|
Chicago's town house ordinance broke new
<br />ground in a city that publicly had shied away
<br />from design regulation.
<br />new ordinance.ltfo~ced projects that pre-
<br />viouslywould have provided no common
<br />open space at all to set aside a significant
<br />amount of it.
<br />Landscaping
<br />Since town house developments are fre-
<br />quentlydensely packed, considerable at-
<br />tentioDmust beapplied to landscapingto
<br />soften the hard surfaces of buildings and
<br />driveways. Chicago's ordinance has spe-
<br />cificrequirements for planting.in common
<br />spaces, in required setbacks, and in private
<br />open spaces, though once the permit is is-
<br />sued, no one.is going to force a town house
<br />ownerto maintain flowers in their private
<br />yard. The more enforceable and critical ele-
<br />mentof[heordinance is its requirement for
<br />landscaping within auto courts that have
<br />pedestrian entrances. One tree must be
<br />pfantedforeveryfourunits.
<br />CONCLUSION
<br />Chicago's town house ordinance broke new
<br />ground ina city that publicly had shied
<br />away from design regulation. In private,
<br />architects told us they secretly thanked
<br />the city for codifying into rules what they
<br />were unsuccessfully lobbying forwith their
<br />.developer clients. The ordinance delivered
<br />a streamlined review and approval process.
<br />No longerdo routine, smaller projects have
<br />to go the Zoning Board of Appeals fora
<br />variance.The rules ofthe ordinance are
<br />clear and require very little interpretation;
<br />they can be administered by persons un-
<br />trained indesign review.
<br />Since most of the troubles with town
<br />houses were with the projects too small to
<br />be planned developments, the ordinance
<br />was mat my written with smaller develop-
<br />ments in mind. In large partthese problems
<br />have been eliminated. Ifthere is an area
<br />where [he ordinance could be strength-
<br />ened,however, it would be concerningthe
<br />inward orientation of larger developments.
<br />How do we ensure that planned develop-
<br />ments donot become enclaves? Perhaps
<br />units tha[face interior private drives should
<br />be discouraged in favor of requiring larger
<br />developments to create real public streets.
<br />At the very least, new developments should
<br />be permeable; walkways through the de-
<br />velopmentshould he open to the neighbor-
<br />hood. Entry points should be frequent and
<br />wide enough to create an invitingview from
<br />the street.
<br />Town houses remain an attractive
<br />housing type with great flexibility. In cit-
<br />ieslike Chicago, New York, and Boston
<br />where density limits are not strict, town
<br />houses can be built at densities up fo z5
<br />to 35 units per acre. When they are mixed
<br />with condominiums or lofts, even higher
<br />densities can beachieved. In suburbs and
<br />less dense cities, [own houses can fit in
<br />comfortably with single-family houses to
<br />provide more housing~diversity. In these
<br />communities, town houses may be the only
<br />option for planners who wantto encourage
<br />more density. However, ifyou don't get
<br />the details right on these projects, you will
<br />lose any political or popular support you
<br />may have had for adding a little density. In
<br />any setting, the treatment of facades, loca-
<br />tion of drives and garages, separation be-
<br />-tweenstructures, provision-of private and
<br />common open space, quality of landscap-
<br />ing, andrelationship with the surrounding
<br />neighborhood are the key design features
<br />that determine a town house project's
<br />success.
<br />SPECIAL TRACK
<br />AT APA CONFERENCE
<br />Zoning Practfce will sponsor asix-session
<br />track at the zoio APA National Planning
<br />Conference, April ao tot3 in New Orleans.
<br />"Rules That Shape Urban Form" is intended
<br />to bean exciting, cutting-edge exploration
<br />of some ofthe major issues in modern
<br />urban land-use regulation. We invite you to
<br />join us for any or all of the followi ng:
<br />® Parking Management Innovations
<br />(S54o)
<br />Sunday, April u, to:3o-u:45 a. m.
<br />CM I a.z5
<br />® Graduated Density Zoning (5439)
<br />Sunday, April u, t:oo-z:as p.m.
<br />. CM f a.z5 .
<br />® Dealing with Nonconformities in a
<br />Down Economy (5507)
<br />Monday, April az, to:3o-at:45 a.m.
<br />-CMIazS
<br />® Context-Sensitive Affordable Housing
<br />(SSza)
<br />Monday, April iz, z:3p-3:45 p.m.
<br />CMIazS
<br />-® Retrofitting Commercial5trip
<br />Corridors (5542)
<br />Monday, April iz, 4:oo-5:t5 p. m.
<br />CM I az5
<br />® Rules That Shape Tomorrow (5587)
<br />Tuesday, April i3, g:oa-zo:z5 a.m.
<br />CM I az5
<br />REGISTER AT planning.org/conference..
<br />VOL. z7, N0. z
<br />Zoning Practice Is a monthly publication ofthe American Planning Association.Subscrtptions are
<br />available for $8510.5.) and $rao (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, rucP, Executive Director; William R. Klein,
<br />acP, Director of Research
<br />Zoning Practfce (ISSN 1548-oi35) is produced at APA.lim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors;
<br />Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
<br />Copyright ©zoao by American Planning Association, izz 5. Michigan Ave., Suite a6oo,.Chicago,
<br />IL 6o6a3. The American Planning Association also has offices at s776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.,
<br />Washington, D.C. zoo36; vrww.planning.org.
<br />All rights reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
<br />means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
<br />retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association..
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70 % rerycled fiber and ro% pos[consumer waste
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE x.ro
<br />AMERICAN PIANNING ASSOCIATION I page ]C'
<br />
|