| Sunday morning session #2:
Final discussion, outcomes, and resolution |
Transcript of presentation toCouncil IV, (independently published), Santa Fe, NM
Transcription by Jason Miller
October 20, 2002
[View the pdf]
“…at base we’re talking about thinking first principles; universal principles are universal…”– Geoffrey Ferrell
[BEGIN TRANSCRIPTION]
Unknown speaker:
—standard of measurement. The suburban sprawl measures well below that, but some of the other things—so I’m volunteering to lead the economic support for that diagram, so that when people say, “No, this doesn’t work; we can’t loan you money; we can’t do this,” you can say, “No, here it is, right here. And look, it’s clear, it’s simple.”
So please contact me if you have anything that you’d like to share, that would help support that.
Geoffrey Ferrell:
First, the points about economics that Joseph and Peter made. Yes. The guys with the pursue strings, the developers, have to make money. We all have to make money.
But that’s not the point I wanted to make. It addresses Kevin’s point about generics, and what Chip was talking about. I think we have to remember the difference between the universal and the particular. I think in a world where you go into a supermarket and there are 15 kinds of cereal, all of which you’ll find in every city in America, and they’re all exactly the same—this mass production—we have to be careful about remembering the difference between principles and mass-produced things. I think a mass-produced codes that deals with specifics is a mistake.
Now I want to segue into the idea of regionalism, because it’s the same thing. Regionalism is an extremely tough thing. I’ve always been very interested in it at the level of architecture, at the level of putting your hand on the door knob of the front door and open it, and how that reflects the craft of the place and the people. I think, even at the level of architecture, it’s really subtle and it’s made even more difficult in our time of mass production and industrial products, but at base we’re talking about thinking first principles; universal principles are universal. I’ve seen the structure of neighborhoods in plans of the prefectures in 18th century Tokyo. To put it more generically, at base, it’s all the same stuff. A plaza in Santa Fe, at fundamental principle, it’s an awful like a green in New England, a square in a southern American town, etc.
A code should be about these fundamental principles. I’m not talking about the dress code, which says, in Santa Fe, you show the log beam sticking out of the side wall of the house—that’s dress code. But certainly when we’re talking about urbanism—look at Reps. Look at how dumb those towns are, and yet, when you go to those towns, they all have their own character.
Code should be about fundamental principles, so I’m disagreeing, I think in a very minor way—it’s semantic—with Chip, about having all these different approaches. The basic forms we’re after are relatively universal. I think the implementation procedures—how we get it implemented in Kentucky vs. Alabama vs. Florida—we may have 50 or 100 of those, because there are different laws. But let’s remember we’re about the fundamental urban form and regional patterns that, at a basic level, are universal.
John Torti:
I have divided, in my mind, for simplicity’s sake, the events of the weekend into three categories. One, the physical—and guess what? We are so good at that, and we have come such a long way at understanding and talking about and bisecting and dissecting the issues of the physicality of urban space, and how to represent that, and we now, with the transect, have a guideline that enables us to universalize it, and I think it’s going to be a good communication technique.
On the other hand, we have the beginnings—although, not all of us, I judge, were really listening to the management aspects of these codes, once they get into play. And I think the lawyers and the administrators in the group bring a very valuable lesson and a very valuable warning, and experience, to being able to do this.
There’s a middle ground that I’ve been wrestling with all weekend, having a hard time putting it into words. I can simply say that that middle ground, to me, is an implementation ground of when the old zoning map has to convert to the new zoning map that is described by the code. I think that, in that slot, politics certainly, economics, sociology—the whole mix of life—comes. I’m a born-again new urbanist, and I sort of operate “in the trenches,” if you will, so I do understand how difficult it is to implement this stuff. And I think if there is a way where the doors fall off, it’s going to be exactly in that spot. I think we can eloquently describe the codes, I think we can make them local, I think we can even find ways to manage them. But the ability to get jurisdiction A from the existing map to the proposed map is a HUGE challenge, a really huge challenge. Everybody is going to be upzoning, downzoning, sidezoning—and that process, I think, is something that we as new urbanists can support, because we understand how to deal with multiple stakeholders and establishing a consensus-based forum—the charrette is one of the techniques that we use.
I implore us to put a little bit more mind power into that slot.
Paul Crawford:
We can barely understand the terror of an individual property owner at the time when it’s advertised that the zoning map is going to change, even if it’s simply changing the name of the zone, with no change at all in what they can do with their land. Abject terror.
Douglas gets the last word in this session.
Diane Dorney (no mic):
Can I please just [insert] one sentence? Please?
[Laughter]
Ellen Greenberg:
[Unintelligible]—just getting disciplined about the flow!
[Laughter and general hubbub]
Crawford: Well, we’ll let you say one sentence after Douglas, only with Chip’s consent, because I haven’t let him say a word! Go for it.
Douglas Duany (no mic):
[Unintelligible] Here we are—[unintelligible]
And I’d love a proposal—[unintelligible]
But there are mediators, there are people who are perfectly capable of—[unintelligible].
[Many people talk at once—none of them with mics]
Crawford:
Yes.
Greenberg:
That would put us in peril, actually.
Crawford:
We’re going to do that next. Can Diane say her one sentence?
Greenberg:
You want the mic? Or no mic?
Dorney (no mic):
No mic! [Unintelligible]—at these Councils, at the end, you would have something [unintelligible] in a headline. And I was thinking, after all this discussion, we could at least vote on something. And my proposal is that we vote that everybody here do their own code, everybody here [unintelligible], so we use the transect for EVERYBODY, and everybody tries to plug into it—the traffic people, the economic people—everybody. Because if the CNU does one thing, it should be that everybody can go to the CNU and they should have a basis to start with. And it’s just [a few of you] [unintelligible] for the world.
So if we can at least vote to have one common goal. I think it would help.
Crawford:
That’s a perfect segue into our next segment! Which is, we’re going to vote. Actually, this was the “brain-dump” opportunity for folks who didn’t get a chance to say what they wanted to say in the absence of time after each session, to comment and to share their ideas. Now we need to do some collective work, which is to decide what we do next, collectively—what CNU does next, collectively. We’re CNU. The very few under-appreciated folks in the San Francisco office are not CNU. And we are an organization of volunteers who all have day jobs [to] which we are all incredibly over-committed. But if we’re going to get anything done that will help our individual practices and forward our individual goals for making better communities, we need to decide what, collectively, we’re going to do about codes and coding, since that’s the reason we’re here today.
The opportunities from here are to do some direct work, as Ellen indicated earlier, to come up with some product today, or to set an agenda. [There is] probably not enough time to do both in the remaining two hours that we have—or slightly less than two hours—what we’d like to do is spend the time that we have remaining, to set an agenda. The possibilities are wide-ranging, and they follow the entire paradigm of city and regional planning. We have issues of regional planning, transportation planning, regional land use planning, regional economics. We have issues with the planning process, in terms of how general plans and comprehensive plans are developed, and the ways in which the policies that those plans contain force implementation in particular ways that either fosters or perpetuates sprawl, or prevents it.
And then we have what we are all, ostensibly, here to talk about, which is the code, which Andres aptly said is “where the rubber meets the road.”
