|
|
Single-family Design Review:
|
|
|
Carol R. Johnson, AICP
|
© & Author Info |
Figure 1
An overwhelming number of responses listed monotony as their major concern. Uniform roof pitches, elevations and colors led to comments which likened new subdivisions to army barracks. Other comments expressed a desire for homes to reflect a unique Sonoran vernacular and be more compatible with the desert. Garages received the second highest number of responses. People commented "who lives here - cars or people." The predominance of the garage, especially on narrower lots, has led to the term "garagescape" to describe the view from the street.
Figure 2
Other problems concerned the design of streets. Comments were made that streets are too wide and too straight. The lack of trees was another issue. Overall, streets are considered boring and deficient in character. The final major issue identified at the workshops was the absence of any sense of community. When residents disappear into their garage it reduces opportunities for interaction between neighbors. Front doors are frequently not visible from the front of the house making it difficult to recognize who belongs in the neighborhood, not to mention making it hard for parents to keep an eye on children playing in the front yard.
Figure 3
Figure 4
The predominance of the garage is a more difficult issue to solve, especially as lots have become narrower. Pulling the garage back reduces its visual impact and allows for better views up and down the street. Other alternatives could include a side-entry garage, an auto court cluster, a tandem garage where one car parks behind the other, or a garage located to the rear of the lot. Recently, the City Council approved the trial implementation of an optional street standard. This design is based on the streets found in many of the City's historic districts. It calls for less pavement and a row of trees between the curb and sidewalk. Such a design combined with streets that include curves, offsets, and possibly traffic circles can slow down cars in our neighborhoods while also adding character.
Figure 5
Addressing these first three issues will help solve the last one - no sense of community. Front doors that are visible from the street or delineated by arches or other entry features make it clear where the entrance to the home is located. (INSERT 39.GIF) In addition, porches, patios, entry courts or similar features can provide comfortable places for neighborly exchanges to take place. Finally, house designs that include an active living space with windows looking on to the street allow for natural surveillance of the neighborhood.
Figure 6
Potential solutions varied from extremely objective and prescriptive to very subjective and flexible. A number of different proposals were presented to the Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona (HBACA). They lobbied for the most flexibility so as not to discourage or preclude creative design solutions. Staff also had no desire to discourage creativity, but was somewhat concerned about implementing such an open-ended ordinance. In order to address some of these concerns, each design guideline was supplemented by a list of alternative means of satisfying that guideline. This approach was put into ordinance and presented to the City Council for adoption. The ordinance was approved in March, and went into effect on May 1, 1998.
Figure 7
Closely associated with the dominance of the garage is the lack of community and safety. As mentioned previously, when the full depth of the garage projects in front of the active living space of the home, views up and down the street are cut off. (INSERT 21.GIF) Of even greater concern is when the front entrance to the home is located down a narrow sideyard and is placed in a small recess at an angle to the exterior wall. This makes the front door completely invisible from the street, and a great place for potential criminal activity. It appears that the homebuilders are more interested in the quick fix than building lasting communities.
Figure 8
Due to the problems of implementing the flexible approach, it is highly probable that an amendment to the ordinance will be coming in the near future. This amendment will most likely focus on eliminating the barrier created by the garage, and building homes that positively reinforce the concept of neighborhood. Staff wants to be consistent in the application of these guidelines, and does not want to rely exclusively on rezoning stipulations to address their concerns. There are negative aspects to prescribing a specific design response, because that can breed its own kind of monotony. However, the current approach has failed to produce the necessary results. In this environment of strong demand for new housing and rapid development, the risk associated with a more subjective approach is that thousands of homes could be built without addressing the safety or sense of community of future residents.
The long-term implications of such development include rapidly declining home values, lack of property maintenance, increased crime and vandalism, and residents living under a siege mentality. Phoenix has prior experience with this type of development pattern when affordable homes were built on a massive scale during the 1960's in the western part of the City. The original intent behind enacting design review for single-family homes was to prevent this from happening again. Phoenix is motivated to continue to try alternative approaches to addressing the concerns of monotony, dominance by the garage, and lack of community and safety in order to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Carol R. Johnson, AICP
Planning Department
City of Phoenix
cjohnso1@ci.phoenix.az.us