Journal of urban Design, 2017Vol. 22, no. 6, 845–865https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2017.1337495

Zoning reform for advancing sustainability: insights from Denver’s form-based code

Ajay Garde and Andrea Hoff

Department of Planning, Policy and Design, university of California, irvine, Ca, usa

ABSTRACTMany municipalities are adopting form-based codes (FBCs) for advancing the sustainability of development and for facilitating sustainable design criteria that are difficult to achieve under conventional zoning codes (CZCs). The City of Denver recently adopted a citywide FBC. A case-study method was used to examine the extent to which Denver’s FBC differs from the CZC in integrating sustainable design criteria included in the LEED-ND rating system. The results indicate that Denver’s FBC addresses most LEED-ND criteria more strongly than does the CZC; however, some criteria deserve more attention. The paper concludes with recommendations for Denver’s FBC and for other municipalities that are considering zoning reform.

Introduction

Many local governments in the United States are considering zoning reform for advancing the sustainability of new developments and for facilitating sustainable design criteria that are difficult to achieve under their conventional zoning codes (CZCs). Several municipalities have already adopted, or are considering, form-based codes (FBCs) to replace CZCs to facil-itate these objectives. FBCs are development regulations that place more emphasis on phys-ical form and less on land use than do CZCs. Although there are no strict criteria to classify codes as form-based or conventional zoning codes, FBCs usually emphasize pedestrian-scaled blocks, the relationship between private buildings and public space, inter-connected street networks, build-to lines and building frontage requirements (Garde, Kim and Tsai 2015). In addition, FBCs typically include a regulating plan that sets forth the char-acter of new development, permitted land uses and mass of buildings, and street design and public space standards. FBCs are adopted to regulate development from neighbour-hood-to city-scale to achieve a predictable character of built form, to facilitate mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented, compact developments that integrate a variety of housing types and to influence the quality of public realm (Form-Based Code Institute [FBCI] n.d.). The FBCI (n.d.) affirms that these codes are ‘by definition, sustainable’.

In 2010, the City of Denver adopted a citywide mandatory FBC that replaced the existing CZC and marked the first comprehensive update of the zoning code since 1956. The FBC

© 2017 informa uK limited, trading as Taylor & francis group

CONTACT ajay garde agarde@uci.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

846 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

was adopted primarily because city officials determined that CZC was a regulatory barrier to achieving sustainable growth, as discussed in detail below (City of Denver 2000, 2002). City officials in other municipalities that are considering zoning reform refer to Denver’s FBC as an example of best practices (The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 2014). The case of Denver’s FBC could provide valuable insight to officials in other munici-palities that are considering zoning reform for advancing sustainability. To this end, it is important to examine the differences between Denver’s FBC and the previous CZC in inte-grating sustainable design criteria.

With this in mind, the authors evaluate the differences between Denver’s FBC and previous CZC in addressing the sustainable design criteria included in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) rating system (US Green Building Council [USGBC] 2013). Specifically, the study examined: (1) the extent to which the FBC adopted by the City of Denver integrates LEED-ND criteria; (2) the extent to which the previous CZC that was replaced by the FBC integrates LEED-ND criteria; and (3) the extent to which the FBC differs from the CZC in integrating LEED-ND criteria. The reasons for using the LEED-ND rating system as an analytical framework are discussed in the methods section. The study is based on the premise that sustainable design criteria addressed in and promoted through development regulations might advance the sustainability of new projects in the city.

The paper begins with a review of the literature. It discusses the context in which the FBC was being adopted, and describes the key differences between Denver’s CZC and FBC. The next section presents the method, data and analyses. Best practices are then identified, and the missed opportunities for advancing sustainability of new development projects are highlighted in the results section. The paper concludes with recommendations for munici-palities that are considering zoning reform.

Literature review and background

Planning and design regulations are, in essence, tools that are devised to guide development and to achieve desired results. There is considerable literature on the types of tools that are already used, or can be used, to shape the built environment. Carmona has developed a typology of tools governments use to shape the built environment (Carmona 2016, 2017). Other scholars have examined the role of government in influencing the design outcomes (Imrie and Street 2009), the politics of design regulations (Lung-Amam 2013), how land-use regulations shape urban form (Ben-Joseph 2005; Talen 2012; Adams and Tiesdell 2013), and the effectiveness of voluntary private initiatives and market-based land-use controls as com-pared to government-issued regulations (Gordon, Beito, and Tabarrok 2005).

