Form-Based Code zoning in the U.S.

[LMich]

With my city about to have its first preview of it's Form-Based Code (FBC) zoning proposal later today, I was wondering what other cities in the country have switched over from conventional, single-use/Euclidiean zoning to FBC and whether you saw pretty significant changes from the get-go to how development proposals worked their way through your city's bureaucracy?

First, a link to my city's proposal:

Design Lansing Form-Based Code Preview Presentation, September 2017

A list of the districts:

An Introduction to the New Lansing Form-Based Code

Apparently, with its expected passage early next year, it'll become the largest city in the state to make a total change to FBC zoning instead of just parts of the city. In the case of Lansing, the new/improved "use" part of the FBC is heavily based around street typologies: Expressways, Arterials, Suburban Corridors, Community Corridors, Prime Connectors, Neighborhood Connectors, Neighborhood Non-Motorized Corridors, and Off-Road Greenway Corrdors.

Some benefits of FBC include speeding up the review of developments because design of a structure/development is addressed up front my the code instead of having to come back after you've fleshed out a development, encourage overall increases of density since it's primarily based on form instead of use, allows easier use changes/conversions since it's more design-based, is easier to understand and less verbose, and oddly enough by its nature encourages the protection of historic neighborhoods. Bonuses (inceased height, flexibility in use, increased density, reduced parking requirements, shared access and share public parking, etc.) are also more easily spelled out

So, have you all seen an easier design/use review process when you've switched over to FBC zoning? Have you seen tangible benefits for your cities since the switch? I really like that it addresses actual design up front so that developers and cities don't have to fight over designs over multiple meetings, which can often be the biggest thing to hold up a project from its initial use presidentation to a city government.

[Ex-Ithacan]

Ithaca has been taking a look at coding issues in the city with changes occurring on a district by district basis. The biggest change so far has been installing Form Based Coding in the Collegetown neighborhood. Here's a rundown of what the city came up with for the most densely populated area of Ithaca:

http://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/1766


And a list of specific codes for the city:

http://www.cityofithaca.org/151/Zoning

Collegetown is now taller and denser as a result. The biggest complaint is the lack of parking requirements being removed from the new codes.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by LMich

I really like that it addresses actual design up front so that developers and cities don't have to fight over designs over multiple meetings, which can often be the biggest thing to hold up a project from its initial use presidentation to a city government.

this. at least in theory.

it seems like most decently urban neighborhoods in the midwest already have fbc zoning overlay districts, but then you end up with stripmalls (or far worse) backing up to say new rowhouses and mixed use from adjacent neighborhoods with no overlay. it's particularly egregious in st. louis.

[Cirrus]

Arlington, VA has form based codes for its Columbia Pike Corridor.

[Pedestrian]

I'm not familiar with the term and I've not heard it used here in public pronouncements, but looking at your link and its explanation of what it means, I'd say San Francisco follows all the principles. The Planning Dept. is very concerned about buiding forms, the streetscape, uniform set-backs and contextual development, and they generally love mixed-use projects, minimal parking (if any) and so on.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'm not familiar with the term and I've not heard it used here in public pronouncements, but looking at your link and its explanation of what it means, I'd say San Francisco follows all the principles. The Planning Dept. is very concerned about buiding forms, the streetscape, uniform set-backs and contextual development, and they generally love mixed-use projects, minimal parking (if any) and so on.

i would say most us cities wrangle with the above on some scale or another but it's often micro-managerial, uneven, and petty. you end up with distortions designed-by-committee and neighborhood cranks spittling over taupe paint samples and 9:45 am shadows. a complete city (or ideally region-wide) form based code would ideally cut down on a lot of the shouting and jarring contrasts between neighborhoods.

i think a lot of people are afraid of a plasticy DPZ-like trumanshowshitscape or something overly rigid with FBCs...i think they should stay pretty simple with regards to how buildings interact with the street/pedestrians. basically parking in back (if there is parking) or street. streetwall (or no streetwall or whatever). basically focused on reversing the damage done by automobile storage.

[mhays]

If I understand correctly, it's more about a code that says what it wants in a very simple way, vs. a code that focuses on limits (what it doesn't want) in a complex way. SF and NYC were built under the latter. Or such is my understanding.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by mhays

If I understand correctly, it's more about a code that says what it wants in a very simple way, vs. a code that focuses on limits (what it doesn't want) in a complex way. SF and NYC were built under the latter. Or such is my understanding.

same here. i mean i think you can have a FBC in an exurban way too that works out very nicely (anywhere along the spectrum of density) and the pioneers of the idea (at least the united states version) allowed for this. i view it primarily through the lense of moderating the impacts of automobile use/storage to the benefit of the pedestrian realm, even if houses are on a 1/4 acre and everything is connected via gravel paths around a small town hub, or whatever.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i would say most us cities wrangle with the above on some scale or another but it's often micro-managerial, uneven, and petty. you end up with distortions designed-by-committee and neighborhood cranks spittling over taupe paint samples and 9:45 am shadows. a complete city (or ideally region-wide) form based code would ideally cut down on a lot of the shouting and jarring contrasts between neighborhoods.

i think a lot of people are afraid of a plasticy DPZ-like trumanshowshitscape or something overly rigid with FBCs...i think they should stay pretty simple with regards to how buildings interact with the street/pedestrians. basically parking in back (if there is parking) or street. streetwall (or no streetwall or whatever). basically focused on reversing the damage done by automobile storage.

It seems to me this is more a question of "by right" (or "as of right") development, which I strongly favor, than "form-based zoning". California's governor has, for the last year or two, been pushing a state law which would force "by right" onto cities like San Francisco that have Byzantine "community input" processes. "By right" essentially says, ""if it conforms to the existing zoning, you can build it regardless of what the neighbors and the NIMBYs think."

The American Planning Association, California Chapter (APA California) supports the concept of authorizing by right approval of affordable housing included in (the Governor's) budget trailer bill proposal. In fact, APA California sponsored its own by right proposal, AB 2522 (Bloom), this year.
AB 2522 has a similar goal as your budget trailer bill proposal, but uses ministerial approval processes already authorized in existing law. Under APA’s by right proposal, projects would qualify for the by right approval if they were located on sites already designated by the city or county in the housing element for housing, located in an urbanized area, and consistent with written, adopted General Plan, zoning and design criteria. This would apply to multifamily rental housing projects that include at least 20% low-income or 100% moderate-income (workforce) housing. “By right” approval means that if the housing project meets these criteria, then, by right, the project is required to be approved by the local agency without further discretionary actions. Such by right approval is already required on any housing element site where rezoning was required.

https://www.apacalifornia.org/wp-con...ter-6-7-16.pdf

[Centropolis]

pinterest.com

the rural zone is a little bizarre on this...but i guess that deals with SF and not an entire region.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

the rural zone is a little bizarre on this...but i guess that deals with SF and not an entire region.

The "rural zone" shown is within a national park which is federal land (formerly the Presidio Army base) and entirely exempt from San Francisco zoning codes. One of the pictures shows land that is being replanted with native vegetation after removal of imported eucalyptus and other foreign species. The other shows buildings which may be planned for removal (a lot of non-historic buildings in the Golden Gate National Seashore and Park, of which the Presidio is part, are being removed).