Comments on: Zoning from Mars

By: ConcernedOakFF

ConcernedOakFF — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:04:20 +0000

Barry-

The fireboat was taken out of commission under the Brown administration, but has continued to languish under the current one.

The best chance we have of getting it back (along with our only method of getting water after a strong earthquake) is by convincing the city council that it MUST be returned to full duty.

Mr. De La Fuente is most likely our best bet….

By: dto510

dto510 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:35:30 +0000

RALPH, there could be a visual terminus that’s flat. For example, a “butterfly” roof with projecting eaves would be flat but a clear terminus. One could argue that a superficial treatment, like a Beaux Arts building’s cast-concrete top floor facade, is a visual terminus, but that would probably be a tough sell.

Do we really need to ban simple modernist towers, flattop hata? They’re not in vogue anyway. Cesar Pelli-style glass blocks with vibrant massing (like 1100 Broadway) are visually exciting but don’t follow the form guidelines, and I find the tower-and-base idea is stifling and uneconomical. Besides, how many downtown lots are available for high-rise development? Making strict guidelines for a dozen or so buildings seems like overkill.

RALPH is totally right that the zoning lines strongly favor commercial over residential high-rises. I think that’s unfair and ignores downtown’s character and the LUTE’s direction, which specifically characterizes the future downtown as “urban (high-rise) residential” (their parentheses). Moreover, from a strict planning perspective, residential is a less-intensive use than commercial, so it should be encouraged as easier on the infrastructure. From a budget perspective, the city gets nothing from the business tax but most of its budget from property and transfer taxes, which residential projects generate more of than commercial buildings.

The bottom line is that the DTO zoning proposal is making major decisions that may be wrong and are certainly taking up a lot of time for a minimal amount of use (again, there cannot be many more than a dozen new skyscrapers in the DTO). The planning staff shouldn’t leave it to bloggers to tease out the real consequences of their proposals, but instead they should be explicit about their value and aesthetic judgements.

PS: I hear there will be a zoning update public meeting that’s actually inside the lines, in Chinatown. I have not received an announcement about the date.

By: RALPH

RALPH — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:58:17 +0000

ok, so i got a little annoyed; i searched for visual terminus and saw it applied in a number of context but never saw one talk about the top of the bldg. thus, when i came back to the blog i went with what i just read. you night notice a certain inconsistency in my remarks b/c of it. still cant u have visual terminus that is flat?

By: flattop hata

flattop hata — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:57:27 +0000

Are you a planner, RALPH? Cause I am, and I’m sorry to tell you, Smoothie’s got this one right. There is no room for interpretation. The purpose of that section of the code is to prevent WTC-like (or, closer to home, World Savings Tower-like) buildings. That’s why it clearly refers to ELEMENTS on the BULDING TOPS that will provide the terminus.

I disagree with V that this section of the code is superfluous. Oakland has enough straight up and down flat topped buildings – this requirement will add interest to the skyline.

By: RALPH

RALPH — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:44:17 +0000

i might also add that I think in generally people are interpreting “visual terminus” too literally. I think when used in the context of design it is to give the eye an end point – not necessarily the bldg. I think the authors would do well to define the term as I think for the lay person it is a difficult concept to comprehend.

By: RALPH

RALPH — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:33:06 +0000

i think the phrase is subject to interpretation. that being said, let’s agree to disagree on what this means. I can certainly think of a number of buildings with flat tops with distinctive visual terminus

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:29:36 +0000

The chapter reads:

Design Standards Applying to All Zones. The following regulations apply to all of the zones:
…
Building Terminus. The top of each newly constructed principal building shall include an element that provides a distinctive visual terminus…

By: RALPH

RALPH — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:36:58 +0000

V Smoothe, agreed, zoning is not a suggestion, but i don’t recall reading that a bldg can’t have a flat top which would be a REQUIREMENT. if you can show me a can’t or must include i will agree that there is some design legislation. until then i would say we have suggestions.

By: V Smoothe

V Smoothe — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:24:09 +0000

Ralph –

I’m not sure I follow you. Zoning isn’t a suggestion. It’s the law. The design requirement that buildings must have a distinct visual terminus is just that, a requirement. Under the draft zoning chapter, you cannot construct a new building with a flat roof without a variance.

The proposed code very much legislates design. In fact, the height and bulk requirements delineated in the chapter really aren’t actually very different from the example you provide.

By: RALPH

RALPH — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:13:19 +0000

Max, with all due respect, I disagree. legislating design would fall along the lines of all bldgs must have a square base, at its terminus it must have a pyramid that covers 2/3s of the roof, with a height b/w 7 and 15 ft and with one side having solar panel. Anything else is a mere SUGGESTION.

I did not mean to suggest that flattops are bad; I am annoyed that people find this regulation something more than a guideline.