Until now, the disgusting polluted yarnball of asphalt known as Los Angeles has been a great example of how not to plan your city. But the LA City Council has just passed a Neighborhood Character Ordinance, or “Mansionization Ordinance” which limits the square footage and footprint of new single family houses, as well as new additions to existing houses. This is not an uncommon legislation in California, where many cities have passed similar laws to prevent the ugly and unsustainable takeover of greedy owners and builders. Council Members in LA have been trying to introduce this type of legislation for years. Hopefully, Raleigh’s City Council will follow this example and overcome pressure by Big Real Estate to understand that Raleigh is and will be in high demand for years, and that similar legislation won’t put a dent in our local economy. The biggest message sent here: Los Angeles City Council cares about its citizens, and the future of its neighborhoods. See the LA Times writeup of the new ordinance here.
City Council Passes “Mansionization Ordinance”
Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. If you are new we invite you to register with our site. With registration you can upload a picture, message other users, and comment more easily. If you want to keep up with the site, subscribe to our RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.
Adam05/20 08:07 AM
When are people going to learn that they can’t do what they want with the things that they own? Thank goodness for the learned group of experts known as local politicians.
Ken Metzger05/20 08:40 AM
If I own a gun, can I then do whatever I want to with it, simply because I own it? More reasonably, if I own a house, should I be able to have a party with Van Halen playing at 4am? If the way you handle your property aversely affects others, then it is of public concern.
Adam05/20 10:48 AM
Ah, logical extreme - how i’ve missed you.
Out on a limb, I guess I would submit that shooting someone is not the same as building a house.
Let me just cut to my point. I think common good should be taken into consideration. My problem is when people genuinely feel that there is a right and wrong in this situation. The decisions are arbitrary and policymakers should use broad strokes when defining what is and is not allowed for the common good. Telling someone that their house on their property is too big because it doesn’t fit with someone’s aesthetic sense doesn’t pass the smell test for me. If that’s the case, why don’t we come up with a few government sponsored designs?
Actually, if we’re going to do this, let’s do this right. Architects should be able to come up with a ‘theory of everything’, ‘one design for all’ design. This one design would work for all buildings and could be adapted to all locations.
If you want true sustainability, annex large tracts of land, divide the lots up, plop in our TOE buildings, plant a communal farm in the middle and then the workers of the world unite. If you lived here, in the land of logical extreme, you could own a gun and do whatever you want with it.
Ken Metzger05/20 11:24 AM
I’m glad to see you join in on the logical extreme.
No one is saying “their house on their property is too big”. I have not heard of anyone wanting to tear down houses that are already built. What one is saying is that the PLANS one has to build do not work with the neighborhood. The broadness of the policy should be based on the what is being governed. I would not want the federal government tackling the situation, nor would I want the state. What is being determined is on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis with the city as an arbitrator.
It is very much like zoning. One cannot build a commercial building inside of a residential zone. What is being proposed is breaking the residential codes down into more specifics for established neighborhoods.gemorris05/20 12:20 PM
Even though every one of these mcmansions ITB have been personally revolting, restricting use of land is a takings issue. It does restrict freedoms. If those are acceptable restrictions is what has to be debated, decided (and oh I wish, voted on in a referrendum). I am not saying it is a perfect/horrible Idea, I am saying it is not something to be enacted on a whim. The teardown issue in Raleigh is not nearly as mature as the teardown issue in LA or DC or any other large metro area. I mean, we cant even get water conservation right, and you want us to be on the forefront of neighborhood scale-based zoning?
The worst thing to have in office is weak-willed democrats. Because to get them out you have to vote for an even bigger evil, the completely-bought-and-sold-by-real-estate-intrests republicans.
Betsy05/20 02:52 PM
“restricting use of land is a takings issue”
Not.
Betsy Kane
NC State Bar #29626JZ05/20 04:03 PM
“Telling someone that their house on their property is too big because it doesn’t fit with someone’s aesthetic sense doesn’t pass the smell test for me.” : Aesthetics have NOTHING to do with this issue. Its about massing and height, managing water run-off and impacting the overall character of the neighborhood based on that. While most neighborhoods begin with common themes there is always aesthetic variety either generated initially or brought on by changes through time.
“If you want true sustainability, annex large tracts of land, divide the lots up...”: Actually, this is known sometimes as Planned Urban Development Zoning, where lots are clustered in order to be more efficient with utilities, roadways, etc. Open land is then preserved for the use of the community. You will see that some very capitalistic architects, planners and developers-- champions of traditional town development-- known as the Congress of New Urbanism, have found great success with these strategies in most of the country.
gemorris05/20 04:21 PM
“Not.”
