I was catching up on posts over at The Old Urbanist, and came across his astute analysis of setbacks that many of you probably saw a while back. Focusing on the requirement for large front lawns in many towns across the country, Charlie Gardner writes:
Old Urbanist's example of Murfreesboro, TN
Whether this reflects a continuing market preference is unclear, since nearly all municipal zoning codes in the United States require large setbacks (see, e.g.,Charlotte), depriving homeowners of any choice in the matter. The pattern has been replicated so relentlessly across the North American continent that alternative single-family residential designs may simply have been scrubbed from the collective imagination.
Gardner and others attribute this bland landscape in large part to Frederick Law Olmsted, and he certainly did support increased greenery in urban areas and lawns that run seamlessly across property lines. However, I think it’s important to distinguish between Olmsted’s vision and the land use regulations that have imposed some version his ideal on American suburbs. Olmsted did promote planned communities, but only local governments have had the authority to make his vision law.
In thinking of Olmsted’s planned communities of communities built in Olmsted’s style, Baltimore’s Roland Park immediately comes to my mind. This turn-of-the-century neighborhood was one of the country’s first suburbs. Of course Roland Park is far from an urbanist neighborhood, and it’s easy to fault Olmsted for overlooking the crucial civic aspect of drawing neighbors to the sidewalks and streets for spontaneous interaction. However, (and I realize this may be a minority opinion), I think that it is a lovely neighborhood, and it’s even relatively pedestrian friendly. Clearly, it has little in common with the “snout house” suburbs that Gardner discusses in relation to setback requirements.
Roland Park, Baltimore, MD
Part of Roland Park’s charm is that it achieves the feeling of being a green enclave because it lies among denser neighborhoods of row houses. It’s directly north of Hampden, the epitome of Baltimore row house developments. Both of these neighborhoods were built before the city adopted a zoning code, reflecting the diversity that is possible when cities are allowed to develop organically without the rigidity of a master plan that dictates neighborhoods’ characters. The two neighborhoods benefit one another because the diversity in housing leads to a diversity in customers to support healthy commercial strips in each.
Urbanists can certainly criticize Olmsted for his blindness to the vitality on the streets and sidewalks of urban neighborhoods, free from isolating expanses of green grass. However, blaming him for the banality of modern suburbs is unfair. Olmsted did not enforce his vision on suburbs all across the country; rather students of his work zoned their cities in failed attempts to codify his ideal. Olmsted may have brought front lawns to the market, but without government coercion, wide grassy setbacks would be one of many styles available to residents of suburban housing, freeing developers to cater to market demand for variety. The current level of uniformity has been achieved only with the threat of jail for dissenters.
I wouldnt necessarily say Roland Park developed organically. Like most if not all high-end suburbs of the time, it used restrictive covenants to control the placement and some design aspects of the houses (these covenants were more famously used to keep “negroes”, “hindoos”, “asiatics” and the like out.)
It is true that Covenants could not possibly have been adopted at the scale that zoning has been, nor as universally (ie: covenants would never have mandated setbacks in existing neighborhoods that didnt have them, setting a few infill buildings back from the rest and disturbing the character of the street, as has been seen with zoning)
I actually just finished a book that talked about covenants at length (too much length in fact, the second review on this amazon page is correct) http://www.amazon.com/Bourgeois-Nightmares-Professor-Robert-Fogelson/dp/0300124171
I wouldnt necessarily say Roland Park developed organically. Like most if not all high-end suburbs of the time, it used restrictive covenants to control the placement and some design aspects of the houses (these covenants were more famously used to keep “negroes”, “hindoos”, “asiatics” and the like out.)
It is true that Covenants could not possibly have been adopted at the scale that zoning has been, nor as universally (ie: covenants would never have mandated setbacks in existing neighborhoods that didnt have them, setting a few infill buildings back from the rest and disturbing the character of the street, as has been seen with zoning)
I actually just finished a book that talked about covenants at length (too much length in fact, the second review on this amazon page is correct) http://www.amazon.com/Bourgeois-Nightmares-Professor-Robert-Fogelson/dp/0300124171
Two points on Roland Park (and Hampden): First is that Roland Park was conceptualized by Edward H. Bouton of the Roland Park Company (created to develop and sell the subdivision) and the original sections of Roland Park were designed by George Kessler, not by Olmstead, Sr.. Olmstead, Jr. worked on one of the later sections, but that was that firm’s only contribution. Most of what people refer to as “Roland Park” is really the Kessler section. To say that Roland Park developed “organically without the rigidity of a master plan” shows a misunderstanding of the level of control exercised by the Roland Park Company over what was built, a level of control that exists even today through the community association that regulates the area (itself a legacy of the Company).
