[…] Read More: marketurbanism.com/2011/05/15/what-good-is-form-based-zoning-when-you-just-keep-everything-the-same/ […]

Don’t know all the details but I wonder if the CalPoly research considered shared parking and other exemptions. You may see some of the exceptions (e.g. low-income housing) as tinkering but given all the exceptions, it would take a little more analysis to figure out which has less parking at the end of the day. The model SmartCode does exempt retail under 1500 square feet from parking; too bad if that didn’t make it into Miami21; the intent at least is there. I’m sure many compromises were made and given this is the first implementation at the city scale I’m sure there is plenty of room for improvement. 

Excerpts from the code respecting parking reductions (May 2010):
b. Off-street Parking dimensions and Shared Parking (mixed-use) reduction table shall be as set forth in Article 4, Table 5.
c. Required Parking for Adaptive Reuses may be reduced or exempted by Waiver for properties located in a Community Redevelopment Area, or in areas where a Parking Trust Fund has been established, or for historic sites and contributing Structureswithin designated historic districts.d. Parking reductions shall not be cumulative except in T6-36, T6-48, T6-60 and T6-80. Parking reductions shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total Off-street Parking required, except for Residential components of projects within one thousand (1,000)feet of Metrorail or Metromover stations.
j. Specific areas may be set aside for Tandem Parking. Tandem Parking in all Transect Zones, except T3 and T4, shall be used only by a valet parking operator.
3.6.6 Parking Management Plan – Parking allowed off-site through a parking management plan agreement with the City of Miami Parking Authority shall be as set forth in Chapter 35 of the City Code.
a. Parking reductions for Elderly Housing.
b. Parking Reduction for Low-Income Housing

Of course “better” is in the eye of the beholder. If your idea of “better” is simply deregulation then it’s easy to see this as just trading one straightjacket for another. Though arguably it is some level of deregulation. That’s probably the debate that would be worth having. 

If you believe that then I fear you have missed the starting point of walkable cities. The location of the parking lot is the very start of urbanism. You cannot have walkable urbanism unless you understand the central importance of the location of the parking lot. Period.

Good comments all around. What you’re looking at is the political reality of getting change passed in a place where many interests are comfortable with / benefit from the status quo. While certain parts of Miami 21 are lauded by New Urbanists overall, I think most of us feel like Miami 21 was at best a mixed product. So much political compromise means instead of a lean, straightforward, and simple replacement for the previous code you have a very complex re-writing of the previously enormous code.

Because of these political compromises many practicing New Urbanists feel it’s generally better to find a small area willing to really embrace a dramatic change, and within that area completely replace the previous system with one much simpler and as close to the ‘ideal’ as possible. Then let the surrounding region watch for 10 years and see that (a) the world didn’t end, and (b – hopefully) the area that adopted urbanism is outperforming the rest of the region both in economic terms and in quality of life.

In any case, the only important mistake you’re making in your post is looking at Miami 21 as the ‘New Urbanist ideal’. It isn’t. Further, be aware that within the practice of New Urbanism there is wide divergence about what kind of code would be ideal in a city – the movement incorporates people who are otherwise on the political far right and far left, and as you can imagine they tend to disagree strongly about the best ways to achieve the outcome of a vibrant, walkable, economically prosperous and environmentally sustainable city.

Most importantly know that New Urbanism is a work in progress, and as a group the Congress for the New Urbanism is one of the most open and participatory organizations I’ve ever encountered. The ideas you espouse on your blog are great, and would be much appreciated in any part of the New Urban discussion you cared to join.

You begin by saying “Form-based zoning” is something that I’ve never entirely understood” and then quickly demonstrate that you’re telling the truth. Wouldn’t it be good to make more of an effort to understand form based codes before being so negative about them?

Second, John Anderson is right about the political process. Political change is often incremental, and if one can get the major goals now, it’s often worth compromises in the details that can be changed later. Miami is an auto-based city where holding the line on parking would sink the entire endeavor.

Miami is a place where many legal factors have worked against making walkable places: separation of uses, placement of parking lots, large setbacks, street widths, etc. Miami now has the legally enforceable goal of being a walkable city, with a form based code that has corrected many of the restrictions in the old auto based code. You’re right that the parking minimums are too high, but if you look at how they’re accommodated in downtown Coral Gables, you’ll see an example of how improved form for parking can make a walkable place.

John