I have no doubt that you are correct, although I do not know where to look up the law in question to confirm this.
Whether or not it is a legally recognized takings issue, it does decrease the potential value of the property. It may give the property owner no legal recourse, but the owner does financially, if not legally, realize a loss.
gemorris05/20 04:26 PM
JZ,
Aesthetics has EVERYTHING to do with it. Everyone just masks it behind other concerns like “Its about massing and height, managing water run-off and impacting the overall character of the neighborhood”
Massing and height are essentially aesthetic issues. Water run-off can be mitigated in many ways (if that was the real concern, why not lobby for requiring rainwater cisterns or some other mitigation technique?). Impacting the character of the neighborhood is extremely subjective and also an aesthetic concern.
I don’t disagree with the original post, but please stop masking your aesthetic issues with “other concerns”.
JZ05/20 04:34 PM
gemorris__
I’m sorry you disagree. While ideally there is a relationship to form and function, there is a dismal truth that this is not NECESSARILY so. If this were the case, people would not install shutters that do not close for storm proofing, cementitious siding that has the grain of wood impressed upon it, or asphalt shingles cut to look like cedar shakes.
All of this wonderful eye-candy can still be implemented on a project that offers greater compatibility with its neighbors if size, shape and location on the site were taken into consideration.
gemorris05/20 04:46 PM
1. You are mistaking me for someone who likes the garbage you listed. I think the “fakeness” of modern homes is hideous. Also, as I posted earlier, I haven’t seen any of these buildings that are built out of scale to their neighborhoods that I would want to live in or near.
That being said, the issue here is aesthetic, and selling the argument in a way that pretends that the issue is not aesthetic is being dishonest, people see through it, and it is not conducive to people supporting your cause. This is the issue your response completely failed to cover, I actually don’t know what post you were responding to, maybe some thread about house flipping?
JZ05/20 06:40 PM
gemorris__
Well, I guess the trouble is all mine.
As an architect, I strive for my designs to have coherence between performance and appearance. That would be a case of where aesthetics is the same as massing, controlling runoff, etc. Yet I observe the preponderance of new homes do NOT reflect the same values. In many cases, they adopt historical motifs that no longer have any relationship to the location, culture or how the families live within them.
If you could produce an example what you mean, it might help me with the disconnect.
gemorris05/20 09:20 PM
JZ,
You seem to think I am defending a specific style or use. I am not doing this. What I am saying is that further restrictions on development forms/styles/contexts impinges on property rights and freedoms. Therefore any decision made to impinge on those rights should be fully considered and not rushed. LA has been dealing with this issue for over a decade, and they have just now made their decision (some would say too late). Raleigh is just recently started dealing with this issue, therefore Raleigh should fully consider the rights of the property owner as well as the rights of the neighbors in making their decision. These decisions not only affect quality of life, but the bottom line. For better or worse, in America the bottom line usually wins.
The problem I have is when well meaning architects try to frame their argument in such a way that they can pretend that aesthetics are not the main issue. Aesthetics ARE the main issue, even if those aesthetics have performance characteristics such as runoff performance etc. Reason can not be spread through half-truths. The issue IS AESTHETICS, these new houses look like garbage, and they create disunity in the neighborhoods where they are placed. Be honest about the issues, and more people will follow.
The fact that most new construction is of a mishmash of historic styles that have no relation to the modern world was never ever the topic. It seems the pro-restriction camp is so used to their opponents being unsophisticated in the realm of design that they immediately attribute bad taste to them, just as you seem to have done to me.
Maybe it is because Architect professors (and practitioners) always seem to be preaching from on-high, that the young practitioners and students inherit the same attitude. This blog has the same feeling. This attitude may be effective in a studio or design office, but it is poison in the public eye. It generally rubs people the wrong way and turns them off from your message, which when stripped of the rhetoric, is good.
Mark05/20 09:47 PM
from Merriam-Webster Unabridged:
aesthetics
1 : a branch of philosophy dealing with beauty and the beautiful especially with judgments of taste concerning them
2 : the philosophy or science of artWhile I don’t appreciate the lack of aesthetic value of the majority of our residential construction market (and whether or not “these new houses look like garbage,") I feel safe to say that the problems here, and those being dealt with in Los Angeles, lie more in the scale, proportion, and general disregard for context of these new houses, and their overall attitudes and collective effects on the environment.
JZ05/20 09:53 PM
gemorris__
I’m not trying to assume anything. Just trying to get some examples of what you’re saying because I’m honestly not following.
I will say, however, that aesthetics, from my particular use of the term, is not the issue. I am using the word to describe the final, visual phenomenon, divorced from how it behaves or functions. Perhaps your definition of the term is different?