Second, Roland Park and large portions of Hampden were laid out and constructed before they were part of the City, so City regulations didn’t apply to them (if they did, most of the construction In Roland Park after 1905 would have been in brick or stone to meet new fire safety codes after the 1904 Baltimore fire). Hampden was annexed in 1889, and Roland Park in 1918.
In it’s day, Roland Park was really an example of urban sprawl, as it was built far from existing infrastructure and even had to have its own railway (the Lake Roland Elevated Railway) constructed to allow access to jobs in the City. It also contains what is considered to be the first planned shopping center, a forerunner to post-war suburban strip malls. Even so, it is a beautiful neighborhood that has kept it’s value when other areas in Baltimore declined.
Emily Washington wrote:
Olmsted may have brought front lawns to the market, but without government coercion, wide grassy setbacks would be one of many styles available to residents of suburban housing, freeing developers to cater to market demand for variety. The current level of uniformity has been achieved only with the threat of jail for dissenters.
Benjamin Hemric writes
Although, I’ve been by Roland Park (the parts I saw were lovely), I’m not really familiar enough to comment on it. But, if I understand this post on Roland Park correctly, I’m thinking that Forest Hills Gardens (1908), in the borough of Queens in New York City might be as good, or maybe even a better, example of what might be called “market suburbanism.”Here’s a link to the Forest Hills Gardens entry in Wikipedia:http://tinyurl.com/3dw3h9cIt's been a while since I’ve read much about Forest Hills Gardens, but if I’m remembering correctly, here are some of the details that might make it a nice illustration of 1) Frederick Law Olmstead gone “good” and 2) “market surburbanism”:
1) Streets were actually laid out by an Olmstead — by Frederick Law Olmstead, Jr., the son of Frederick Law Olmstead.
2) Although many of the streets are private (but open to pedestrians), there are also some genuinely public streets (one of which has a public bus line, too, I believe) that go through the development — so it’s pretty public for a private community.
3) If I recall correctly, ALL the streets have sidewalks.
4) The development was built adjacent to a rail station (of a line that was newly built (?), or at least newly electrified (?)) that was only something like 15 minutes away from the newly built (1910) Pennsylvania Station.
5) The development is laid out so that the higher density attached “rowhouses” (for lack of a better word) are a short walk to the rail station (and a commercial area a little further away), and the larger, more suburban homes are further away from the station. By the way, the term “rowhouses” doesnt do justice to these structures — they are actually both quaint and quite spectacular — with the structures being built over small streets, etc. (People can check it out for themselves via streetviews on Google maps. These houses are along the part of Greenway North that is not far from the rail station — near Archway Place.)
6) There is also a small hotel (in an architecturally spectacular structure that is like a “theme” building for the development) on the station square, and a fair sized apartment house (built later one) only a little further away.
7) What I love — although a lot of people seem to dislike modern day versions of this — is a fair number of the impressive very large detached single-family homes are actually laid out close together, cheek by jowl, on rather small plots of land. (In other words, the front and side yards — and maybe the back yards too — are pretty small for the kind of houses these are.) It’s quite a startling vision — it’s like somebody pushed a number of mansions close together. BUT, aesthetically it works — at least for me. (People can check it out for themselves via streetviews on Google maps. I’m not sure which street I was on, but it may have been Greenway South.)
8) Although this probably wasn’t the original vision, once you go under the railroad embankment, there is a pretty vibrant commercial district on the other side, and the area is fairly dense with stores, residences and even some office buildings.
9) Years later a major subway line was built, with a major subway stop, just a few blocks to the north of the commuter rail line.
10) The aesthetics are governed not by zoning, but by restrictive covenants. (Unfortunately, the earlier versions of these covenants were also discriminatory.)
11) Don’t know the details (which might change my opinion), but from a quick once over, it seems to me that Forest Hills Gardens might be a good example of an “enlightened” private suburban community THAT WAS BUILT AND IS MAINTAINED BY MARKET FORCES — rather than by government aid (direct or indirect) and regulations.
By the way, famous residents over the years (especially in its early years) were Helen Keller, Lowell Thomas (a famous journalist and radio personality of the day), Dale Carnegie, the first Secretary General of the U.N. and the late Geralidine Ferraro (first female candidate for Vice President on a major party ticket).
– – – – – – – –
Benjamin Hemric
Friday, July 22, 2011, 9:10 p.m.
Emily Washington wrote:
Both of these neighborhoods were built before the city adopted a zoning code reflecting the diversity that is possible when cities are allowed to develop organically without the rigidity of a master plan that dictates neighborhoods’ characters.
Benjamin Hemric writes:
1) Rereading Emily’s original post (and paying more attention both to the title of the post and to the above statement), I see that I may have slightly misunderstood her original post — the main point of it being that without zoning there would likely be a greater variety in today’s suburban developments.
