New article in Planning features Saratoga Springs form-based zoning

Tue, 2005-12-27 10:40 — xtraspatial

The American Planning Association came out with an article in it's January 2006 issue of Planning magazine titled "The Not-So-Secret Code," by New Urban News senior editor, Philip Langdon. On page 28, he devotes eight paragraphs to an explanation of how Saratoga Springs "finally adopted a form-based code in 2003." He cites the efforts of Joel Russell of Northampton, MA, and Environmental Design & Research of Syracuse (no website?) as the consultants. The subtitle of the section is "Everyone's favorite example." The article focusses on how the "SmartCode" used six transect zones to devise a form-based code for structures within the denser 28 square mile section of the village.

Saratoga Springs planning director Geoff Bornemann is quoted four times in the article, most notably by stating "[Saratoga Springs carried out the rezoning process] on a shoestring budget, using volunteer committee members and existing planning staff."

For more details about the article, please contact Jim Zack.

1831 reads
xtraspatial's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

duckman
February 20th, 2006

the not-so-"smart"-secret code

As you may know, Saratoga Springs has the most cost-prohibitive housing in upstate NY. The implementation of the City's T-zones in 2003 corresponded with the mass down-zoning of 600 some acres within the city. The vast majority of the City is now zoned for 2+ acre lots and the areas that are now transect zones are nearly completely built out. These policies have encouraged the development of housing in outlying rural areas like Schuylerville. The City's policies encourage the consumption of oil, not the other way around.

xtraspatial
February 20th, 2006

Tell us more!

While I did know about the high cost of housing in Saratoga Springs, I was unaware of the implications of the Transect zoning plan and form-based follies. I'd like to hear more about the problems our zoning creates here in Saratoga. I've seen similar problems during my 13-year tenure in Boulder. The No-Growth "Danish" plan (named after Paul Danish), resulted in the exodus of many of my first-time homebuying friends to outlying burgs or Lyons, Lafayette, Louisville, Longmont, Loveland, and the monstrousity of Rock Creek (see photo on this page). [See also, Denver's Levittown, Highlands Ranch: "Take the 47th left, then the 14th right, and I'm the 28th house on the left... You can't miss it!"] At least these places have public transit, including light rail and a great bus system. Not that more than 5% of the residents actually walk to the stations or busstops! Anyone wishing to see an architectural critique of Saratoga Springs and beyond should visit Jim Kunstler's Eyesore pages.

duckman
February 20th, 2006

Saratoga Springs

Its not so much that the t-zones created problems, but that the t-zones were implemented in a package of zoning changes that were counter-intuitive (i.e., they implemented a form-based code downtown where everything was built-out and reduced densities on the fringe with old-fashioned, single-use, large-lot zones.) Saratoga Springs has always had de-facto t-zones down-town. That is, all development proposals were required to obtain a special use permit and there was no set density. Projects, in what were recently referred to as "special development areas", were granted approval based largely on form. The t-zones have simply clarified what has always existed, but have not really changed the character of development. Thats not to say they aren't effective tools, just that Saratoga Springs has always been a "form based" community. In this particular case, transect zones have done nothing to reduce the spacial separation between housing and jobs. Not because of an inherent flaw in the code, but because of bad overall planning. You might check out http://disutopiaofsaratogasprings.blogspot.com/ for a not-so-kind perspective of local planning and new urbanism in general. This is a good example of how inappropriately flying the banner of "smart growth" can damage an otherwise worthy effort.

duckman
February 28th, 2006

Saratoga Springs

I thought you wanted to hear more?

xtraspatial
March 2nd, 2006

Distopia of Saratoga Springs

I do want to hear more! I read several of the blog entries at Distopia of Saratoga Springs, and was picqued by those relating to the Beekman Street Arts District. For all his rants, I would like to know what Ben Arnold (blogger) is doing. You can fight City Hall, but you've got to choose your battles. And with a mayor that is more receptive to the stated mission of PCI, I think we can make some progress on the planning front. I've lived in some much more dystopian places in my life, and I think Saratoga could position itself as an exemplar of the relocalization effort. So, I'm listening, duckman (if that is you're real name!). Tell me more and tell me what we might want to do about it! Jim Zack

duckman
March 2nd, 2006

I'm not sure what Ben Arnold is doing. And although I agree his delivery is a bit abrasive, he makes a very solid point. I'm wondering why you term it a rant. That would suggest he was just spouting off about a bit of nonsense, which is contradicted by the actual content....Unless its all a lie.

Anyway, the new Mayor wishes to curtail growth in the City, thats why she was elected. How does curtailing growth in an urban, economic magnet....which has attracted thousands of jobs (well in excess of a commensurate increase in housing), further the interests of those wishing to discourage automobile use? "smart growth" would dictate that future growth takes place in established areas of growth, like Saratoga Springs. It is very hard to be an exemplar of relocalization when the only people allowed to relocate are those that can afford a large-lot home or downtown condo.

xtraspatial
March 3rd, 2006

Rant retraction

Abrasive is a better adjective than those implied by "rant." I didn't realize that rant implies bombastic or pompous talk/writing. Both you (duckman) and Ben have some good points. I'm not going to pretend to be intimately familiar with planning strategies, especially here in Saratoga Springs since I'm a relative newcomer. I just want to move beyond making our administrators wrong, and towards righting their misguided ideas/policies. Your point that only people who can afford a large-lot home or downtown condo are able to relocate here is well-taken, but one of our goals is to relocalize the activities of those that are already here (and those who choose to relocate here in the future). Let's not confuse the two terms. Ben seems to be right on when he talks of the failure of our town govt. to encourage a higher density development in the Beekman Street Art District. While I find the neighborhood funky and chic, I don't see people on the streets there (yet). I don't even see the residents milling about. Perhaps they were caught off guard as their affordable neighborhood got a little facelift in the form of streetlights, art galleries, a bistro, and a (once, but no more) independent coffeehouse. Who knows? Perhaps a dedicated (free?) pedicab or horse trolley route between Congress Park and BSAD would encourage more people to visit the Arts District. It might even serve to bring people from the west side to downtown sans automobile (fat chance, huh?). The City appears to be interested in our input on improving commerce as witnessed by their solicitation for ideas in the form of Team Saratoga's survey: "Never before have Saratogians been surveyed regarding how they would like to see their own city progress." You are encouraged to submit your responses to this survey as well as any other ideas. Let's give 'em something to talk about!! Jim Zack

Relocalize.net Main Menu