Now, having spent most of my career in the trenches, processing development permits and then writing codes based on the horrible time I had processing development permits for terrible codes, my personal bias is certainly toward the code itself and how that plays itself out on a daily basis, because the code and its administration determines what gets built, and how, on a daily basis. And that is what, incrementally, changes the community. It needs a policy framework for legal support, but it is how the community changes, day by day. So our options here are to define additional or future services and products that CNU can provide to support its members and to support its mission, and those, I think, range from—based on what we’ve heard over these past few days—a model code, a handbook for how to prepare a code that implements the principles of the Charter, how do you think about coding. A part of the SmartCode will be—as I understand from Andres—a users manual that talks about how to take [the SmartCode] and install this operating system so that it operates effectively at the local level.
There has also been discussion about the fact that CNU is contacted on a daily basis about focused, special-purpose, regulatory issues of coding: “I need regulations for mixed use projects.”
So there’s a very basic need there. But: What do we want to do?
We’re going to have a facilitated discussion here. Steve Lawton, unlike most of us, is a trained facilitator, and he volunteered to assist in playing this out. Ellen has a comment, first.
Greenberg:
I just wanted to suggest—maybe before we ask Steve for his help—I was hoping that maybe we could spend a quick, on-topic—say, five minutes—and decide, then, exactly what we want to do in the next hour and a half. Because right now, we don’t know. Do you want to help us out, Steve?
Steve Lawton:
Sure! How can I say no?
[Laughter]
Lawton:
What do YOU guys want to do?
Greenberg:
I think the “shoes off” thing is the great equalizer! We all wore socks, here—
Unknown speaker (no mic):
We’re lucky it’s morning!
[Laughter, as people remove their shoes]
Greenberg:
An auspicious start! Let’s let people talk while we’re fumbling around.
Peter Katz:
I’d like to draw from a successful page in CNU’s past, and quote Gianni Longo, who isn’t here today. When we first started talking about the Charter of the New Urbanism, Gianni said it’s very important to distinguish between principles, policies, and practices. He said, for instance, that the Ahwahnee Principles aren’t really principles, they’re practices. And I would like to suggest that if we could agree on one thing—generally, what you do is you do three columns across the page: On the left is principles, in the middle is the policies that grow from those principles, and on the right is the practices. And the practices are very often local. And again, principles [are] the big ideas that span everything. Policies are how those could be interpreted.
I think that if we could just get column one done, I think that would be an incredible accomplishment for this group.
Andres Duany (no mic):
We did. That all has been done.
Katz:
Well, in Geoff and my presentation, we proposed three very simple principles of codes. The first one was that all coding be coding a site-specific plan. The second is that you focus on the important stuff, not the unimportant stuff—and we can all decide that, but we think “use” is relatively unimportant; whereas, form is important. And a third piece is a very simple statement: Private buildings shape the public realm.
So I would offer those three principles as something that we might want to chew on. And I’m sure the group could add five or six more; they might delete two of those.
Unknown speaker (no mic):
[Unintelligible]—the principles of code.
Katz:
The principles that we presented in our presentation—if this group could agree on those—might be a good starting point. And so, again, I’d be happy to repeat them, but right now, though, the first thing, I know, [is that] we’re deciding on format, rather than the actual principles.
Greenberg:
Thank you. So, on the topic of format, how do you want to spend the next hour and a half? Quick! That’s what we need to hear.
Ferrell:
I may not get a ride back from the airport from Peter (Katz) for saying this, but I don’t think we should be trying—it almost starts to look like we’re writing a code or deciding on some base things en masse. Some of that’s been done, but I wonder if there aren’t some more pragmatic and less principled things we can agree on—very simple things, not what Diane said, because she threw about three things in there. I’m a transect skeptic, and I would propose we can agree—I can certainly agree, and Andres’ talk helped—that the transect is this valuable tool that we can all refer to. I think, sometimes, the words we use to describe how we’ll use it—as the structure or the “DNA”—are a little too strong for me yet, but I’m going to be using the transect to seize the discussion—the means of discussion—in my work, when I’m talking with environmentalists, suburbanites, bringing their ideas into the city, etc.
So I would propose—there are some common denominator things we can agree upon, so that when—as Diane said in part of her statement—we get into the next CNU, we can use that as part of our common language. But I don’t think that we have to wrench up the hierarchy. Start at the things that are common denominators, and then go up to deal later with the things we agree upon less or about which there needs to be more discussion. Let’s grab the agreement we can, and then move on to things that need to be debated.
Marcy McInelly:
I have a suggestion, then, since this group doesn’t have a problem finding things to talk about!
[Laughter]
If we go back to the first page and talk about code principles, can we take those four that have just been mentioned, in aggregate—the ones that Peter mentioned, plus the transect-based (should codes use the transect)? And let’s just discuss those four things. I think we will all learn a lot about that. Whether we can come to agreement at the end, I don’t know.
Lawton:
Let me jump on this. Would this group like to have a single outcome from this meeting? All in favor say “aye.”
Attendees (sounds like most of them):
Aye.
Lawton:
Motion carries. Okay, Diane wins that battle!
[Laughter]
Douglas Duany:
No, let’s have a show of hands!
Lawton:
Okay, show of hands. Would this group like to have an outcome at the end, agreed to by some process, some process to get to a definitive outcome, a final, conclusive, end to this conversation?
A. Duany (no mic):
[Unintelligible]—a choice of what the alternative is.
Lawton:
Outcomes. We can have multiple outcomes. Choice. Would we like to have a single outcome or multiple outcomes?
A. Duany (no mic):
[Unintelligible]
[Laughter]
Lawton:
You could look inside, and they can see them.
[Much “un-mic’ed” chatter]
Lawton:
Okay, what I am hearing is that this group would like to have one or more outcomes from this meeting. Okay? General agreement on the proposition, okay? The alternative being no outcomes and a nice discussion. Okay. How are we going to get there? I’ve broken the mic protocol, here.
D. Duany (no mic):
[Unintelligible]—Let me just make the argument, the common denominator: transect. Okay. [Unintelligible] What the transect means, whatever modifications we do on it, is that we’re talking regional, and we can’t—[unintelligible]. And behind it is reality; we are physical urbanists. [Unintelligible]
What the transect does—[unintelligible]
A. Duany (no mic):
I’d like to know if anybody can ESCAPE a transect—and what planet they’re going to be on!
Unknown speaker:
There’s not a debate, here!
[Incomprehensible chatter]
Lawton:
Okay, I’ve been asked to facilitate; I must insist that there be only one speaker at a time, okay? And instead of horsing around with the mic, let’s just speak, okay?
(Okay, you can assume that virtually everyone who talks from here on out is doing so without a microphone.)
Unknown speaker (sounds like Neal Payton, no mic):
[Unintelligible] What I would like to get out of the CNU’s effort—what Al Franken wants, if you will—is the lessons learned. A lot of people have been doing this stuff, now, have been doing it for a few years, and kind of like the military—[unintelligible]—worked the way the manual says. [Unintelligible]—learned how to jiggle it around.
In my experience, I remember a few things about jiggling it around, and everybody in this room has probably jiggled some things—
[General tittering, here, of course]
—and made a couple of [unintelligible]. Now, wouldn’t it be cool if there was a monthly newsletter from CNU that was, [for example], “Rick Hall: Lessons Learned this Month. And then, “Mike Watkins: Lessons Learned.” And it would be the most interesting thing—[unintelligible]. And over five years, you’d have this incredible document of how to “meet the road.” I would love to have [unintelligible].
Lawton:
Thank you. We had previously been on the topic of what should be the outcome of this meeting. We had one—I’m going to try to finish the outcomes—we had one. The transect. Anybody else have any other suggestions for an outcome for this meeting? Chip. And then Andres.
