In the discussion about new zoning ordinances, the City has proposed characterizing current village centers as either small, medium, or large and imposing different height limits per village size category. Also, parking space requirements would be significantly reduced for residential, office, and commercial construction.
Both with respect to basing future zoning on current village sizes and permitted building heights, the City is on the wrong track. Building height strongly influences the perception of an area. Limited height buildings are perceived as more human scale and less imposing. Taller buildings block views of the sky and emphasize building appearance rather than streetscapes. For these reasons, building heights ought to be limited throughout the city and not just in villages that, through accidents of history, happen to be underdeveloped today. Setting a city-wide limit of 2.5 stories would prevent existing “large” villages from becoming even more urbanized rather than retaining the character of livable, walkable neighborhoods. Similarly, our small and medium villages would be permitted to grow to distribute economic and residential opportunities—and demands on services—evenly throughout the city.
Regarding parking requirements, the mistake of designing urban infrastructure to accommodate cars is well known. While electric vehicles may reduce climate damages by our existing transportation fleets, they will still present threats to pedestrians and cyclists, as well as obstruct and slow buses and other forms of public transit. For this reason, zoning reform should zero out requirements for parking for all use types. This will challenge developers to create true “transit smart” development—including pedestrian- and bike-friendly amenities.
Gary Rucinski
