|
or established neighborhood, it may be
<br />best to follow the historic patterns. Defining
<br />the street edge is perhaps one of the most
<br />important strategies, illustrated by moving
<br />buildings closer to the street, using land-
<br />scape features to continue the building line,
<br />and using street trees to further define the
<br />street edge. Relocating buildings or entire
<br />parking lots may not be possible, so the
<br />guidelines offer alternative means of meet-
<br />ing the design goals through buffers and
<br />landscaping, always in an effort to maintain
<br />the traditional character of the region.
<br />In the "Building Strategies" section, the
<br />manual explores various ways to break down
<br />large building masses, whether it is several
<br />smaller buildings grouped around a small
<br />courtyard or green or a series of smaller, at-
<br />tached massings. Articulating buildings by
<br />incorporating changes in building setback,
<br />height, roofline, and facades is a key element
<br />of this section. It also discusses the concept
<br />of bringing down the building edges with
<br />smaller attached masses that are more pe-
<br />destrian oriented and scaled.
<br />Both siting strategies and building
<br />strategies are illustrated with a combination
<br />of photographs and simple figures. Using
<br />graphics is critical to helping people under-
<br />stand the intent of the guidelines, and also
<br />to making the document user friendly.
<br />APPLYING DESIGN GUIDELINES ALONG
<br />ROUTE 132
<br />After producing the two regional design
<br />manuals, it has been a welcome challenge
<br />to apply these guidelines to specific areas in
<br />the region. The Route 132 commercial corridor
<br />in Hyannis, developed originally in the 19705,
<br />is a good illustration of the challenges sur-
<br />rounding a commercial strip. The town and
<br />property owners want to change the character
<br />of the corridor to make it safer for pedestrians
<br />and other users and also to make it more at-
<br />tractive for businesses and their users.
<br />We began our work by looking at the
<br />length of the corridor; cataloging its users;
<br />and studying building footprints, develop-
<br />ment patterns, and roadway characteristics.
<br />In doing that we were able to define discreet
<br />segments that could be recognized for their
<br />unique character. We defined the distinct
<br />areas on a map and created different goals
<br />and separate design guidelines for each area
<br />so the corridor would seem less like a long,
<br />consistent strip. Breaking it down into smaller
<br />parts also seemed to make unique develop-
<br />ment patterns more visible and potential
<br />solutions more manageable to implement.
<br />A main feature of the Route 132 report
<br />was establishing a scale of building at the
<br />street frontage — essentially changing the
<br />relationship between the building and the
<br />street— either by moving parking to the
<br />rear of buildings or by establishing a wide,
<br />landscaped buffer. We found that offering
<br />two possible solutions is a useful tool that
<br />recognizes that it's not always possible to
<br />relocate a building in the short term. Those
<br />options— moving the building forward or
<br />improving landscaping --are then illustrated
<br />with simple graphics.
<br />Another main feature of the report was
<br />the focus on streetscape design. For each seg-
<br />ment of the corridor we identified ways to de-
<br />fine the road edge with consistent landscape
<br />treatments and pedestrian amenities, and
<br />presented them in illustrated design guide-
<br />lines. Street trees and Landscape buffers were
<br />proposed in some areas; consistent building
<br />setbacks in others. Hard -edge buffers such as
<br />fences or low walls were proposed in places
<br />where parking is visible or buildings are set too
<br />far back to create a sense of enclosure.
<br />We also identified areas where devel-
<br />opment could be added—either to provide
<br />a pedestrian focus that connects existing
<br />activity areas to residential areas, to act as
<br />a shield for large parking lots, or to draw
<br />attention to underappreciated resources.
<br />As one example, we suggested additional
<br />pedestrian -scale buildings at the main ac-
<br />cess to one of the malls to provide linkage to
<br />a nearby residential neighborhood, to take
<br />advantage of hidden ponds, and to screen
<br />mail buildings and parking. We developed
<br />illustrations and graphics using SketchUp to
<br />help people understand how the area could
<br />look with these changes and to help sell the
<br />idea to various property owners and com-
<br />munity officials.
<br />FINAL THOUGHTS
<br />In developing guidelines for specific areas,
<br />it's important to recognize the potential
<br />shrinking retail market and also competi-
<br />tion from other areas of the community that
<br />are involved in revitalization efforts— village
<br />centers, main streets, etc. Guidelines should
<br />make an effort to differentiate these "areas,
<br />both in design and in activities or uses, in
<br />an effort to help them all succeed. But per-
<br />haps most important is to get guidelines out
<br />there. It is hard to influence change without
<br />them. To see the full design guidelines and
<br />reports discussed in this article, visit the
<br />Cape Cod Commission website at www.cape
<br />codcommission.org.
<br />REFERENCES
<br />Cape Cod Commission. 1994. Designing
<br />the Future to Honor the Past: Design
<br />Guidelines for Cape Cod. Available
<br />at www.capecodcammission.org/re-
<br />sou rces /regulatory / Desi gn Ma n u al. p df.
<br />Cape Cod Commission. 2009.
<br />Contextual Design on Cape Cod: Design
<br />Guidelines for Large - Scale Development.
<br />Available at www.ca pecodcom-
<br />m issi o n.o rg /reso u rces/ regulato ry/
<br />Contextu a lDesi gn Fi na lWeb. p df.
<br />Salem (New Hampshire), Town of.
<br />2011. Design Guidelines for Salem,
<br />New Hampshire. Available at www.
<br />salemn hprojects.org /uploads /plan-
<br />ni ng /Design_Guideli nes /DESIG N %2o
<br />GUl DELI N ES %2o- 5- 4- 11- adopted.pdf.
<br />VOL. 28, NO. 11
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the
<br />American Planning Association. Subscriptions
<br />are available for $go (U.S.) and $115 (foreign). W.
<br />Paul Farmer, FAICP, Chief Executive Officer; William
<br />R. Klein, /MCP, Director of Research
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced
<br />at APB.. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AIcP,
<br />Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor;
<br />Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
<br />Missing and damaged print issues: Contact
<br />Customer Service, American Planning
<br />Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave.., Suite
<br />1200, . Chicago, It 6o601 (312- 4 .31 -91oO or
<br />customerservice @plaiining.org) within 90 days
<br />of the publication date. Include the name of the
<br />publication, year, volume and issue number or
<br />month, and your name, mailing address, and
<br />membership number if applicable.
<br />Copyright oii by American Planning
<br />Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite €200,
<br />Chicago, IL 60601-5927. The American Nanning
<br />Association also has offices at 103o 15th St., NW,
<br />Suite 75o West, Washington, DC 20005 -1503;
<br />www.planning.org.
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication •
<br />may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by
<br />any means, electronic or mechanical, including
<br />photocopying, recording, or by any information
<br />storage and retrieval system, without permission
<br />in writing from the American, Planning Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50 -7o%
<br />recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION l page 7
<br />
|