April 2006

Today is a day to rant. How often during design have we looked at our Town’s or City’s zoning requirements and been stymied from doing good design? Look at the impact of zoning on our historic downtowns. Throughout New Hampshire, our downtowns reflect a period of building in the 19th and 20th centuries when downtowns were built with buildings tight to the street sidewalk, abutting the adjacent buildings on both sides, and are three, four, or five stories in height. The enclosure of space, the comfortable scale created by these streetfronts, and the individualized detailing of each building which adds to diversity, all form the spaces that we enjoy and cherish. Why is it that zoning requirements in too many of our towns prevent us from continuing to build this type of successful downtown fabric?

The growth of planning and zoning in our New Hampshire towns over the past 30+ years implies that planning will improve the environment, but this has not always been the result. Consider zoning issues such as setbacks, height restrictions, parking requirements and use limitations. There are many downtowns that have minimum front or side setback requirements, which causes the streetfront to be broken between each building and pushes the building away from the public space. This is contrary to the need to create a strong plane of connected building fronts that defines the street. Height restrictions are especially pernicious. Originally, height limits came into being at the behest of firefighters wanting to be able to reach the top story with ladders, resulting in a maximum height of approximately 35'. Many of our downtowns, however, have four and five story buildings 50-70' in height, buildings that we can no longer match in height. Many towns retain this 35' height limit when it is no longer necessary. Consider the number of ladder trucks in our communities that can reach 100' height, and consider our more stringent building codes that balance height, floor areas, type of construction, rated exterior walls, sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and building materials. The rationale for height limits needs to be based on more realistic concerns.

And those parking requirements! The extent that planning caters to our need to drive is appalling. Like everyone else, I want to drive and park right out front, but when I visit New York City for a weekend, it becomes natural to park the car once and walk several blocks or take the subway or a taxi. The common strip development pattern of building with parking out front followed by more of the same is driven by zoning that requires so many parking spaces per SF. The outlets in Kittery, Maine are a great example of this type of development that caters to the auto and ignores the pedestrian. You have to drive to access buildings a few hundred yards down or across the road. Zoning requirements that reinforce the pattern of building with parking, building with parking ad nauseum contribute to the decline of the urban fabric. Parking requirements in downtowns limit the density and prevent the design of continuous streetfronts. There are solutions that can resolve this problem: Towns can provide municipal parking lots or garages within walking distance and recoup the costs through impact fees, special tax districts, increased tax revenue from increased value and other possible financing mechanisms.

And finally, mixed use buildings! Eliminate those regulations that prevent the creation of a 24 hour active downtown. A combination of business, retail, restaurant and residential uses makes for a vibrant community. One of the most egregious examples that I can think of is my home town of Durham. Imagine a downtown right on the edge of the UNH campus, with a captive walking student population, that until recently, has had zoning that does not allow student apartments (the existing apartments are all grandfathered). We need common sense and good planning.

It is ironic that smart growth is discovering principles of good design that have been discarded during the growth of our zoning ordinances. There are Towns and Cities that have heard these concerns and are adopting progressive regulations. Perhaps, though, for those other Towns and Cities, the architecture profession needs to be more active in the community planning and zoning process. We understand the implications of zoning on the buildings we can build and the effect on the urban fabric. It is our responsibility to be more involved in establishing zoning requirements that permit good design. Go to it!