models that had been pioneered in New York. You can thank home builders, realtors and their conservative allies in Congress for keeping the middle class out of public housing and solidly planted in the fast-growing suburbs.

Apparently it never occurred to bleeding-heart housing advocates in 1950 that concentrating the neediest people in one place by themselves might not be the best idea, but it fit into a broader 20th-century drive for efficiency. I'm sure the advocates felt that the needs of the very poor could be best addressed at a small number of centralized housing sites. Ultimately it just led to dysfunction in several ways.

Racism only compounded the problems, with politicians slating new housing projects only for those neighborhoods with a high black population or a declining white population. Unsurprisingly, housing projects in many cities soon became almost 100% black. Black citizens, barred from buying in white neighborhoods or the booming suburbs by racist laws and a racist culture, faced the choice of rotten slum housing or clean, new housing projects - but the projects came with an income limit that totally reversed many of the incentives to succeed and form stable households.

On the positive side, housing projects were often linked to slum clearance efforts, placing those projects in older neighborhoods close to public transportation and industrial jobs. The lack of jobs and decent transportation today only reflects the continued disinvestment in these neighborhoods in the years since the housing projects were completed.

Again, very little of this history has to do with architecture at all. The issues I see in project based housing, and similar Modernist environments (the outskirts of Paris, for example) are just the problems of poverty.

[Riise]

One could use zoning codes or land use bylaws that focus on use and ignore metrics (i.e. Setbacks and Floor Areas) as they do in Germany or one could forgo zoning altogether and become an entirely plan-led system as we are in the British Islands.

[Reverberation]

Deed restrictions.