Report a Comment

Hmm. I always joke that when I read something in a blog that I violently disagree with that I end up doing a post that excoriates it. You didn't blister me, thanks...

Anyway, with regard to Jasper's comment, design isn't in fact "subjective," at least the standard for comparison isn't, as it's based on the period of architectural significance and prevailing architectural styles for that time. In most neighborhoods this period and the types of architecture represented tends to be pretty clear, e.g., in my neighborhood which dates from probably 1900 to 1940 with architectural styles primarily being four square, bungalow, and Colonial Revival. (Obviously, in the H St. neighborhood it's from the mid 1870s to 1920 and are Italianate and Queen Anne style brick rowhouses for the most part, with a smattering of 2nd empire, plus porch front Craftsman style rowhouses from 1907-1920, plus wood frame Italianate rowhouses from before 1880, with a handful of pre-1870 examples, most of which are gone--there is one on the 500 block of M St. NE. Etc.)

The design recommendations flow from those determinations and therefore aren't merely "aesthetic".

Anyway/2, the issue on which we disagree is about design review, although I am the first to admit that you are right to focus on the practical, while I was mostly writing about the theoretical.

I do agree that design review is necessary, especially for blocks that really mattered, as I've argued here, with regard to an issue in the Capitol Hill Historic District: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-you-dont-know-can-make-for-flawed.html

Anyway/3, the point that X makes about a form based code is a good solution, mediating between your position and mine.

Having code-based "design guidelines" for each housing type would simplify any review process, and provide early guidance to property owners--guidance that isn't provided now and clearly is desperately needed.

I have actually seen a couple of popups that aren't completely terrible...

Anyway/4, one of the problems with my writing is that it is a kind of "stream of consciousness" sometimes as I work through the issue, my ideas, response, and practical recommendations for implementation. That is true of the piece that you are reacting to.

I think that my recommendation about creating block by block "standards" about height, and changing the zoning code to make the prevailing heights the matter of right standards is the best solution for this problem.

That was the conclusion of the piece.

I'm glad that you wrote about this though, because it brings more attention to the general issue, and this potential solution of re-setting matter of right standards with regard to house size in neighborhoods where for the most part, most lots have been built out.

Maybe with this kind of attention we can get these kinds of changes made. (Change does happen, it just takes a long time.)

by Richard Layman on May 25, 2012 11:57 am • link • report