Design First Walters fm qxd 2/26/04 7: 50 pm page I

variation
, of the plan by others.
Changes are much easier to deal with if there is a
yardstick against which to measure new alternatives.
Clear plans, three-dimensional illustrations and
CHAPTER SIX
●
URBAN DESIGN IN THE REAL WORLD
143
Walters_06.qxd 2/26/04 7:25 PM Page 143

---

graphic zoning regulations provide this clear standard
for comparison and judgment much more effectively
than the conventional method of abstract plans and
legal language.
Hand-in-hand with the detailed master plan go the
various sets of regulating documents. These most usu-
ally comprise a Regulating Plan – a diagram of zoning
classifications derived from the master plan detail, and a
Zoning Code specific to the plan area under study that
will enable the plan’s recommendations to be imple-
mented with consistency and predictability. The code,
samples of which are included in Appendix III, and dis-
cussed in detail in Chapter 10, sets out in graphic detail
the legally enforceable design and development stan-
dards. British readers will recall the discussion in
Chapter 5 about this disconnection in conventional
American planning between creating a community plan
and not changing the existing zoning to comply with
the new plan. This fusion of the master plan and zoning
codes derived from the design concepts of the plan is
specifically intended to bridge this American gap
between plan formulation and development control.
The product of our charrettes thus always includes
specific new zoning regulations, urban design guide-
lines or development guidelines to ensure that new
development complies with the plan. These docu-
ments are described schematically at the end of the
charrette, and worked up into fully detailed docu-
ments in the subsequent weeks. So far, over a period
of several years, no public body has declined the new
zoning provisions or guidelines as part of the overall
plan. We believe this is partly because the visual detail
of the master plan enables local elected officials to
understand more fully the implications of the pro-
posal, and thus feel more comfortable than usual
about changing the zoning classification on private
property. The local officials also know that the own-
ers of property in contentious or difficult locations
have usually been sought out during the charrette
process to participate in the discussions about the
future of their land and their community.
At the level below the legally enforceable Regulating
Plan and Zoning Code come the advisory Urban
Design Guidelines that establish the specific levels of
design deemed appropriate for the community. These
cover a wide range of matters concerning the function-
ality and aesthetic character of the shared public realm,
and can be broken down into four main categories:
1. The Criteria for Mixed-Use Centers. These define
the content of mixed-use centers at various scales
and relate them to their urban context.
2. Site Design Issues. These comprise the placement
and arrangement of buildings to define and
enclose public space; the relationship of new
buildings to their context; vehicle circulation,
parking provision and preferred layouts; the inte-
gration of public transit, pedestrian and bicycle
amenities; techniques for environmental protec-
tion; and provisions for public art.
3. Street Design Standards. These include functional
cross sections for a pedestrian-friendly connected
street network and principles of proportion for
appropriate spatial enclosure.
4. Building Design Recommendations. This section
discusses building massing, scale, façade treat-
ment, the relationship of buildings to public
streets, the placement and character of building
entrances and the organization of service functions
such as deliveries and rubbish collection. Some of
these guiding principles – 10 elements of contex-
tual design, for example – were discussed and illus-
trated earlier in this chapter, and serve to illustrate
an important point. The design guidelines do not
mandate building 
style
; they concentrate on princi-
ples and techniques derived from good practice.
These guidelines are advisory only, but they’re
specific in their articulation of good practice to be
followed. As in Britain, they are used by American
planners to lead developers and their architects,
engineers and surveyors toward the communally
agreed standards of community design.
At a more general level, Development Guidelines are
intended, as the name suggests, to guide the develop-
ment of property according to standards of good prac-
tice for Smart Growth. Development guidelines are
even less prescriptive than urban design guidelines, but
they do define the key typologies that are the building
blocks of the master plan and illustrate criteria and
recommendations for good sustainable design practice.
These factors comprise:
1. The different typologies of neighborhoods and
districts within the plan area, for example, tradi-
tional neighborhoods, employment districts and
various scales of mixed-use centers. These provide
models of walkable developments that can define
and reinforce a sense of place within a community.
2. Typologies of open space, from undisturbed
stream buffers and watersheds to urban parks and
plazas. These open space guidelines aim to protect
the natural habitat and to improve the human
habitat with spaces that satisfy the daily needs of
social interaction.
DESIGN FIRST: DESIGN-BASED PLANNING FOR COMMUNITIES
144
Walters_06.qxd 2/26/04 7:25 PM Page 144

