03-12-2025, 10:59 AM
(03-11-2025, 08:35 PM)taylortbb Wrote:(03-09-2025, 02:22 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: And because there are apparently maximum as well as minimum setbacks. I’m having trouble understanding this. So if I want to put up a tall building with a parklike area next to it, I need a zoning amendment, but if I just want to put in two towers I don’t?
Bizarre. This is another reminder to everybody that most of the best parts of the best cities were built prior to the existence of modern planning.
I mean, that seems reasonable to me? The other thing about that era of development was that buildings weren't built around cars, so everyone built up to a consistent street wall. But now, if you don't regulate building setbacks, developers will gladly push the whole building to the back near the parking and leave dead space facing the sidewalk. That rule is to prevent them for doing so, and ensure they create a walkable form.
OK, I think I see the point, and why somebody said the real issue is the lack of provision for phased development, where the complete development meets the rules but Phase 1 by itself doesn’t.
Ironically, I think some of these issues would actually be better handled by a more prescriptive master plan with actual design details, rather than messing around with setback limitations. Imagine if the rule was “first 4m starting from the frontage property line must be a covered portico extending to both side property lines, graded to match neighbouring properties”. Then on full build-out every block would have a rain-protected pathway all the way around it right next to the sidewalk. As it is, even with a maximum setback buildings don’t actually have to have a consistent streetwall; they just can’t be way back.
Of course neither the setbacks nor my portico idea guarantee that the building wall actually has any doors or windows in it. It’s not obvious to me how to require that sort of street interaction (“I know it when I see it”).
Having said all that, I’m still a bit skeptical of the need for this sort of detailed design rule. A “tower in the park” should be a sufficiently inefficient use of space that it would never happen in areas with high land values; something that actually uses more of the land area should crowd it out economically.