Form Over Function

Form Based Code... the name pretty much says it all. It's a building code whose major objective is to transform the area to which it is applied into a little slice of urbanism and The Almighty Alcalde, the City of Albuquerque Planning Department and a group of councilors led by Comrade, uh... Councilor Benton are doing everything within their power to make the Albuquerque of tomorrow an urban utopia.

So what are we talking about? An urban utopia resembles cities like New York and Downtown Chicago. They're based on walking, mass transit, and mixed use. In other words, lots of people in a small space, with high crime, high rent, high taxes, and every kind of pollution known to man, all in the name of reducing our carbon footprint. The truth is ordinary people have been leaving urban areas as soon as they could afford to for over 200 years. For most people, the American Dream is not a 600 square foot efficiency next to 250 of their closest friends.

The establishment of the Form Based Code zones is consistent with the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City. The land use patterns realized by the Form Based Code will play an important role in improving Albuquerque’s social and economic quality of life. The new development pattern guided by the Form Based Code zones will reduce dependency on cars, increase opportunities to be physically active, and improve air quality by reducing hazardous vehicle emissions, currently the second largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in New Mexico. [emphasis added]

-Proposed FBC, General Provisions 3(b)

The Form Based Code places form above function. Current zoning sets rules for use. For example a factory can't be built next to your R-1 Northeast Heights home. In a FBC zone, there are few restrictions on what types of businesses and residences can be located in the zone. Zero lot lines and alleys are encouraged. In other words, all kinds of business and residential uses crammed into one small area - the only prerequisite being that the form is correct.

What they're saying is that if a development looks right and promotes the agenda of the planning department and the EPC then build it. Of course the agenda of any government agency is hard to predict and there's nothing more subjective than aesthetics.

Under the FBC there are no clear cut guidelines on what can be built where and developments are held hostage to a set of unpredictable arbitrary guidelines that can change with the political wind. The surest way to stifle economic growth and business development is to make the costs associated with investment unpredictable.

Albuquerque is a suburban city. Its growth was largely shaped and driven by the market place. That means all of us making buying decisions based on our personal wants and needs. Albuquerque is the result of the choices of her citizens. In the past, the city has concentrated on providing the infrastructure that supports these decisions. With the Form Based Code, the city is attempting to dictate these decisions. In short, another form of power is transferred from the consumer to the government and we all lose one more choice, one more freedom.

Advocates of the plan often called New Urbanism, will tell you that the FBC will make you healthier, more moral, and even allow you to save the planet. In reality, they're foisting their idea of utopia upon everyone and the dirty little secret is - every last one of the developments envisioned by the FBC could be built today. Yep... every one.

Life is filled with gray areas. Our zoning code shouldn't be one of them. It should be simple, easy to understand, and predictable. We don't need another layer added to our zoning code, one that is arbitrary, subjective, and most of all unnecessary.

Selling Streetcar Snake Oil

Snake oil salesman, new urbanist acolyte, and City Councilor, Isaac Benton was trying to clear up the "apparent misunderstanding" of the 19th Century Streetcar project. His Letter to the Editor (Subscription Required) found in today's Journal demonstrates rather than dismisses the idea that his "study" is a scam.

The first thing you will notice is that Councilor Benton engages in a bit of revisionist history that would make Lennon proud, claiming "on Nov. 6, after much debate and public comment, on a 6-3 vote we approved the proposal to fund the streetcar project..." The "much debate and public comment" Councilor Benton is referring to is a series of presentations made by Transportation Director Payne intended to sell the trolley not to solicit public input.

The other thing to remember is that there was a hotly contested national election taking place the day after the council took up the question of the Transportation Infrastructure Tax extension. Railroading a $270 MILLION project through the City Council the day before that particular election was a great strategy for proponents, but hardly provided for large public participation, much less debate. (Talk about politics.)

Benton makes clear that his opinion is that the 19th Century Streetcar is inevitable which makes any "taskforce" created to "study" the issue suspect to say the very least.

"[R]oad building will not by itself take us though the 21st century without other multimodal options. We have an aging and more-transit-dependent population, global warming, air pollution, diminishing fossil fuel supplies and limited river crossings to contend with."

The simple fact is a 19th Century Streetcar will not make any discernible difference in any of the talking point justifications listed above. Streetcars operate on electricity. Electricity is generated largely by burning fossil fuels. All we're doing is moving pollution, and energy use.

