Abstract:
The primary question is the product of form-based codes different in terms place-character? A
secondary question that follows is if this lack of differentiation based on place-character is a result
of the code itself or of issues peripheral to the code. Each place represent a customized interaction
between a 'code' (conceptual framework) and a 'place' (contextual framework) which could be
described as a 'narrative'. Individually dissecting these narratives along specific cross-sections, such
as location, chronology, typology, scale, and fit, could reveal patterns of similarities and
differences. Research shows that each of these cross-sections impact specific aspects of placecharacter and place-making. Qualitative correlations across codes and cross-sections, could explain certain patterns observed in the codes along specific cross-sections. It is concluded that the process of place-making could be lost in the melee. While form-based codes appear to be extremely
flexible, this complex condition could prove burdensome for any code or regulation without
compromising its place-making potential. Factors in shaping the output of form-based codes are
place, process and the policy framework. In establishing responsiveness to context, the negotiation
is between traditions and aspirations, which could be divergent concepts. Yet there is always a
paradigm that successfully mediates this condition. Form-based codes present a simple response to
a complex set of urban issues, it is important to maintain place-specific context around the
application of this approach. Another consideration in this mediation could be eliminating zoning
but it is never possible to replace a system of rules with the absence of rules.
Machine summary:
Although many have criticized seaside's architectural standards as overly stringent and lacking diverse character, seaside inspired more cities to adopt form-based codes and has had a profound impact on urban planning and new Urbanism (Madden and Spikowski, 2006: 176).
- The principles of design-based planning include: - Grounding on functional goals - Flexibility of rules and regulations - Understanding the importance of general areas and their relationship - Noticing to density, functional mixing and architecture - The importance of quality and form (Rafieian and Razavi, 2010: 271).
These codes originated with the new Urbanism movement, which posited specific place-making ideas about the design of neighborhoods, such as mixed uses, walkability, legibility, hierarchy in building and street types, and environmental sensitivity, as a cure for issues related to sprawl.
The community/neighborhood scale plans are structured as basic form based codes with regulating plan(s), building envelope standards, streetscape/thoroughfare standards, and architectural standards, allowing for minor diversions to accommodate existing conditions.
While form-based codes present a simple response to a complex set of urban issues, it is important to maintain place-specific context around the application of this approach.
While form-based codes present a simple response to a complex set of urban issues, it is important to maintain place-specific context around the application of this approach.
Scale of Application While the unit of design for form-based codes is the neighborhood, the resulting development and its connections to the larger planning and design context are shaped at the city, metropolitan or regional scale.