05/03/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

APRIL 1994 II I IIII II AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION The Slippery Path to Monotony Control By Michael Barrette In some circles, monotony is public enemy number one. New developments litter the suburban landscape with houses that homeowners can neither identify with nor take pride in. The visual quality of the monotonous landscape has a negative impact on property values and economic development. Right or wrong, this viewpoint has gained enough proponents that many communities have established anti-monotony controls. This article will examine three approaches to the subject of monotony in residential architecture. The Laissez-faire View: Time Heals All Wounds The first approach to monotony control is the simplest. Man), planners believe either that monotony is not a problem or that is not important enough to pursue. Land-use attorney Dwight Merriam asks, "Why bother regulating monotony? The experience of Levitrown has taught us that this isn't a problem. Fifty, years later, they're trying to figure out ways to preserve the few Levittown homes that remain unaltered. Between front porches, second floors, and additions, there's almost no example of the original homes left! The problem of sameness is self-resolving over time. People will change their homes in dramatic and persona] ways as soon as the), can get to the nearest do-it-yourself center." Th~s argument has several camps. There are free-market pundits, proper'O, rights activists, affordable housing advocates, and even planners. Municipal planners in growth-oriented communities face a multitude of pressures. In many places, aesthetic concerns, no matter how important, take a back seat to development pressures. As one planner says, "Monotony? We're very growth oriented here--the market drives this place. Just reviewing the building plans is overwhelming. We are primarily concerned with things like structural integrity. There's no time to look at the exterior." The Comprehensive View: Design Review The moderate approach to monotony control is design review, Bellevue, Washington, consultant Mark Hinshaw says: "tfyou want your community to be varied, creative, and diverse, the way to do it is through design review--a collaborative effort between the development sector and the public sector." Hinshaw prefers this approach because it recognizes that "monotony is just one concern among many design-related things, although it is a major issue if you're facing franchised architecture." There are occasions when it is appropriate to have buildings look alike. Design review does not eliminate that possibility. As Hinshaw explains, "Rhythm and spacing can be important elements in a design, and a great deal of charm can be derived from harmony. You've got to look at your community and decide: What do you want to keep? What do you want to treasure?" Rodney Khan, planner for the city of Glendale, California, says it's not enough to have a policy statement that emphasizes compatibiliry. "We've gone out and identified the architectural characteristics of each neighborhood," he says. "Now, when a development comes in, we have a basis for discussion because'there are specific guidelines for compatibility." Salinas, California, has built a consistent argument from general policy to specific guidelines. The general plan includes a city design element. One section, "Guiding Policies: Design of Residential Areas," lays out a number of general designT_related goals such as, "Control the amount of variety in housing types and designs to avoid both monotony and visual chaos." Strict anti-monotony codes would prevent these charming homes ~om being built today.