To suggest that there is some hidden agenda when a designer turns the conversation to non-aesthetic (using my hereto before mentioned defintion) issues is a misunderstanding of what designers do. Everything eventually must LOOK like something, but that does not mean that there was an aesthetic agenda foisted upon a seemingly ignorant client or public who were powerless to partake in the decision-making process. In fact, the way the City Staff is constructing the regulatory process for Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Disricts is so that residents are EMPOWERED to dictate what kinds of guidelines should be tailored and instituted for their neighborhood to preserve a quality of life.
Many misconceptions have precipitated from bad experiences with designers over the years. However, rather than give into generalizations and prejudices I hope that are able to continue to engage the design community so that you might have a more postitive opinion of what designers do.
gemorris05/20 11:38 PM
“I feel safe to say that the problems here, and those being dealt with in Los Angeles, lie more in the scale, proportion, and general disregard for context of these new houses”
You cannot divorce scale, proportion, and context from aesthetics, aesthetics is not styling applied to a finished product, it is not a paint job. You are not up in arms about big houses causing stormwater runoff problems, you are up in arms about big houses being built with improper scale, proportion, and context in existing neighborhoods. These are all issues that affect the aesthetics of the building, which is what you have a problem with.
Do you really think you can divorce aesthetics from function? I’m sorry, but I do not think it would be possible to give a freight train the same aesthetic properties as a sports car, nor is it possible to give a 4000 sq ft house on a .10 acre lot the same aesthetic qualities as an 850sq ft bungalow.
You can pretend that aesthetics are divorced from function, but they are not and can not be. Unless of course your definition of aesthetics is a veneer applied to a box, in which case you may be responsible for much of the new construction in Raleigh.
“To suggest that there is some hidden agenda when a designer turns the conversation to non-aesthetic (using my hereto before mentioned defintion) issues is a misunderstanding of what designers do.”
What I am saying is that when people have one thing they care about (aesthetics, context, people with more money moving in and building giant mcmansions, in existing neighborhoods) and they mask it in related issues (stormwater runoff) that they are doing a disservice to their cause. Be honest about what the issue is and people will listen.
My problem here, from the start, has been the WAY THIS IDEA IS PRESENTED. I don’t think I have been in any way unclear about this, but since I am not agreeing with the party line and nodding and saluting I for some reason I have a “misunderstanding of what designers do.”
Which is funny, because I am a designer. Oh wait, I’m not an architect, so I guess I’m not a “real designer” dealing with “real issues” in my work.
I feel like I am talking to a wall.
Mark05/21 12:10 AM
“You cannot divorce scale, proportion, and context from aesthetics”
Did I attempt to?
JZ05/21 07:04 AM
Go back and read my intial comments about the integration of aesthetics and function, about my personal ethic of uniting them and the divorce of aesthetics from function in the typical new house construction.
I chose to pull the field of aesthetics out of the larger context hoping that by isolating it we would advance the philosophical conversation. Instead, we persist in talking around the issue and now you seem to be embracing my intial comments.
Nice to meet the back side of your wall as well.
Adam05/21 08:33 AM
Yes! I have instigated on this topic again! Here we go…
Didn’t realize that ‘Planned Urban Development Zoning’ involved annexation of the lands. I guess that is possible due to a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. Home of the free indeed.
Betsy: thanks for providing your NC State bar number. Is ‘Not’ your professional legal opinion?
As far as the aesthetics issue i brought up, it was mentioned in the article (i believe the word ‘ugly’ was used).
I bet if aesthetics weren’t an issue to architects, the sky would be the limit as to the degree of sustainability, size of footprint, etc. In fact, you could build a subterranean mud hut.
I believe that Architects have twin dualistic gods to worship to. Aesthetic sense and communality. These values are antithetical. That is, while a balance is sought, often they must sacrifice one for the other. Ok, discuss.
Adam
NC State Bar #: n/a
Qualifications: smart alecky badass,
8th grade geography bee winner.JZ05/21 09:24 AM
Interesting article. Had not seen it. Interestingly, those same laws are on the books here that qualify areas of “urban blight” for this type of change. The Blount Street Commons happens to be the exact opposite of your example, where public land (i.e. owned by the State) is being sold in increments for private redevelopment into residential and light commercial use.
Apparently, from your tone, you prefer exceptions to prove the rule.
I’m not sure how community and aesthetics are antithetical since our entire built environment is the product of a people in a free society. It is true that one can put personal interests ahead of community, but that is a truth of the human condition, not Architecture. Similar to doctors, lawyers or engineers, designers are TRAINED PROFESSIONALS equipped with skill sets to manage the entire process of getting a building built. The aesthetic element is actually a small component when one measures it in terms of hours spent in a day. Most of the time, designers are reconciling technological demands with regulatory dictates and construction budgets among other things.