Chip Kaufman (no mic):
Two things. One, I would qualify the role of the transect as a common denominator. It’s a spectrum, but it’s mostly a common denominator that gives categories. It doesn’t necessarily structure form. And we need that as well. Our work was referred to a lot, and I’d like to make a clarification, if I may.
Think of a species, like the chamisa plant, which lived in New Mexico. That species will adapt to a bunch of different habitats—you can find it all over the place. So the species is generic, but the way it forms itself when it grows—like a town—is its habitat. And the habitats vary, the way a rose will vary according to its habitat. What I’m getting at is that a generic code needs to have the DNA to adapt to its habitat. There is the key to becoming place-specific and still generic. Did everybody get that?
Therefore, the standards—in the W.A. code, as an example—there are standards there that are rigid, and there are—somebody asked me yesterday why there are some “shoulds.” The “shoulds” and the objectives are the enabling to adapt to the particular habitat, so that it looks like New Mexico or it looks like Florida or it looks like Boulder. So it is possible to have a generic code that addresses those things, [unintelligible]. And the standards should have generic habitats, in fact: a region, a town, etc., and with that, subhabitats. There is only a list, and beyond that, it becomes “making the doorknob” [unintelligible].
So I would suggest that there are two ways that we can address our overall agenda. One is [unintelligible] great efforts to make handmade cards, [unintelligible], for each project, which is our normal modus operandi, which is, Andres has pointed out, too expensive. What happens when you build a factory, if it’s an adaptive factory, is you go to a great effort and you produce the generic code that has built into it the adaptive capacity. That big effort would enable us to cover the $15,000 client in a much more systemic way, so it represents a big effort up front to get a much more wide and pervasive impact downstream of it. We don’t have that mechanism yet.
A. Duany (no mic):
I think what we’re trying to avoid is kudzu—something that is so strong, it overwhelms the local ecology. That’s what zoning is. There is this kudzu everywhere, and the McDonald’s have protocols that are like kudzu.
An outcome. It seems to me that [unintelligible], particularly in this early stage, what we should do is organize and enable many, many codes to exist [unintelligible]. And not even on the basis of the transect, because we do not know, for a fact, that that’s the only operating system. I suspect it is, but we don’t know. Again, the only way to establish that is to not crush the other things that they’re describing, but to see what others come up.
What we need to do is not establish the transect anywhere—cross it out—and go further back and say, “How to we assess the codes relative to each other?”
One of the things that causes confusion is what degree of scale it would cover. There are codes—like Ray Gindroz’s codes—that begin at the neighborhood and go all the way to the architectural detail. They operate at a range [unintelligible].
Let’s say we start at the region, and there’s a community. The CNU transect scale: the building, the block, and the building. When you look at Ray Gindroz’s code, it has this range.
Unknown speaker:
His pattern book.
A. Duany (seems to have moved closer to a mic):
Right. So they have—nothing wrong with them, except [unintelligible]. So Peter Calthorpe has a brilliant code that happens to go from here to here. The ones that were shown yesterday for a second, that one of you guys showed (must have been Matt Taecker in the “Cities & Codes” presentation). Some other people write codes that go from here to here. And some—I believe the SmartCode goes from here; it tries very hard to do that. And others may do that.
It causes constant confusion, unless you know the range. For example, Chip’s code stops just short—you know, it has building orientation, but it doesn’t have architectural syntax.
So the first thing we have to do is talk about where this code works on the range. Is it from the region, down? So we say—it’s not that—[unintelligible].
The second thing is, [unintelligible] different attributes. We need to make a list of what they do, and rate whether it’s yes or no, yes, no, yes, no. For example, [unintelligible] adaptability: Is the code adaptable, intrinsically adaptable? If it is, it gets a check there. Some aren’t, and some are. Is the code a model code, or regionally specific? Right? Yes. No. So we start going down there. We can go [unintelligible] every detail that’s important. [Unintelligible] You can’t go around disliking Chip’s humanist code, which is what I think it is—it’s a code that treats the user as a human, as opposed to, like, a lawyer going to court!
But our code—the SmartCode—is for lawyers. It has a very particular set of limits and powers, and so forth; it’s in legal language. Some of the codes aren’t.
Another thing is that the codes include instructions and explanation—excuse me, just explanation. Does the code treat the reader as an intelligent being or not? For example, our code doesn’t. It says, just do it. Just do it. Which is what most codes are like—they don’t go around explaining why you should do things. It’s never better or worse, it’s just, does it include explanatory language or not? Does it include legal language or not? And we go right on down the line, and we can see what kind of code we’re looking at. They begin to talk to each other. And it’s not a better—[unintelligible].
Is it transect-based? You want to do the transect? Fine. Is it transect-based? Yes or no. Is it form-based? Yes or no. Or is it contradictory.
Stefanos Polyzoides:
So basically your idea is—
A. Duany:
They would be both transect-based and form-based.
Polyzoides:
—construct a [unintelligible] as an outcome.
A. Duany:
What we do today is we decide, all the things that matter to us, you know, preferably dialectically; you know, yes/no, yes/no, yes/no, or whatever that [unintelligible], what computers do. You do it, and then you actually can choose—I’m looking for a code that is transect-based. And you consider downloading the six that are available. I’m choosing for a form-based—or I even want a form-based code that’s transect-based. Or, I’m looking for instructions. And you can then find each other’s codes [unintelligible] because the idea is that the CNU is a swarm, you know, and the minute that we try to get everybody to arrive at one thing, we are too good for that—literally. We are too good, as individual operators, to arrive at a single outcome. All the CNU ever has to do is to organize all the positive outcomes. That’s all.
So I suggest we make this list today, and just [decide what it is] we want to [unintelligible], so that we can just drop our existing codes into this system, and that’s the CNU codes system.
Torti (I think):
In our list of what we want to do before we leave today—
[Horrible feedback cuts in; tape goes mute for several seconds]
Polyzoides:
—Neal’s point, and other possible outcomes in the next six months, is a compilation in a very open-ended way, of a set of remedies [unintelligible] in a medical analogy. Just a continuing discussion about remedies.
And thirdly, I think it is terribly important, considering my personal frustration over the proliferation of new urbanist plans without codes, and [how they’re] confusing and destroying our reputation, is that we need to decide what are the half a dozen basic principles that qualify a code as being a new urbanist code. We need to draw a line around ourselves at some level, and say, “If you’re outside this line, you’re not a new urbanist code, period.”
Lawton:
So that’s what—I’m trying to make that [unintelligible] the boundary of what is a new urbanist code or not.
Polyzoides:
It’s a definition, whether the basic principles of coding, that define a piece of work within Andres range, as being new urbanist or not.
Lawton:
Okay, here’s a question for the group. Have we exhausted—I think we have a topic, here, an outcome. Talk about the transect. Talk about the committee and its function. Remedies. And what’s in, what’s out.
[General unintelligible conversation]
Ferrell:
[Unintelligible] We heard an excellent point about the issue of the bankers, the economics [unintelligible]. Peter made it, and I thought I heard a murmur of assent. So is that what [unintelligible]?
Unknown speaker:
How does that play itself out as a [unintelligible]?
Ferrell:
There’s a committee—
Lawton:
Who has a response to Geoff’s point?
