|
. ,.... :'} , ~:;,~ ., ,' .~ it ~, .. , ..p . ,; ~ '~' :.. -.:
<br /> ...... '-1~ · ~, ~',- ; · -'
<br /> ~-~.-; ~ ;.:.,, ~ ~ · ~:~:.~ ....
<br /> -:..?~;. ~ :'.;i' ~ ~9 ~ '.; '~'~
<br />
<br /> .- ; ~ n. , ,.' : , .,.; ,, .., , ..;~ %~,.,,' . . .' . . .
<br />
<br /> ... . C~n by ~rge ~Ne~ ·
<br />
<br /> acSon ' ' ' "
<br /> As pliers ~ archi~c~s &~tempC ~ come to ¢ips with social, env~o~en~t ~ economic
<br /> concerns, bal~ced with politic1 ~21i~ions, ib is ~he buQ~ form ~d idenbi~7 of o~ physi~l s~-
<br /> ro~amgs which mos; a~ec[ly reflec; the effoms o~ ~hese professions, Howhere is ~is more re&ally
<br /> ble th~ ~ ~e a~pear~ce ~a perfopm~ce of our b~a~gs. B~ld~gs are the visual records of civi~abions
<br /> ~d exem considerable ~uence on the sense of place,' Dp lack ~ereo~, m & comm~iby. ~eal~g this, more ~d
<br />more local gove~en~ are abtemp~mg m ~fecb the archi~c~al desi~ of ppopose~ buQd~gs by eh&chug des~ review
<br />ordnances ~a develop~g aesl~ ~del~es.
<br />
<br />In the most successful applications, design review requirements incorporate a well-articulated community vision into the
<br />zoning ordinance, and are concerned with issues such as historical and cultural context, climatic response and materials
<br />and scale..Building orientation, overhangs, proportions and composition, relationship to site and surroundings, human
<br />scale, and exterior- to-interior transition should all be addressed. Design review then serves as the expression of a pul~-
<br />Lic, oral tradition of community concern with design of the built environment. In this way design review becomes an
<br />
<br /> ' ' '" In This Issue '
<br />Design Standards ~ Review-. .: .... '..
<br />From the Editors: ...... '.. :.... ;... :. 2
<br />Presidenfs'l~essage. ' ........ ~-.. ~... 3
<br />Queen Creek means Rural ........... '.. 6
<br />The '97 Legislature i ...... ,.. ~ ....... 8
<br />Questions and Answers on the .".-
<br />; American Planning Association's ....
<br />'. Growing Smar~ Project ............. '9.
<br />Section Updales ._....' ...... ' .... j. ~.. 11
<br />News from Around Arizona.. :.., .....
<br />Town o! Gilbert Residential '
<br />Subdivision Design and ..' ' .'
<br />Development Guidelines ....... :... 13
<br />Yuma Conference Update ............ 14
<br />Residential Guidelines Face
<br />Uncertain Fa'lure o! Mesa..; ....... 15
<br />Environmental Regulation ............ 16
<br />Professional Development
<br /> Commiltee Update ..... - .......... 18
<br />
<br />evolving inter"pretatton of individual citizens' perception of their city and of their
<br />hopes for its future growth or maturity. That people want new buildings, land-
<br />scaping and signing elements to be of equal or better quality than what already
<br />exists is no surprise. This desire, however, is often frustrated by the applicant's
<br />lack of understanding or concern with the community's stated objectives.
<br />
<br />In less successful applications,' design review regulations are not truly commm'~ity,
<br />or even regionally, specific, and serve to severely restrict the creative expression
<br />of design professionals by prescribing particular styles or rote adherence to
<br />pre-determined combinations of materials and forms. Particularly galling to archi-
<br />tects is having {heir work subjected to criticism and control by citizens or bureau-
<br />crats whom they regard as unqualified. This perception is often justified when
<br />planning staff members are charged with administering regulations which were
<br />not derived from an expressed community vision. The problem is compounded if
<br />staff has little or no education in the realm of physical planning, or when board
<br />members are appointed for reasons other than a demonstrated background or
<br />interest in physical design and their familiarity with their community's history,
<br />setting, and vision for itself. (Cont}.nued Co Page 4)
<br />
<br />
<br />
|