---

3. Criteria for a sustainable transportation network.
These include a connectivity index, to ensure ade-
quate street connections in every neighborhood,
general street design principles and the integra-
tion of public transit. Also very important is the
delineation of regional connectors and corridors,
which can range from highways, boulevards, and
rail lines to rivers, parkways and greenways.
4. Recommendations for site and building design.
This section covers some of the same ground as the
Urban Design Guidelines, having to do with design
elements that promote contextual site planning and
architectural design. Our two basic premises are
that all buildings should reinforce a sense of place;
and the preservation and renewal of historic build-
ings, districts and landscapes affirms the continuity
and evolution of civic life. A third topic for
American practice is that buildings should comply
with the current US Green Building Council’s
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) standard for reduced energy use.
Typical extracts from our General Development
Guidelines and Urban Design Guidelines are
included as Appendices IV and V, respectively. Both
sets of guidelines establish a clear framework that
assists designers and developers to understand
the goals and criteria of public policy, and to enable
the decisions of elected and officials and city staff to
be consistent for different projects. We structure the
provisions and the wording specifically to influence
future zoning codes; much of the text of the guide-
lines uses ‘suggestive’ language such as ‘should and
‘may,’ but this terminology can easily be replaced
with ‘required’ language such as ‘shall’ and ‘must.’
We write these standards and guidelines to com-
plement the master plans, and to guide development
as it may extend beyond the original scope and time-
frame of the plan itself. The guidelines are detailed
because the master plan is detailed, and for one fur-
ther reason: buildings often outlive their original
uses. An old industrial structure, for example, can
become new offices, shops and restaurants, live–work
units or trendy apartments, and the blending of old
and new adds to the character of the building and the
neighborhood. Buildings are more stable benchmarks
of community and catalysts of urban quality than the
transient uses that fill them. Therefore we place more
emphasis on getting the arrangement of buildings
and spaces right rather than fixing the patterns of use
by geographic location. What we deem a suitable use
at the present time may, and probably will change
over the next decade or two. In this situation of flux,
we want to create a physical environment that will
handle change and retain its basic quality beyond the
next investment cycle of five to ten years.
To this end, most buildings in a neighborhood or
district will be ‘background’ buildings, providing the
backdrop to public life rather than seizing center
stage for themselves. We know from experience that
designing ‘backdrop’ buildings is every bit as diffi-
cult, and satisfying, as creating landmark structures,
but the mythology of the architect as form-giving
hero is hard to overcome. In the absence of enlight-
ened design humility from architects, urban design
regulations are a necessary fact of life.
Within this regulatory framework, architectural
invention is welcomed at the level of detail, but the
overall form and massing of buildings should comply
with the specifics of the community guidelines (see
Figure 5.10). The only exceptions to this premise are
special civic and community buildings, like churches,
town halls and museums. Here architectural inven-
tion can have a free rein; if there are enough compe-
tent background buildings to establish a coherent
context, the occasional bold and innovative structure
for a special purpose can become a defining landmark
in the community. Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum
in Berlin is a case in point.
However, idiosyncratic buildings should still respect
the public spaces within which they sit, for ultimately
the quality and integrity of public space are more
important than any individual building. While
unique, innovative and eccentric structures can
enhance a neighborhood, these need to be in the
minority, counterpoints to the general continuum of
the urban fabric. We have found from experience
that it’s usually the less talented architects that com-
plain the loudest about restrictions on their ‘design
freedom.’ We have no doubt that the best architects
can interpret our regulations creatively, while we
hope to stop the worst from foisting their poor
designs on the public realm.