So although Forest Hills Gardens does indeed have a variety of neighborhoods surrounding it, since most of them were built-up (as far as I can tell) after the adoption of NYC’s 1916 zoning code, it’s not a great illustration of that main point of Emily’s post.
And while I’m inclined to agree with Emily’s main point — that zoning discourages a variety of suburban approaches — the areas around Forest Hills Gardens (and the borough of Queens in general) would actually seem to dilute her point a bit. Most of the borough of Queens (which is also a county) was built-up after zoning, yet the housing developments of Queens are pretty diverse. Nevertheless, I don’t think residential development in Queens actually contradicts Emily’s main point — as the built form of later suburbs to the east (e.g. those built in Nassau and Suffolk counties) do seem to illustrate the homogenizing influence of zoning.
But it does seem to show that things are, perhaps, a bit more complicated — that in the trolley car/ subway era of suburban development (and also due to a zoning code, like the NYC’s 1916 code, which appears to be relatively unrestrictive) it was possible to build a variety of suburbs somewhat organically, even under zoning. But, then again, perhaps, to demonstrate the validity of Emily’s main point (the homogenizing effect of zoning) from a different angle, even in Queens I suspect there is less mixed use and less dense urbanism than there would likely have been without zoning. (Although, here too, the adoption in 1961 of what appears to be a more restrictive zoning code may have made this even more pronounced.)
2) Thought a bit more about restrictive covenants and, aside from the past discriminatory aspects (which no longer apply anyway), I’m not sure if they’re an improvement over zoning in terms of market urbanism. Offhand, they seem less likely to accommodate changes in the marketplace than zoning — but would like to learn more about this (e.g., how restrictive convenants can be terminated).
Benjamin Hemric
Sat., July 23, 2011, 5:35 p.m.
P.S. — The area to the south and east of what I understood to be Roland Park reminded me a lot of Queens!
Baltimorean, thank you for the correction — my mistake on Olmsted’s direct involvement in Roland Park is corrected above.
As far as the planning aspect, the crucial distinction between Roland Park and suburbs that develop under city master plans is that Roland Park’s planning was largely private, rather than government. The profit incentive and absence of a political process make a crucial difference.
Emily — thanks for the mention. The public/private distinction is important, but I will say that these deed restrictions frequently depend on special legislation to ensure their enforcement. Texas, for instance, has a law which permits courts to issue fines of $200 for each day a covenant is violated (Tx. Prop. Code 202.004), and other states have similar ones. This effectively gives the HOA a quasi-governmental character, as it can fine violators as though they were breaking laws rather than having to go through the expensive and time consuming process of filing a lawsuit, and muddies the waters a bit as to whether these restrictive covenants are truly a product of a “free market.”
This doesn’t sound terribly un-free market to me – think of it as an enforcement mechanism built into the contract.
What does sound un-free market about HOAs is something that I heard once but cannot source: Developers in (some cities in?) Texas were incentivized to sell the land with covenants/HOAs/whatever because it allowed them to build narrower streets, which obviously increased buildable area and thus profits. I remember it being from a reliable source, but I can’t back it up with anything more than that.
Stephen, I read this on Keep Houston Houston, a blog that’s since been scrubbed from the net. It included a reference to the relevant portion of the law, if I remember correctly. You can still find the remains of the blog – maybe the post is archived on the Wayback Machine.
Stephen — the Texas law is necessary because courts applying common law won’t enforce penalty clauses (such as a $200 daily fine for mostly harmless conduct) in contracts for the most part. Courts simply won’t allow themselves to be used to enforce unconscionable contract terms, even where parties give informed consent to them.
Establishing a fine for violating HOA covenants essentially compels the court, against its longstanding precedent, to enforce a particular type of otherwise unconscionable contract for unique reasons. Whether this is a “free market” outcome isn’t all that clear to me. We arrive at situation where contract terms that resemble private laws are enforced by public courts by government mandate — makes me wonder what the Libertarian position is on this.
Olmsted was great, but his subdivision developments, for the most part are about suburbanism and are garden city like, T4 from the standpoint of the new urbanist transect, so (1) they aren’t a great model for T5 and T6 urbanism (2) but they are still great examples on how to treat streets as linear parks, (3) which there is no reason to not do in T4-T5 in center cities. David Barth of AECOM has picked up this idea and has integrated it into what he calls the integrated public realm framework. The City of Tampa has adopted the concept in their parks and streets planning.
I don’t know Roland Park that well, but I had occasion to spend some time in Sudbrook Park in Baltimore County, while doing a bike and ped planning process there. Some areas had sidewalks, others didn’t. The real problem was that most people had planted trees and such over the past decades in the area of a front yard where a sidewalk would normally be constructed, making it hard to suggest that sidewalks should be installed there.