"Multimodal options" sounds good, but this study is designed to support just ONE mode... rail. Not having a 19th Century Streetcar does not take away options like buses, bikes, cars, or good old fashioned shoe leather. Further, adding a 19th Century Streetcar does not help the majority of those aging in our city, and being able to get to Atrisco Plaza from Nob Hill doesn't count as a river crossing, because there's already a river crossing in place.

We've said it before... Albuquerque is primarily a suburban city, which is why forms of mass transit struggle here. The only areas of town that are even close to being dense enough to make mass transit work as a means of reducing traffic is the Central Nob Hill to Downtown corridor. What possible justification is there to spend $270 MILLION on a 19th Century Streetcar for that single corridor? Transportation money would be better spent on bikeways, trails, roads, and upon improving our bus system.

It's about the efficient use of our tax dollars. It's about efficient mass-transportation. It's about time proponents of the trolley stop pursuing it as the only solution to our transportation problem. With this "Letter to the Editor," Councilor Benton has gone from selling streetcar snake oil to selling a product that is most often transported with a shovel.

New Urbanist Jihad

We are in the midst of a Jihad. No... this has nothing to do with the Middle East (for a change) and no one is shooting or blowing things up (at least not yet). This is a lifestyle jihad being waged on the majority of us here in Albuquerque by a group known as New Urbanists.

Tuesday, The Albuquerque Tribune ran an article entitled "Can Northeast Heights neighborhood embrace new urbanism?" It's an interesting article in that it's one of the first that we've seen that addresses the conflict between New Urbanism and our primarily suburban lifestyle.

New Urbanism is being promoted by politicians and bureaucrats as the solution to almost all of our ills. The New Urbanist orthodoxy holds that density, mass transit, mixed use (mixing commercial and residential property uses) are the keys to a better, happier, healthier life.

The Tribune uses as its example the almost complete Leslie Plaza and describes it the following way:

"The sidewalks are wide and buffered from traffic by trees. The building, a little taller than two stories and featuring big storefront windows, is close to the sidewalk. The parking lot is relegated to the back and has separate entrance and exit lanes divided by a pedestrian-friendly island."

We've seen Leslie Plaza and it's a very nice looking building. It has the Tribune highlighted design features but, this particular building is not the example of New Urbanist ideals that the reporter makes it out to be.

Leslie Plaza, apart from the tree buffer, large windows, and parking in the back, could be any suburban office building anywhere in the city. In fact, pull the trees and put the parking lot in front of the building, and it would be another suburban office building much like any other you might find in the Northeast Heights. A more fitting example would be the Albuquerque High School lofts or some of the new condos downtown.

The core idea behind New Urbanism is density. Density makes all things possible from mass transit to walkability. New Urbanists even float the idea that somehow crime is reduced when more people are packed into less space and the costs associated with public safety somehow go down. To us, more people in a tighter space means more trouble and more people involved in that trouble.

Right now, in our city there is a movement to re-make Albuquerque into a New Urbanist paradise. The idea being that we need to all live closer to one another (density), close enough to walk (or use a trolley) to get to work, and have access to various forms of entertainment that are also close enough to walk to or catch a bus to. It's called live, work, and play and the proposed Mesa del Sol development is the poster child for that vision. If it's ever completed, Mesa del Sol will be a New Urbanist mini-city.

We don't really have a problem with Mesa del Sol as a concept or as an option. If the city and Forest City Covington want to build their preplanned paradise... let them. That is if the market will pay for it.

The current plan calls for massive tax subsidies provided by the city, county and state governments of up to 75% of all gross receipts and property taxes collected in the area (ABQ Journal - Subscription Required). That means that even the developers are skeptical about the market demand for such a project.

(Sidebar)
Has anyone else noticed that Mesa del Sol sits directly below the flight pattern for the Sunport? You can hear the sales people now... "after a decade or two you won't even notice those jet engines overhead as you walk to work."
(End Sidebar)

The real clash comes from the desire of New Urbanists to re-make the rest of the city in Mesa del Sol's image (or it's proposed image anyway). The reality is, Albuquerque is primarily a suburban city. We have lots of single family houses situated on .25 acre lots with front and back yards. We have strip malls and grocery stores scattered all over the place (at least on the east side). And we bought our little patches of paradise because we didn't want to live above, below, or right on top of our neighbors. The Westside is no different except that it suffers from a lack of shopping conveniences and a poorly planned traffic system. (Someone should let them know downtown that the Westside thing looks like it's going to go.)

