Report a Comment

aka “Common Sense Overlay Zone”--this is such a fabulous article—this blog just gets better and better all the time.

The art of land planning and “neighborhood” (not subdivision) structure and common sense (in regards to settlement patterns) is all but lost in this country in my opinion. Why? Because of antiquated/Euclidean codes and bureaucratic systems designed to preclude creativity in our built environment.

I was interested to hear of a discussion recently about an RFP that a municipality was issuing to attract bids from developers that were interested in developing a piece of property that the municipality owned. The contents of the RFP included a section regarding “housing mix” and it stated the number of 1-bedroom units, 2-bedroom units, 3-bedroom units, x-square feet of office, x-square feet of retail, and x-square feet of lodging was critical to the “success” of the project. Please define success municipality.

That’s to say that when I walk down Bay Street or Prince Street in Beaufort or King Street or Anson Street in Charleston, I say to myself “my what a fabulous building, thank God they have the magic mix of 1 one bedroom unit and 1 three bedroom unit”--quite the contrary, it is about the form and the shaping of our public realm and what I like to call “happy accidents” in our built environment. Bedroom mix does not make a great building or a great public realm---form does. Plain and simple.

In a recent talk about the “changing face of Charleston,” I dissected the title of the forum focusing on the words “change” and “face.” Change, I believe, relates to the built environment or moreover the evolution of the public realm. Change is the basic building block of public discourse. Most humans are resistant to change especially to that of their physical surroundings. However, an interesting phenomenon associated with change and humans occurs once it is embraced. The greatest human fallacy kicks into fifth gear—that being instant gratification. I will never forget a streetscape project in which I worked with a neighborhood for eight months to gain public approval. The first three streetlights were installed and suddenly there was a deluge of residents calling and exclaiming, “Josh we love the streetscape project, will it be finished by the end of this week (mind you it was a six month installation)?” Humans are interesting creatures.

Revisiting the title of the symposium, “face” is a direct reflection of Charleston’s people. Buildings are truly one dimensional in the presence of humans. People represent yet another dimension of place. Charleston is unique in its diversity of incomes, age, race, and beliefs of its people. Our people should be diverse as our uses—that inevitably creates a great place.

I am reminded of a quote from a popular critic of the development review process, “It is literally against the law almost everywhere in the United States to build the kind of places that Americans themselves consider authentic and traditional. It’s against the law to build places that human beings can feel good in, or afford to live in. It is against the law to build places that are worth caring about.” I cannot agree more with this statement and experience an astounding level of frustration while begging the question, “why is this?” Why is it now against the law to rebuild such a place as Peninsular Charleston? Should this be a crime? How can we embody the ideals of preservation of place when our own laws and codes do not embody the historic precedent of the built environment of our home? All in all, I cannot help but wonder, “Are we truly regulating ourselves in a counterproductive manner?” The challenge becomes how we can create, communicate, and implement regulations that are appropriate to specific conditions in our legal, political, and bureaucratic systems?

JLM

by Josh Martin on Dec 30, 2009 10:42 am • link • report