It’s an unfortunate misperception that a designer creates something that the client had no input into. The client is one of the biggest factors in the final, overall quality of any building, including its aesthetics. No body should be be claiming to be a victim here.
gemorris05/21 10:22 AM
Has anyone sufficiently addressed why they think it is ok to devalue a person’s property in order to enforce their own aesthetic/scale/context sensibilities?
Just wondering how you reconcile that one in a “Free Society”
I would say that anyone who takes a financial loss (and lost potential is still a loss) is a “victim”
I love how one group wails about lost civil rights, but are the first to try and take away someone’s property rights.
JZ
I never disagreed with anyone on taste, what I was saying is that your argument is disingenuous and hurts your cause.
As far as “TRAINED PROFESSIONALS” you guys are nowhere near doctors, so don’t even front.
Mark05/21 10:34 AM
By your logic, all existing zoning regulations devalue a person’s property. Should we repeal all setback restrictions in order to maximize a given person’s potential property value? Or are you saying that all existing zoning ordinances are ideal and should never be altered?
JZ05/21 10:36 AM
Where is the evidence of devaluation of property?!?! You’re complaining about property rights and loss of income in a real estate deal, but have yet to offer examples of this.
Architectural licensure is qualified by the individual’s ability to protect the health saftey and well being of occupants and users.
And even if you continue to disagree, my liability insurance will decidedly differ with you.
JZ05/21 10:39 AM
Further, the existing zoning ordinances were only established in the early part of the 20th Century.
Are you arguing that even the present constraints, determined in a different time and era, should be stripped away and create a laissez-faire type of condition?
Houston, we have a problem.
gemorris05/21 12:35 PM
Current zoning keeps very incompatible uses (heavy industrial and light residential) apart from each other. There is plenty of established case law as to why use zoning exists for the common good.
The problem is now you guys want to zone things based on extremely nebulous things like “charachter” or personal preference. What gives you the right to impinge on other people’s property rights just because you don’t like the look of what they are doing?
If someone owns a .33 acre lot in 5 points, with an 850 sq ft house on it, the intrinsic value may be $X, however the market value is $Y because of the intrinsic value AND the potential of what could be done on that lot. If you go put restrictions up, you decrease $Y.
gemorris05/21 12:39 PM
The real problem I have with this, is that you (architects) all seem to think you know best, and that if you could only get the political power to enforce your “best” on everyone else, the world (and our neighborhoods) would be such a better place.
Other people live here too, and they don’t like being meddled with.
Mark05/21 12:41 PM
Zoning also regulates density, height, the amount of space a building can occupy, setbacks, proportion, impervious area, parking, etc.
gemorris05/21 01:04 PM
Yes, but it does not regulate aesthetics or “context”. Two restrictions the proprietors of this blog would love to add, two restrictions that would further restrict property owners. Two restrictions that are extremely subjective.
gemorris05/21 01:05 PM
Also, please answer the question you have all been dodging, “Why do you think you have the right to impose your preferences and tastes onto others?”
Seriously, just answer that, why you feel justified in doing that.
JZ05/21 01:21 PM
Apex is a perfect example of a town that adopted Neighborhood Conservation zoning principles, without contest, without protest…
The citizens of Apex reached the conclusion that their small town character was being jeopordized by infill and renovation projects that were insensitive to the existing fabric. They established a set of guidelines, not restrictions, that offer methods to meet the town’s requirements while ensuring owners rights to their properties.
Southern Pines is a Town that is well into the process of rewriting its commercial appearance standards in order to ensure that interventions are sensitive to the qualities they hold commonly to value.
We architects are asked to help these communities, not hinder them in their goals. With a depth of understanding in design, urban planning, history, property law, development, etc. we are able to help communities find common ground.
We architects come to the table with knowledge and training to assist those without those capabilities. But to suggest that we foist this expertise on the population, I think, seems to imply that you think the population is weak and ignorant in these matters.
Its a dialog and discussion, not coercion. In this context here on NR, “we architects” are offering professional opinions based on our knowledge of what is successful for high-quality, strong communities that are sustainable. Regulation for regulation sake is a horrible idea. However, some is necessary in order to offer guidelines for behavior. Since these neighborhoods in question are reaching maturity it is only natural to beg the question as to what has value and how to preserve that value. The Oakwood Neighborhood did it almost 40 years ago when it was nominated to the historic register.
