Quote:
Originally Posted by linguisize
Speaking of tall and slender; do any of the zoning laws address width? These buildings are all stubby and ugly, we can all agree on that, but I think there would be a lot less opposition if each one of these 4th south buildings were half as long and split into separate distinct buildings. Two ugly buildings that are different is far more engaging and interesting than one full block of the same ugly.
There's so much focus on height, setback and parking; I want width restrictions!
|
I agree, however I am pretty sure that isn't addressed anywhere except with verbiage along the lines of not creating an overly long wall with no architectural variety. Which my definition of long boring wall is obviously different from the Planning Commission and some planning staffs definition as I spoke out against the long wall of Alta Gateway and my comments where brushed aside. It seems as if the developers are getting away with it along the podium level because they are creating the "inlets" on the upper floors.
I'm not sure how that could be addressed, but I think it needs to be explored. In the 4th and 4th situation, it would require them to not take the Scientology building, or if they still insisted on doing so, they would then have to build two buildings, and as you said, possibly two boring buildings with space in between, instead of one.
There has to be some sort of carrot out there to discourage width. I would see the best way to encourage that would be to alter the TSA scoring system that is in place. Evaluate the overall massing of width vs height, not to exceed a certain percentage. Maybe a required parking reduction if the width/height ratio reaches a certain percentage.
Speaking of reducing parking requirements, and I think I've brought this up on the thread in the past, I read a while back about a city that greatly reduced their onsite parking requirements and instituted transit pass requirements for new development. I don't have the exact numbers so this is just an example. The city reduced the parking requirements from 1 per unit to .5 per unit and mandated one yearly transit pass per unit as well. Again not the exact numbers put it gets my point across. People would be even more wiling to move into a place and shed a car if they were provided a transit pass. I have brought this up with two Council members in the past, and may once again pass it along in the future, if we don't start to see a reduction in all this residential project parking overage.
Another thing I read about, that was a thing before the recession I believe was a bank that loaned on mortgages based on the walk and transit score. If the condo or home was really close to a transit line the lender would allow for a larger portion of monthly income to go to housing than a traditional lender would offer. The transit pass and this lending program could lead to more for sale development opportunities and would ultimately reduce the construction costs to the developers because they are reducing parking, which is a massive expense.
Prev
Linear Mode
