|
parties in the CORE to rewrite their own regulations
around the common themes of the master plan. In
this instance, we made these development guidelines
nearly as detailed as a full set of urban design guide-
lines to make up for the fact that new zoning codes
were not part of this contract. (These two types of
guidelines are discussed in Chapter 6.) The multi-
jurisdictional complexity of this project made uniform
zoning codes politically impossible, although a more
modest example of common design-based coding
across three municipalities is included in Chapter 11.
A typical extract from the General Development
Guidelines is illustrated in Appendix IV.
CONCLUSIONS
At the conclusion of the process, we evaluated the
charrette results against the three important ques-
tions identified at the beginning of the project. The
first question asked:
Is the current development pattern
in the study area a sustainable model? If not, to what
degree will changes need to be made?
Our clear response was no, the pattern is not sustain-
able. While the RTP continues to provide economic
development to the region, the lack of balance in the
study area between the various components of daily life
– homes, jobs, shops, schools, churches and parks – will
seriously hinder the chances of long-term community,
economic and environmental sustainability. Change
needs to occur, and for this to happen, a shift in devel-
opment practices is needed. There is enough land and
plenty of opportunities in the study area for new devel-
opment to take place in strategic locations, but this will
take some significant intervention in planning policies
and the marketplace before such a change occurs.
We argued that change needed to begin immedi-
ately, but it would also need to be strategic and
carefully managed. To British eyes, solutions might
seem simple. We know the right kinds of policies and
design standards that are needed; just go ahead and
make the shift. For example, a regional planning
authority could require all future development to be
built in appropriate locations following the established
typologies of mixed-use centers, traditional neighbor-
hoods, districts and corridors that are consistent with
UK practice. Unfortunately, in this American context
there is no single authority with any mandate to initiate
and monitor such bold changes in the face of resistance
and inertia from the private sector and divided local
governments. The regional planning organization
called the Triangle J Council of Governments, is only
an advisory body, and the six municipalities do not
have much history of effective collaboration. In true
American fashion, their relationship has been competi-
tive, not collaborative. Without some dynamic top-
down leadership, for which there is little precedent and
less expectation, this collaboration is going to be slow
in coming. Even if the public bodies did coalesce
around a single set of policies, requiring higher stan-
dards could be counterproductive, creating antagonism
amongst private developers who would (the planners
fear) turn their attentions elsewhere, taking money and
energy out of the region. We think this fear is over-
stated, but it is very real in the minds of public officials.
The private sector is unlikely to initiate this kind of
structural change on its own. Developers and their
lenders are inherently conservative, evaluating future
actions and risks based on what has worked in the
past. In other words, under a somewhat pessimistic
scenario, the market will likely keep churning out yes-
terday’s developments until the regional system breaks
down and business energy transfers to another place.
The best way to break this cycle, and to affect change
in a dramatic manner, would be to focus on a few
early model developments, probably created by pub-
lic–private partnerships. The urban village at the
Triangle Metro Center (see Plate 18) is an obvious
place to start, linking large offices as the basis of the
urban village with transit and new housing. Most of
the pieces of the puzzle are included in this one
project, which already has some momentum. The
most effective way of changing the attitudes of public
officials and private developers is for them to see
working examples of these more sustainable types of
development, and to see them succeeding economi-
cally on the ground, in the region.
Our second question asked:
Are there other models
of development such as traditional neighborhoods,
transit-oriented employment centers, transit-oriented
village centers and neighborhood centers that can be
incorporated in future planning decisions?
This question answers itself. Yes, these are the best
models for promoting sustainable communities. In
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
