Legislating the Urban Design Process

Thus public participation by residents of the affected area and by special interests, such as groups dedicated to more open space, or saving landmarks, or allowing outdoor advertising, is furthered by making the particular development proposal decision more consequentialor at least as consequential-as the general plan adoption decision. Some problems with permitting approval of particular developments to constitute amendments of the general plan can be anticipated, and compensated for. Boston data shows that objections by residents to a particular proposal tend to be less frequent and less influential if the proposal is located in a low income neighborhood.2 Objections against an especially expensive project are less influential than against a modest proposal. This suggests that local government might sponsor advocate planners, similar to legal aid, who could strengthen the objections of residents in such situations. The CUD procedure can evaluate whether users of a particular site and its surroundings would be better off if a proposed development were permitted, or if the general plan were followed for that site. If the development proposal is more promising, it should be permitted, even though doing so makes a land value award to the applicant. CUD is aimed at building a good city, and is indifferent to how unevenly or unpredictably it distributes land values. Development permission under CUD is considered a public resource to be rationed in exchange for worthwhile additions (or preservations) on the part of the applicants. Other devices such as the general property tax and federal capital gains tax even out land value differences created by the development process. The major intersection with all four corners developed for business is properly zoned if the object is to treat owners who are equally situated the same. If the point of zoning is to build a useful city, it furthers safety and convenience to concentrate businesses together in a deep shopping district along a major street, and not at the intersection. The skyscraper district, where each tall building is permitted to block the same amount of light and air, is good zoning if the object 21. Boston Renewal and Zoning 159-160. Washington University Open Scholarship LEGISLATING THE URBAN DESIGN PROCESS is to treat owners, equally situated, the same. If the point of zoning is to build a useful downtown, a pattern of skyscrapers among low buildings and plazas is better. On a residential street running east and west it is good zoning to require the same minimum front yard of houses on both sides of the street, if the object is to treat owners, equally situated, the same. If the point is a useful street, the houses on the south side of the street might be placed almost on the street line, and the houses on the north side of the street placed almost on the north edge of their lots, with a wall along the north side of the street. This asymmetrical arrangement gives each house an outdoor space with southern exposure and better sunlight in winter. These questions of permitted intensity of development, configuration which buildings are to take, and whether or not existing buildings are to be retained or replaced are different when evaluated from the perspective of usefulness, rather than fairness to property owners. The usefulness perspective, which is incorporated into the CUD draft, would accomplish the retention of agricultural and other open land uses adjacent to intense urban development. It would locate tall buildings as entrance gate posts to a section of street that visitors to the city look for. It would retain historic row house areas adjacent to a skyscraper district, and retain individual landmark buildings which are cherished by city residents. It would impose a unique architectural style on a neighborhood whose residents value that style highly. This is a case where user's whim prevails over the individual owner's, if he is of a different mind.