Katz:
I’d like to, because I made the point that Geoff’s referencing. The outcome that I’d like to suggest is a joint, regulatory/finance task force that begins to look at the financial ripples that could come out of an organized typology system, so that we can examine those benefits at the same time we’re looking at the regulatory benefits. It’s actually Todd Zimmerman who described it to me, and he could fully describe how it should work.
Lawton:
Okay [unintelligible] supportive or oppose it.
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible]
Katz:
It is. It takes a regulatory thing and it puts it into a financial world, and it opens a finance [unintelligible].
D. Duany:
[Unintelligible]
Katz:
Right now, the world is organized by uses, both the regulatory and the financial worlds use uses as the only filter. If we’re going to switch to a typology filter, then it’s likely that the financial world will follow the regulatory world, as they did before. They are joined at the [hip].
D. Duany:
I have just one outcome [unintelligible]. But I want you guys to perhaps shoot it down. We’re talking about codes, but we’re not talking about how [unintelligible]. Because it’s basically just DPZ and Calthorpe. Nobody has mentioned regional planning—the other side of the code. And I know [unintelligible] we’re opportunists in physical planning. The Treasury Coast Regional Planning Council in Florida falls in the gap between [unintelligible]. [Unintelligible], hopefully Maryland, certainly [unintelligible], open task forces that build up the knowledge of the region, [unintelligible] the large, local, regional calibration issues.
[Unintelligible] that can respond to the township that has 25,000, for a charrette—or 40,000, whatever it is—and can [unintelligible] its [unintelligible] knowledge. Because we’re not talking about how to actually apply these regional plans.
I’m not sure I want it as an outcome, but we’re not talking about application, I know [unintelligible]. But the mechanisms by which we apply regional planning is not convention yet.
Lawton:
Okay, I have one. I have [unintelligible]. Does anybody else have an outcome?
Unknown speaker:
An outcome [unintelligible] the CNU will learn how American codes are distributed [unintelligible]. One problem, for example, is we had somebody say that the uniform fire code applies nationwide. It doesn’t. Because what are all the [unintelligible]?
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible] is that, I think we could use a little hand-holding as we process—how do we apply the code to existing neighborhood, and how do we apply it regionally? And these codes are much more planning-related, [unintelligible]-related to that; they’re not public hearing-type codes. So, a couple of different [unintelligible] like that, I think would be helpful.
Lawton:
Okay, that’s another outcome. Any more outcomes?
Marcy McInelly:
I just want to say that I think we’re not going to get through all these outcomes in one day. I personally would find it helpful to be [unintelligible] number two and number five, which I think we could do simultaneously [unintelligible] or the other, we could just list the attributes and then, afterward, decide what constitutes a new urbanist code and what doesn’t. If we could just do that this morning, it would be incredibly helpful.
Polyzoides:
One point of procedure. I think Peter Katz’s suggestion and Andres’ suggestion—the suggestion about economic outcomes and codes—seem to me to be extraordinarily important, but peripheral to this discussion. I wouldn’t say they are necessarily [unintelligible], because they are [unintelligible] philosophical issues that flow out of this discussion simultaneously. So I would suggest that, when we’re exhausted with [unintelligible] [microphone feedback] that we actually spend five minutes on the issues [unintelligible] on core outcomes and peripheral outcomes, because I think we need to concentrate on the core outcomes.
Unknown speaker:
I’d like to say that I’m more interested in order, and probably a simple order, [unintelligible] this playing off the engineers that [unintelligible]. If we could also do that with codes, and maybe end up today with a diagram that is, you know, big pictures or principles, and then, model—I hate the word “generic code”—a model code, or maybe a number of different ones; we already have the SmartCode. And then, what are under those? Maybe they’re regional, maybe they’re state. And then under those. And then we get, eventually, down to the projects. And I would just like to see a diagram, almost like a “transect,” of codes, and then start thinking about how we get to each of those.
Unknown speaker:
A taxonomy.
Unknown speaker:
Yes! That would be really helpful.
Kaufman:
We do not [unintelligible] the financial analysis, the cost/benefit analysis is not a sideline; it is an imperative component, an integral component. I think what we have before us is that we want to find a way to not only produce, but also to defend and know that we’re right with—and I think the word is, accurately, “generic adaptive new urbanist coding.” We need to be able to defend it, to be able to replace zoning.
How do we know that it’s right? One thing is community [unintelligible], but the other thing is triple bottom line, including some cost/benefit analysis [unintelligible]. That is the main—not only to defend it [unintelligible], which is incredibly important, but then [unintelligible] that we’re right, so that we can adjust it, so that it can be an integral, concurrent exercise, and in fact, the project that I—I’m surprised it’s not [unintelligible], and it surely is, but the [unintelligible] charrette is a cost/benefit analysis at the same time of the information is there, essentially, it’s a novel, that basically was testing that approach. And that’s how we were able to defend it. A [unintelligible] benefit/cost ratio says DO IT.
A. Duany:
[Unintelligible] the Canadian government [unintelligible] all the time. You know why I even know about this? Because [unintelligible] plug into the transect.
Lawton:
We have a list. I needed something that [unintelligible]. Let me suggest, as a point of order, that we select one or a few of these outcomes, to attempt to achieve today, because I heard you all say that you want to get something done this morning.
D. Duany:
I move that you—that the people on stage decide.
[Unintelligible chatter]
Rick Hall:
I second that motion!
Lawton:
[Unintelligible] the proposition that we focus our attention for the next 45 minutes on outcomes that were two, five, and a little bit on three.
Kaufman:
Where does it—does the generic code fit into that?
Lawton:
Clarifications? Points of clarification?
Kaufman:
Yes. The generic [unintelligible].
Lawton:
I don’t have the answers. All I can do is read the list. Number two says, “System for assessing and categorizing codes.”
Polyzoides:
That’s the diagram behind you.
Lawton:
That’s it. That’s correct. Two.
Polyzoides:
I would like to suggest that Diagram Five is an item that Paul Crawford presented in his lecture as a—
[END OF TAPE]
[BEGINNING OF TAPE]
[“un-mic’ed, unintelligible speaker]
Lawton:
Okay, let me [unintelligible] how much time we can spend on item numbers two, five, and three. I propose we begin this [unintelligible] two, to come to a conclusion on.
A. Duany:
Steve, can I say something about three? I think it’s very short, maybe as short as five minutes.
Lawton:
Okay.
A. Duany:
I think the [unintelligible]. If properly handled.
[Laughter]
A. Duany:
And I volunteer! We’re just going to do the [unintelligible].
Lawton:
Okay, we believe that this ought to take 20 minutes—can you do that?
A. Duany:
If I can rant!
[Laughter]
Lawton:
This might take five minutes, so why don’t you—
Kaufman:
[Unintelligible] five doesn’t mean anything; it’s just checking [unintelligible].
Many speakers:
No, no—we have to decide—which one—
A. Duany:
Peter has the [unintelligible] category, and I happen to know what Peter Calthorpe’s [unintelligible] category is. He’s done two [unintelligible]. They’re different proposals [unintelligible].
Lawton:
Let’s check in at 11:05 on number two, and ask ourselves, “Are we finished yet?” If we’re not, we can give ourselves a little more time. I’m trying to wrap this up with a little bit of a buffer at the end, so it [unintelligible].
Polyzoides:
I move that Andres run the 20-minute exercise.
Unknown speakers:
Seconded.
Ferrell:
Clarification? Point of clarification? I don’t know the rules, but I’m sensitive.
