Joel Russell has been writing sustainable development and smart growth-oriented zoning codes since the early 1990s.
Why is that the case?
Zoning originated about 100 years ago as a response to the rise of industrialization.
The goal was to separate noxious uses like slaughterhouses and steel plants from places where people lived.
So, from its inception, zoning was about separating uses.
Transportation planning became more automobile dominated while streetcar and railroad systems were dismantled.
This “suburban sprawl” caused cities to disperse outward, scattering automobile-dependent development all over the countryside.
Conventional zoning codes contain the “DNA” that produces placeless sprawl.
Form-based codes represent walkability and an inviting public realm, using the DNA of traditional urbanism.
How can a communitys use of form-based codes benefit the 50-plus population?
AARP has documented well the benefits of walkable, mixed-use communities for the 50-plus population.
Form-based codes are the state-of-the-art tool for achieving such communities.
It is virtually impossible to build these kinds of places under conventional zoning.
The question itself raises an interesting problem.
What are the objections to using form-based codes?
How do you or other advocates respond to such challenges?
Myth 2:Form-based codes are too restrictive and limit architectural freedom.
Reality:The degree to which a form-based code is restrictive is up to the community.
Many form-based codes have no architectural restrictions.
Myth 3:Form-based codes mandate high housing densities that conflict with the desired community character.
Reality:Same answer.
Appropriate densities are determined in consultation with the community.
Myth 4:Form-based codes must be adopted citywide.
Reality:Most form-based codes are adopted for individual neighborhoods.
There are a handful of citywide codes, most of which provide a framework for creating neighborhood-based codes.
Myth 5:Form-based codes are a one-size-fits-all standardized approach.
There is no true one-size-fits-all form-based code.
Even the proponents of the SmartCode acknowledge that SmartCode must be calibrated to each local situation.
Myth 6:Form-based codes are too expensive.
Also, the per unit infrastructure costs and the costs of servicing mixed-use developments are much lower.
Myth 7:Form-based codes create places that are too expensive for most people.
This is largely a supply and demand problem.
There is a surplus of housing in suburban sprawl neighborhoods and a severe shortage of housing in walkable communities.
What situations offer the best opportunities to introduce form-based codes?
And can you give examples of places where a form-based code has been well-implemented?
Learn More
The 11-partAARP Livability Fact Sheetseries includes an easy-to-understand fact sheet all aboutForm-Based Code.
Those types of developments gradually degrade the quality of life in the community.
There are hundreds of places where form-based codes are being used successfully.
What can planners or elected officials or individuals do to get form-based codes used in their communities?
Melissa Stanton is the editor of AARP.org/LivablePage published February 2015