The fact is we made the choice to live in this type of community and not live in more urban cities like Chicago, New York, Seattle, or San Francisco. Our choices should be respected but they are being shoved aside in a frenzy of New Urbanist jihad.

A perfect example is the development planned for the old Rowlands at Tramway and Montgomery. It's surrounded by suburban neighborhoods yet this highly dense development will reach three stories and have a density of 3 to 5 times the density of the surrounding area.

The development as approved by the City Council February 21st, will negatively impact the lives of all of the residents surrounding it. Further, it will sacrifice the choices made by all of people surrounding it on the alter of the New Urbanist god.

It's important that we take a step back and look at Albuquerque as it is. Could we stand some improvements? You bet! But overall, Albuquerque is a great place to live. We have everything from suburbia (NE Heights & Westside), to Urban (EDO and Downtown), to rural (North and South Valley). As a city we should be celebrating that diversity and encourage its continuation.

Gems and Junk: Albuquerque's Big Box Ordinance

We all know what a "big box" is... that place with the insufferable traffic, the long hours, and the low prices. They're places like Wal-Mart, Costco, Home Depot, Lowes, and Sam's Club. Most of us (except for the VERY ideological) will spend at least some money at one of these stores. In fact, most of us love their selection and their low prices.

They are our blessing and our bane. We choose to spend money with them making them successful, but we would hate to live next door to one. Out of this conundrum come the many "Big Box" ordinances that are spreading from city to city.

Not to be outdone, Albuquerque has come up with its own extensive Big Box Ordinance courtesy of Councilor O'Malley. Like the Big Boxes themselves, this ordinance is filled to the rafters with all kinds of disparate stuff; some of which is pretty good, some has no value at all, and some is down right dangerous. It has everything from gems to junk.

The original objective of the ordinance was to increase neighborhood involvement, address the concerns of the surrounding area, and provide remedies for those who are directly impacted by the new development (i.e. traffic calming devices). Everyone involved, developers included, benefit from a clean straightforward approach. Neighborhoods know what options they have and what suggestions they can make. Developers understand the range of costs associated with neighborhood demands and can factor those costs into their development plan.

The problem is the City got hold of this ordinance and put a whole bunch of other junk in it, some of which is contradictory. For example, buildings are required to be energy efficient "green" buildings. No problem right? Wrong. The New Urbanists threw in a requirement that dictates 30% glazed windows along the outside. Most big boxes have a couple of entrances, but very few actual exterior windows. The reason is energy efficiency and the costs associated with heating and cooling buildings of that size. Windows make the costs higher because the building is less energy efficient. The two objectives are therefore incompatible.

Another glaring problem is the number of developments the ordinance will affect. The baseline square footage for ordinance activation is 60,000 square feet of "Net Leasable Area." Sounds ok... except that it includes your neighborhood grocery store. One grocery store chain has already indicated that if this "box" makes it through Council and becomes law, they will not be building any new stores. Think about that for a second West Siders... NO NEW GROCERY STORES! (That clanking sound you hear is your property values dropping.)

These are just a couple of the examples of junk in this Big Box Ordinance. This thing is HUGE, cumbersome and will have consequences well beyond the scope of the original need. Some of those consequences will be unintentional; some will be intentional as the New Urbanists down at city hall take an opportunity to throw more junk into this big box.

(Sidebar)
For those of you who have no idea what a "New Urbanist" is... New Urbanism is a theory that says in essence, we all would be better off in high density developments (See New York City) and that our desire to own our personal patch of paradise (single family detached home) is bad for society and for the planet. Mass transit is one of the corner stones of the New Urbanist orthodoxy, which is why we see such a determined push for a 19th Century Streetcar by its acolytes (Councilors Benton, O'Malley, and Heinrich).
(End Sidebar)

We'll be keeping an Eye on this as it works its way through EPC, and we'll have more on the ordinance as it stands (We really like our readers and couldn't put you all through the blog equivalent of War and Peace). There are bound to be many changes (hopefully fixing some of the more idiotic junk that has been thrown in). If you would like to read the original draft (or are having trouble sleeping) you can download it here.