[Laughter]
Ferrell (fighting background noise):
[Unintelligible]
A. Duany:
It’s two different things. What’s happening is it’s not [unintelligible]. You’ll see the attributes of the codes; it’s not a taxonomy.
Ferrell:
I think I need the taxonomy as well.
Rick Bernhardt:
I think the taxonomy is the scale; I mean, it’s the element of scale.
Ferrell:
I disagree. To a degree.
Greenberg:
I would like to just add another committee reference in number three, [unintelligible] to scale, so, with your permission, [unintelligible]. Okay, so here is what we have as the primary choices. There is a mandatory or optional—there’s one. This is after the scale is described. Mandatory, optional, greenfield or infill, infill or redevelopment emphasis—
Unknown speaker:
Or both.
Greenberg:
Or both! Yes! I meant that: or both. Geez, jump all over me!
[Laughter]
Greenfield, infill, or both.
A. Duany:
Is it incentive-based?
Greenberg:
We don’t have that yet, so let’s put that there. And, [unintelligible]. And we looked only at a couple of [unintelligible] nonprivate space, but I think that if—
A. Duany:
Is it private or public?
Greenberg:
—people there, they—
A. Duany:
[unintelligible]—administration, public administration.
Greenberg:
Well, there’s public project, and then there’s project-based or more general.
Kaufman:
If it’s place-based or not—or generic.
A. Duany:
Yes.
Greenberg:
And then I did—well, that’s really, sort of, to the taxonomy, so we organized model codes—
A. Duany:
So one of the attributes that I think we should have, we should actually—appearing in the taxonomy should be the number of pages of codes, so you know whether you’re talking about a 480-[page] lard bucket or a half-page Calthorpe code.
[Sounds like pretty much everyone is talking at once, at this point]
—something nonbinary about this, in the sense that [unintelligible] you have no optional, you have no greenfield, you have no infill—
Unknown speaker:
But wait a minute, Andres, the same code [unintelligible] you’ve got a code in [unintelligible], Kentucky. It’s got, right now it’s got [unintelligible]—and it’s both.
A. Duany:
Of course! Of course. Exactly. What I’m saying is, I didn’t know if [unintelligible] two “yeses.” [Unintelligible] The codes will be attributed, will be identified by the number of yeses. It could be transect-based or not.
[More of everyone talking at once, un-mic'ed]
A. Duany:
Okay, this is the yes/no, yes/no. Okay, form-based. I think we aborted some people. Yes/no. Some people like the term “typology”; some people think it should be typologically based.
Ferrell:
Right. Is it building typology or public realm? Or [unintelligible]?
A. Duany:
The [unintelligible] about that [unintelligible]. Does it just add up? And all the [unintelligible] typologically based? Yes or no. What else?
Unknown speaker:
What happens [unintelligible]? Where are we going with this?
A. Duany:
What happens is, [unintelligible]. How you get the [unintelligible] that are important to you. The [unintelligible].
Unknown speaker:
Finding something that works for you.
A. Duany:
You find that [unintelligible], but then, you know I [unintelligible]. Okay, [unintelligible], yes/no.
Unknown speaker:
What about [whether] it’s legally enforceable?
A. Duany:
Ah! Excellent. It should be legally enforceable.
Okay, another thing is, does it [contain] great instructions? I think that’s very important, because [unintelligible]. Instructions. Does it explain why we’re doing something?
Wait, wait, wait. Does it include an intent clause? Some do, some don’t.
Unknown person:
Is it understandable to the layperson?
A. Duany:
Okay. What do we call that? Lay language? Lay language.
Okay, wait. I’m not that fast! I never do this in the public process! Never!
Polyzoides:
[With] pictures, you’re very fast!
A. Duany:
I do it in my computer, [unintelligible] other things, if necessary.
Okay. Lay language. And what was that? Does it use diagrams? Does it use photos? Some people use photos. Does it use examples of built projects?
Unknown speaker:
Did we already say “is it transect based?”
A. Duany:
Yes, that’s already in. Chip, what did you say?
Kaufman:
We already covered that.
Unknown speaker:
Is it regional?
Ferrell:
Yes, is it inherent in the code that it addresses the regional scale?
A. Duany:
Okay, I liked this better down here, because what’s happening is [unintelligible], I think that actually having a [unintelligible] at the top of the code, that shows what its parameters are, is [unintelligible] for you to do it.
Unknown speaker:
[unintelligible]
A. Duany:
Ah, yes. Excuse me, now this is important. Does it—is it tied to a map? Does it [unintelligible].
Unknown speaker:
But isn’t that the relationship to the transect?
A. Duany:
No.
Unknown speaker:
No, not necessarily.
A. Duany:
There’s the sense that [unintelligible]. You can do [unintelligible]. Hard to do, but [unintelligible].
Let’s change the subject. Does it give instructions on the making of the map. That is very specific [unintelligible]. Some show [unintelligible] map already. It’s just equally [unintelligible] map. And some have to show you how to build the map.
Ferrell:
Some have rules and structure—
A. Duany:
Okay, wait. Somebody—Debra (Hempel) said—did you target GIS. By the way, talking about a power grid, anything [unintelligible] GIS, you know, okay. And I think we should make an effort, you know, and so this would be very important to me, the GIS.
Unknown speaker:
There are two attributes to mapping. One is the formulation of the map as a planning exercise—what is there; the other part, once the map is done, the map essentially serves as an in-depth [unintelligible].
A. Duany:
Whew.
Unknown speaker:
That big map generates [unintelligible].
A. Duany:
Two words [unintelligible]. Is it map-generative? We’ve had this before—is this a better terminology? Or is it map-dependent?
Unknown speaker:
Does it reference prior codes?
A. Duany:
Okay. Okay. May I call that something else? “Does it have translation protocols?” Does it actually show you how it takes an existing code and—okay? “Translation” may not be the same word, but you can put them into automatic pilot and say—
Kaufman:
Referential protocol. It refers to your new map? Not translate, but refers to [unintelligible].
A. Duany:
Does it have an [unintelligible] standard. In other words, there are a whole lot of things—does it have green building standards? Which, by the way, need to be not only incorporated, but combed out, because [unintelligible] building standards can prevent urbanism.
Hall:
Is it transportation-coordinated?
A. Duany:
Yeah! Okay, transit, which means does it have street sections included?
Hall:
It means they connect to the agencies that build transportation.
A. Duany:
Transportation-coordinated. [Unintelligible] you know what this [unintelligible] makes me do? Since everybody is going to want to do “yeses,” I’ll tell you what’s going to happen is we’re going to improve the quality of our codes and, perhaps, convert them. Because remember, we have the New Urbanism principles—if this is the checklist of what it needs to do, I think we’re going to find highly converted codes if we, you know—
I’m sorry, wait: Transportation-coordinated includes public works standards. Okay?
Unknown speaker:
Can our clients afford all the yeses?
[Laughter]
A. Duany:
Okay, I’ll re-label their ability—is it the [unintelligible]? Right? Is it in the public domain? Adopted anywhere. Can it be [unintelligible].
Unknown speaker:
Four percent, is there a planning administrator, is there [unintelligible]? Is it administered by a developer?
A. Duany:
For example, if something is [unintelligible], design centers are now [unintelligible].
Unknown speaker:
Some codes simply cannot be administered.
A. Duany:
Yes, but that’s Roger’s objection. Well, everybody imagines that they’re going to be elected to administer it. I mean, that’s what [unintelligible]. By the way, does it incorporate the process within? You understand, some codes [unintelligible], and some codes talk about a process that is administered. Does it incorporate the process.