Now, if anyone wants to make changes to their home or build infill (there’s very little of that opportunity left) in that neighborhood one must follow an approval process. I hardly think that Oakwood is an example of a neighborhood that has trampled the citizen’s property rights and stifled growth. And I would argue that what is being proposed here for non-historic neighborhoods is less stringent and with less red-tape.
Generally speaking, Oakwood was anywhere from 70 to 130 years old at the time. Since then, development has increased rapidly and neighborhoods of 40, 50, 60 years old are now seeing changes begin. Its simply time to start the discussion as to how we as a community are going to decide what has value and what doesn’t. Property Rights and Community rights generally have some natural tension between them. The question is where do you think we should be on the sliding scale? Is it more important to do what you want or to consider first how it might adversely effect those around you?
15005/21 01:33 PM
gemorris: Just want to say that I understand and agree with your point regarding the presentation of this article. It does seems to fall back to “aesthetics”.
Ken Metzger05/21 01:35 PM
I may hate many styles of new houses that are being built, but I do not beleive that there is a movement to “impose preference and taste”. The problem is scale. I hate many of the new huge homes, but if the house fits the general size of the neighborhood then it should not be controlled.
Here is an exampple of that:
http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/Photo.asp?id=0015571&cd=01&loc=2405++WHITE+OAK+RD&des=LO35+ANDERSON+HEIGHTS+BM2001-1098&pin=1705514901
What should be contolled is this: http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/Photo.asp?id=0028465&stype=addr&stnum;=&stname=mccarthy&locidList;=&spg=1&cd=01&loc=1911++MCCARTHY+ST&des=LO3+ILIOPOULOS+&+FILARDI+BM2003-1267&pin=1704680456(Sorry about the real long links, but I dont know a better way)
The market value of land is speculative. One should know going into it that they are subject to laws and zones that can change. If the Federal Reserve increases their base rate, the value of property also decreases. This is another way the government can affect home prices. Should it not be allowed?
Christopher Triplett05/27 10:33 AM
A home larger than those surrounding it can be constructed without being an aesthetic wound.
But, that larger home cannot be an unimaginative box. As those cited by Ken Metzger. One can see two terrific examples of box construction, but that’s it.
Here is a great example of a small home that’s been made into something quite expansive:
http://www.newraleigh.com/articles/archive/renovation-right-circle-house/
What is important is that it does not appear oversized alone. When something appears very large alone, then it will certainly appear very large next to smaller things.
The key then, is to design something more dynamic than a box. Perhaps a shape that steps down to its edges. Or one building that appears to be several smaller buildings. Or exaggerated roof overhangs that dull larger elements. There are other details and combinations...limitless (and simple).
Obviously, those methods can only be effective within a certain size deficit. But given our zoning/set back requirements, complimenting existing construction (and going big) is not difficult or impossible. (I do not speak for other areas.)
A commercially available plan (which is pure crap anyway) should never be constructed inside an established neighborhood. It’s disrespectful to the history and heritage. The design should be approached with the property and its surroundings, period (.) Additionally, people should only build what is needed, use space intelligently, and not build for profit.
(They should be building for their lives. Building for profit is almost like making babies for profit.)
At the end of the day, a 3000 square foot home can be constructed beside a 900 square foot home...and they can live together in aesthetic peace.
-CJT
Spiro05/29 05:25 PM
MARK:
I am a builder and sometime developer who has fixed many existing houses and torn down many houses. I am not greedy and I do not do ugly, unsustainable work.Articles like yours are part of the reason that we in the building industry find it useless to talk to activists who want everyone to live in the same type of small house. You owe us an apology.
Spiro
David05/30 09:57 AM
LOL Spiro you are a riot. “the same type of small house” huh? No we would rather get the cookie cutter mcmansions or those preslums that KB builds. Keep it Ugly.
Chad05/30 10:04 AM
In reference to pre-slums >>
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprimeicantbewrong06/03 01:50 PM
Chad the current slums are the houses you call historic bungalows. Most are in SE Raleigh others in Brentwood and the historic district. Only the old houses that are located in the close vicinity of Carolina Country are being championed as “fragile” in need of protection. You are so blinded by your ideals as you grab at any anomaly to prove an “incorrect point”. Please stop trying to gentrify neighborhoods with people who have your same mindset.
- Communication Breakdown
by
North Carolina Central Prison Expansion: Mental Health Hospital and Medical Center - Miami on Glenwood
by
Solas Raleigh Opening August 1st - Gallows Hill Media
by
Bloomsbury Estates Marketing Video Bonanza - Catching Lightning
by
Raleigh Skyline Photo Blog - Helms Remembered
by
Jesse Helms: A Complicated Man