Unknown speaker:
Does it incorporate a process for some modification?
A. Duany:
Okay! Is it organic. Okay, not organic. Is it, let’s say, [unintelligible].
Greenberg:
Adaptive.
A. Duany:
(You know what I like about the New Urbanism? We’re not warm and fuzzy.) Does it have adaptation protocols?
Unknown speaker:
And are those adaptive protocols built in? Does it have successive change built in? In other words, are the vectors for change in it already, or is there a process where you go back and re-evaluate every five years?
A. Duany:
Yes. Okay. What does it include?
Lawton:
[Unintelligible] we have five minutes to go.
A. Duany:
We’re going to NEED a deadline [unintelligible]!
Kaufman (I think):
Is it linked to fiscal impact, probably the GIS link?
A. Duany (writing as people call out):
There was an earlier one—does it include landscape standards? Signage standards, noise ordinances, architecture, lighting (for safety, etc.)—you know what [unintelligible], because how do you [unintelligible]? I mean, you can actually take it from another [unintelligible].
Ferrell:
Is there anything up there that analyzes: “Does it structure urban space”?
A. Duany:
Okay, [unintelligible]. Okay, what is “space”? We spoke about typological spaces, use bases—is it urban space [unintelligible]? Is that right?
Unknown speaker:
Structural.
A. Duany:
Is it structured [unintelligible] urban space?
Unknown speaker:
Is it a regulated [unintelligible]?
A. Duany:
That, we have already. Urban space. As opposed to what? Give me other choices.
Ferrell:
Building typology.
A. Duany:
We have that.
Ferrell:
Yes, but those were the—Peter and I proposed other choices to restructure urban space, public policy, restructure building type . . .
A. Duany:
Fine. Okay, [unintelligible] as opposed to function. Who else?
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible]
A. Duany (as people call out):
Air quality. Water quality. I mean, we don’t get [unintelligible] in Florida. Energy. Yes, but does it [unintelligible]? Because if it does, what I’m expecting is that there will be a convergence; the swarm will converge. What you do is you get everybody operating independently, and as long as you’re in contact, you actually arrive at a [unintelligible], you know, you take on the [unintelligible], and that’s what [unintelligible]. You know, it doesn’t do a lot of things; it does do others. And you’ll see what the other things [unintelligible].
Dorney:
What about transit?
A. Duany:
Ah, that’s a category [unintelligible]. God, there are so many hot buttons. Okay, obviously, we’ll need a committee to make this really tight.
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible]
A. Duany:
Well, I think that’s covered by other things, but we can include “does it have a parking protocol [unintelligible]?”
Lawton:
One minute!
Unknown speaker:
I just want to make sure that [unintelligible] fiscal impact analysis and economic feasibility linkage through GIS. Maybe that’s a subhead [unintelligible].
A. Duany:
Is it fiscal economic—what is it?
Unknown speaker:
Fiscal impact and financial feasibility.
Lawton:
Forty-five seconds!
Ferrell:
I have one for you: Is the maximum average lot perimeter under 2,000 [unintelligible]?
A. Duany:
“Does it have block perimeter specifications”?
Ferrell:
Well, what if they’re 5,000 feet? It’s not new urbanist!
Dorney:
But it won’t even be on there!
Lawton:
Fifteen seconds!
A. Duany:
Reference the Charter! Okay, here’s another one: Does it have a [unintelligible]?
Lawton:
That’s time, Andres!
A. Duany:
Okay, listen. You’re going to [unintelligible], any additional stuff, e-mail it to Ellen.
[Laughter]
Lawton:
Okay, item three. Who’s the composer of item three? John, please, [unintelligible]. Who did four and five?
[At this point, I’d guess about a dozen people are talking at once]
John Massengale:
This is where we have a couple of paradoxes. This is the first Council I’ve been to since CNU I where I was in the room for every session.
[Applause and laughter]
Part of the reason for that is because I don’t know much about codes, and it was a way to come up to date. And this is a different group than the other Councils; I mean, there are two subsets here that overlap, with a lot of people in the two subsets who work independently.
I agree with Andres that we need to hand this over to the lawyers, to the planners, the administrators. It also struck me, in looking at the committee that was assembled on the platform, that it could use some more urban designers. Because I saw in some of the standards things that I already disagreed with. And I would like to nominate Geoff Ferrell, Stefanos, and, if he’s interested, Andres, to join the committee.
Greenberg:
Maybe Rick or I could talk about what the [unintelligible] is actually doing [unintelligible], because I don’t know [unintelligible].
Okay. Gianni and Rick started work on a “study [unintelligible]” some last [unintelligible]. And, a little over a year ago, we had a meeting and decided to try to do a manuscript that would be a kind of overview of [unintelligible] new urbanist coding and [unintelligible], and that would address an audience of planners, and that was specifically focused on public sector [unintelligible] and public agency planning. Because of that focus, we had aimed to write a piece that would be published by the American Planning Association [unintelligible] which was verifying that, you know, you’re a person [unintelligible] a planner, [unintelligible].
So there is actually in the manuscript at this time, it is fairly far along, that everybody saw and others contributed to. And it includes a kind of inventory [unintelligible] system of recording [unintelligible], you know a small kind of print there, [unintelligible]. So that manuscript is awaiting sensitive comments [unintelligible]; Jonathan Barnett has been involved in the effort, and has been [unintelligible] to write an introduction for it, so we’re kind of toward the end of the road on that effort [unintelligible].
So I think, personally, it makes more sense for you all to talk about what we want this next project to be, and [unintelligible] on whatever [unintelligible] about [unintelligible] that would enable us to more quickly and easily have people publish on the Web and on paper, materials that [unintelligible].
But in terms of this particular group, we’re kind of on the waning end of the project that we had set out to [unintelligible].
Massengale:
But somebody needs to carry this forward. Your committee, the one that doesn’t want to do it, seems like a good committee to do it, with the addition of a few more urban designers.
Unknown speaker:
Right. I agree.
Unknown speaker:
As a member of the committee, I actually—Ellen may shoot me for saying this—but I actually think that if this is going to be a committee that is circulated by CNU, which consists still predominantly of design professionals, I want to know the design professionals understand it and support it, and have had something to say about it, so that it really does represent CNU and not just—I think one of the dangers of dividing into task forces is that we again become specialized, instead of just talking about design, and transportation. I think one of the purposes of the CNU and the Councils is to get this “cross-fertilization.” So I don’t think we need to stop what we’re doing, but I think John’s idea is very useful, in that if we have that kind of review of our manuscript, it will make it a better manuscript and it will help shape what the next step is going to be. It might be a slightly rearranged committee that includes [unintelligible].
Massengale:
We’re here; why don’t we vote on that committee—the next-step committee—instead of dispersing and not being able to sit and talk about it?
Unknown speaker:
Could the other committee members speak—put them on the spot?
Unknown speakers (they must be the other committee members):
Works for me.
Yeah. I have no problem with it.
Greenberg:
It’s not a problem, I was just saying that [unintelligible].
Bernhardt:
What I’ve heard is Joel’s suggestion—and I agree 100 percent—that the manuscript that is there needs some strategic review from the designers in [unintelligible], and I agree 100 percent. I think that’s a good idea, and I would recommend we do that. And I think we need to take the committee to the next level, and I guess John made the suggestion of who to add, and I agree with that. Then we take it to the next level, and what comes out of this, that that committee can do, let’s go do it.
Part of the dilemma that we’ve been in all along has been the strong demand for the manuscript out there among planners, and we want to get that, but we want to get it right, and I don’t that there is any reason that we can’t have designers review it and still get it out in a timely fashion.
Unknown speaker:
[unintelligible]?
Greenberg:
There are 22 now; there’s a list of, I think, 11, [unintelligible].
Unknown speaker:
It’s essentially case studies.
Massengale:
So . . . is there a motion?
Unknown speaker:
We’ll just do it!
Greenberg:
We’ve never voted before; people just stepped forward—
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible]
Unknown speaker:
Is there a [unintelligible] protocol for getting input on [unintelligible], an e-mail to everybody [unintelligible]?
Kaufman:
When the best code in the world has a [unintelligible] chance of being in Australia, okay, the person [unintelligible]. And I want to explain that, because [unintelligible] Wendy is really the genetic brains behind the W.A. code, and the structuring of it, and if anybody should be reviewing this, I think it ought to be Wendy.
Greenberg:
Could I reply to the suggestion that we [unintelligible] the manuscript to everyone? I think it would be far more effective to have a [unintelligible] people step forward and make a commitment to reviewing it on a timeline and getting it done, partly because we can’t synthesize 40 [unintelligible] more likely to receive zero, using that process.
Unknown speaker:
Who did you distribute it to?
Greenberg:
We distributed it to the meeting at which—
[Laughter]
[Unintelligible]
Polyzoides:
I think [unintelligible], it’s because there was no [unintelligible], somehow. And I think the extraordinary thing about this weekend is you have both the presence and the commitment of people who now do this because they understand what their [unintelligible] mean in the context of the bigger effort. Don’t give up!
Greenberg:
No, I’m not giving up, I’m just saying I need to make sense out of [unintelligible].
Unknown speaker:
One other point about that is that that was essentially an appendix to a larger text, in which [unintelligible] it may not have meant [unintelligible].
Hall:
Let me just say—I’m going to put something on the floor, and kind of take John’s idea. We’ll take the four—I think you had four designers you had mentioned—we will specifically distribute the manuscript to those designers, and ask specifically for comments. If there is someone else in this room who would like to specifically commit to reviewing it, we will provide it to you also. But that means there is an obligation on your part, to get comments back to us. Phil, are you one? Okay.
Massengale:
There are two things going on here. Ellen, you’re mainly talking about a committee function that is coming to an end. I’m talking about a committee that will pick this up and move it forward.
Hall:
And we will continue that, yes.
Massengale:
And so to make it perfectly clear, I’d like to make a motion that that committee, plus Stefanos, Geoff, Wendy, and Andres, be the committee that moves forward what we’re talking about today.
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible]
Massengale:
Well, they can always expand themselves.
[Some fumbling around with seconding the motion]
Lawton:
Are we concluded with this topic? This is what we’ve learned: To add on the designers to the committee. We’re going to have an ongoing [unintelligible] committee, yes?
Several:
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Lawton:
We’re going to conclude the task force. Yes?
Greenberg:
Rick (Bernhardt) has been the chair of the task force, so Rick, are you—
Bernhardt:
Yes. Absolutely.
Hall:
And put Phil down, because Phil has also—Phil Erickson.
Lawton:
Okay.
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible] asked me to mention a specific name under “urban ecologist” here. Patrick Condon, from Canada, [unintelligible], and others.
Hall:
We’ll put Joel in twice!
Lawton:
[Unintelligible] this includes the extension to the existing committee. So whoever is on the existing task force [unintelligible].
Unknown speaker:
Is this the Council code committee, or does CNU host it?
A. Duany:
[Unintelligible] The problem is, the task forces some think we don’t need. They are notoriously ineffective. Every once in a while, something comes out, but it’s mostly—I suspect that if the Councils had existed earlier, specifically on topics such as this one, that in some way, these Councils could have replaced the task forces, [unintelligible].
Massengale:
[Call this] the Council Code Committee.
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible] I think it would be great if there could be some kind of merger between what the task forces are trying to do, which is further their initiatives; and what the Councils are trying to do, and I think there’s one thing [unintelligible] a little bit more accessible in terms of geography and [unintelligible].
Lawton:
Thank you. We’re now moving into topic number five. The group wanted to reach an outcome on two, five, and three. Number five is [unintelligible] to define land use codes. Who is the [unintelligible] for that? Stefanos?
Polyzoides:
I think Paul and I.
Crawford:
Let me speak first about the value of a terse, clear [unintelligible] of what distinguishes a new urbanist code from a conventional code. I’m in the position of being able to work with planning commissions and public sector planners throughout California, to educate them about New Urbanism and new urbanist codes.
The City of Los Angeles, two years ago, decided to create seven planning commissions because, geographically, the city is impossibly large, and one planning commission can’t represent the entire city. So they hired me to train these laypeople in planning. Unfortunately, they weren’t interested in hearing about New Urbanism. Fortunately, I wove those principles throughout the discussion! But the League of California Cities holds an annual planning commissioners training session, at which I am a frequent speaker. I teach an annual class at UC Davis—a UCLA extension—on zoning code writing.
We need to be able to describe to folks who don’t know what a new urbanist code is, in short form, what distinguishes it from a conventional code. So I think there can be great value in a relatively short list of principles; that’s part of what drove the list that I came up with for discussion here.
The attributes that I came up with through a series of discussions with Stefanos were that the new urbanist code needs to be placed-based; that is, that the coding [unintelligible].
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible] application on the ground, is it not place-based?
Crawford and others:
[Unintelligible]
Polyzoides:
I don’t disagree—I disagree with one component. I think that the fact that it’s place-based, and the fact that [unintelligible] is by far more important than the abstraction of walkability, which we have used to no end. You can [unintelligible].
Unknown speaker:
What we’re getting to here is that conventional codes apply single uses [unintelligible], do not reflect [unintelligible] within a community. And all we’re saying here is that the system of allocating what happens on the ground needs to interrelate fundamentally with [unintelligible] or not. The transect—as we’ve already decided is the operating system we support—does that. I suppose we could replace that with “transect,” but keeping it more general acknowledges the possibility that there might be some other ecological organizing [unintelligible] that might work.
Ferrell:
Andres once told me the “IKEA [unintelligible].” I throw this out as a challenge, as incentive, as a way to “acid test” these principles. I think my perspective fits into a larger [unintelligible]; it’s more specific to what Stef said.
Here’s the acid test, and forgive me for my messy modernist history, but it’s not [unintelligible]. Is not that place-based? Is not [unintelligible] have the ecological stuff? Is this not connected in [unintelligible]? Is this not logical? But, it didn’t have streets and blocks, public space, private space; it did not have the form of the city that is evolved, that is in the nature of man, just as the shell of a turtle is in the nature of the turtle. I would suggest that these principles have to relate at bottom to the physical form: streets, blocks, squares, public space, private space.
Unknown speaker:
These may describe those [unintelligible] things, but they definitely don’t describe conventional zoning. What we’re trying to do is distinguish new urbanist codes from conventional codes. I’m not advocating “this is the old, ‘my way or the highway,’” I’m—
Ferrell:
No, I’m challenging it because I respect it. It does differentiate an [unintelligible] code from a CSD code, but is that what we want to do? Or do we want to say, “What makes it new urbanist?” That’s a slightly different tack.
[Unintelligible]
D. Duany:
It’s in the Charter; it’s in our practice and everything.
Bernhardt:
Public realm. Public realm.
Unknown speaker:
How about, “New urbanist code, by definition, results in places that meet the principles of the Charter”?
[Unintelligible]
[END OF TAPE]
[BEGINNING OF TAPE]
Unknown speaker:
—getting back to the principles of the Charter, and Patrick made a comment that it ought to [unintelligible] the Charter or reference the Charter. Another person said that was perhaps too vague. But I’m wondering if it acknowledges and flows from the Charter.
Unknown speaker:
It sounds like [unintelligible] we need to reference the Charter as a philosophical basis—
Polyzoides:
[Unintelligible] In general terms, I would like to suggest that this is a troublesome subject because, in fact, it’s been [unintelligible] to put standards in place. We’re a movement of standards, you realize. Anybody can build anything and call it New Urbanism. What we’re saying here is that when somebody comes and presents a code that is not purposeful or is not based on the [unintelligible] of the Charter, or it’s not form-based, then [unintelligible] and say, “That is not a new urbanist code; these fundamental answers are not met.”
Or whatever. We need to orient ourselves to understanding how we’re moving over time, in the continuum of coding. There should be some kind of serious standard, as opposed to accepting the [unintelligible].
[A stretch, here, where I couldn’t track the conversation because nobody was using a microphone]
Ferrell:
But I think that’s too specific, because I think there are committees [unintelligible]. Can anybody in this room show me a new urbanist project that does not have streets, that does not make blocks, that does not make neighborhoods, that does not—if it doesn’t construct a regional pattern, doesn’t at least acknowledge it? How many of these projects without streets, blocks, public space, private space?
[Another stretch where I couldn’t track the conversation because nobody was using a microphone]
Lawton:
Paul, let me ask you to wrap this up in the next five minutes, and then I’ll do my best to wrap up the whole session.
Crawford:
We said we were going to come up with a list of principles and attributes that define new urbanist codes, and the question is, do these do that? Are there ones that should be crossed out or reworded, and are there ones that should be added? We’re just using this as a starting point.
Unknown speaker:
I’d like to add what I see as a quality of the code, which is that it facilitates integration, unlike our conventional zoning, which tends to segregate uses, segregate housing and economic [unintelligible]; this seems to promote integration of uses and the like, so that new urbanist codes [unintelligible]. Fundamentally integrates.
The other aspect of it is that it incorporates planning principles, so that the zoning code itself contains an element of flexibility in terms of implementation, this not relying on having to go back to the comprehensive plan, because [unintelligible] it is itself a planning tool, not just a regulatory tool.
[Another stretch of unintelligible conversation]
Bernhardt:
Paul, I think it’s clear that we need to make sure that everybody understands [that] these terms need to be defined clearly, so that everybody understands what we’re talking about.
Crawford:
Yes. Yes.
[Another stretch of unintelligible conversation]
Ferrell:
I don’t understand. Do we have to avoid physical specificity? Connection? [Unintelligible] Why don’t we say “streets”? “Walkability”? Why don’t we talk about specifics?
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible]
Ferrell:
I’m thinking of this as a litmus test.
A. Duany:
But there are codes that may not mention streets. [Unintelligible]
[Unintelligible conversation]
Polyzoides:
I would like to [unintelligible] answer you have, and I think the issue of time is absolutely fundamental for the question of coding, and something that we have not addressed at all. One of the worst aspects of current zoning is that it is inert in relation to time, and it ends up becoming encrusted in a way that stops all possible growth, because the objectives that were put into play have expired long ago, in most cases. So it’s important to have 5- and 10-year horizons for the execution of codes, to make them purposeful in the sense that there is a hierarchy of actions necessary to be taken with a community, within these 10 years, and that building to these codes [unintelligible] of cycling them with minimal change, as opposed to just going through enormous expenses and complicated procedures at the end of their useful life.
So I think the issue of time is critical and needs to be, somehow, on this list.
Unknown speaker:
[Unintelligible]
Polyzoides:
Well, there’s no doubt about the fact that the foundation code for Seaside was New Urbanism, but if it freezes, and keeps Seaside from perpetuating the lessons, yes, the second code or the “growth code” for Seaside might then not be new urbanist.
D. Duany:
I think we should approach it by identifying what is a hybrid. Just showing that—and drawing a line. I know [unintelligible]. At a certain point, we have to say “no” to arterials.
A. Duany:
Let me [unintelligible]. This is exactly what the Charter was designed for.
Polyzoides:
But the problem, Andres, is if you go out to any community anywhere, and you ask them to read the Charter, you’re not going to get anywhere very fast. I mean, the Charter is an instrument for making catalytic change; it’s not particularly [unintelligible].
A. Duany:
[Unintelligible]
Polyzoides:
I understand that, but I think if we have to change 22,000 codes in 15 years, we might as well put it in the hands of the people out there who are doing this work, a very elementary list of those things that are crucial to the process of persuading others about what the new urbanist code is. That’s all this list is. Someday it might become a certification thing, but I don’t think it needs to be thought of in that way at all.
I mean, if somebody asks you the question, “Why on earth are you doing this to me?” I think you should be able to provide a very rapid, doctrine-based, three-minute answer.
A. Duany:
But isn’t this just about saying which code do we let in to the new urbanist canon of codes?
Unknown speaker:
No, this is about [unintelligible].
A. Duany:
But I think at some level, you just can’t—I have never dumbed down planning [unintelligible]. This dumbing down [unintelligible] is ridiculous. We keep our standards; we assume some intelligence of people, and let them fall out.
Polyzoides:
This is not dumbing down; there’s a difference between writing a mother-lode code—a generic code—and moving a community of 15,000 or 250,000 people, and having to tell them what is the difference between the cancer that is destroying them and [unintelligible]. That’s the difference.
A. Duany:
But I think [unintelligible] that doesn’t understand the Charter. Just [unintelligible].
Polyzoides:
I just simply don’t agree with that. On a religious base, I don’t agree with that.
[Laughter]
On a doctrinal basis, you can’t ask someone to read the Bible to become a Christian, you have to show them six pictures!
[Laughter]
I mean, the dangerous ones here are the not particularly literate ones—the [unintelligible].
[Laughter, and some apparent jabs at catholicism, for some reason]
Bernhardt:
All right, I’d like to make a motion that this Council endorse that codes that include an evaluation system based on number two—as a basis; we can refine that—that the committee take the action in terms of broadening the committee to evaluate the current manuscripts, as we discussed, and a further committee action; and that we have a base set of standards for new urbanist codes, which are number five up there—and [that] the Council endorse that.
[Those are] the three things we’ve done in the last two hours.
Ferrell:
The motion is too large.
Unknown speaker:
One at a time.
Unknown speakers:
[Unintelligible]
Bernhardt:
I’m trying to support the process that we just went through, that we have a list of yes/no’s and on/off’s—that’s number two—that the committee itself be changed and directed as we talked about, which is [that] there’s a certain group that looked at the manuscript, and then there’s a second tier of committee, and that we develop a set of base standards for the evaluation of new urbanist codes, which is at least preliminarily based on the 10 items that are listed there under number five.
[Andres explains the “transect of the shoes” amid much laughter]
[Stefanos gets “Happy Birthday” sung to him]
[Stephen Lawton’s socks receive a vote for “most cool”]
[END TRANSCRIPTION] |
|
| | |
|