There is substantial literature that has retrospectively examined conventional zoning regulations, using empirical analysis to highlight that these regulations contribute social and spatial injustice (see Pendall 1999). The conventional zoning regulations adopted by local governments in the United States have focused on land use and development capacity primarily to reduce the adverse impact of development to an acceptable level. Scholars have argued that this regulatory approach contributes to sprawl, increases dependence on auto-mobiles and has limitations in achieving important objectives, such as sustainable design (Ewing et al. 2007; Talen 2013). However, FBCs have not been evaluated in a similar way. Most

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 847

of the literature on FBCs focuses on the inadequacies of conventional zoning codes and on the presumed benefits of FBCs (see Parolek, Parolek, and Crawford 2008).

In recent years, FBCs have gained considerable popularity as an alternative to CZCs. The promotion of contemporary types of FBCs began in the early 1980s, when New Urbanist architects Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk used a graphically illustrated, one-page urban code to guide the design of Seaside, Florida. At the time, FBCs were promoted as private contractual provisions and not as government-issued regulations. The total number of FBCs that have been adopted to regulate new development has been increasing every year. By March 2016, over 360 FBCs were adopted that met the general criteria established by the FBCI (most of these FBCs have been adopted since 2003), and an additional 250 codes were being developed in the United States (Borys and Talen, n.d.). Supported by various forms of institutional endorsements, FBCs are replacing conventional regulations in many jurisdictions in the United States and are gaining popularity in other countries, including Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom.

Many cities have adopted FBCs to permit mixed-use, compact developments that support alternative modes of transportation and to implement Smart Growth principles. Advocates and some researchers emphasize that FBCs can improve the quality of the public realm, support public health by making neighbourhoods more walkable, lead to developments that have an enhanced sense of place, and mitigate social and spatial segregation by per-mitting different housing types in a neighbourhood to meet the needs of a diverse popu-lation (Congress for the New Urbanism 2004; Talen 2013). However, there is scant literature that has examined the extent to which FBCs integrate sustainable design principles, mitigate sprawl, facilitate healthy communities and achieve the other stated objectives (see Hansen 2014; Garde, Kim and Tsai 2015).

Denver is one of three large US cities that has completely replaced its use-based zoning regulations with a citywide FBC. The other large cities that have adopted FBCs at the city scale are Cincinnati, Ohio and Miami, Florida. However, the types of FBCs adopted by these cities are dissimilar from the FBC adopted by the City of Denver (Garde, Kim and Tsai 2015). The FBC adopted by Cincinnati is not mandatory; developers and builders can choose it on a voluntary basis (City of Cincinnati n.d.). The FBC adopted by Miami is a sequential, tran-sect-based code that regulates development along a rural-to-urban continuum to preserve the integrity of the built form characteristics of each area along this continuum (Duany and Talen 2002). The new code adopted by Denver combines the form-based approach with a context-based approach that regulates development in a specific zone to fit their neigh-bourhood context and to be attentive to the density and intensity of the surrounding areas. The differences in the FBCs adopted by the City of Miami and the City of Denver are also reflected in the way that these codes regulate development. For example, Miami’s FBC per-mits multi-storey buildings in urban zones but not in suburban zones, while Denver’s FBC permits multi-storey buildings in some suburban zones if the property is located within pertinent zoning districts.

There are important differences in the way that Denver’s FBC and the previous CZC are organized and in the attributes of development that they regulate. Denver’s CZC is organized using a Euclidean zoning approach that divides the city into 67 zoning districts with 379 different land uses and focuses on maximum/minimum criteria, such as density, intensity, use and parking within each zoning district. Denver’s FBC divides the city into seven inten-sity-based ‘neighbourhood contexts’ that are subdivided into 135 ‘zone districts’ that set

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

848 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

standards for compatible development within each zone district. These neighbourhood contexts are identified in the code as Suburban, Urban Edge, Urban, General Urban, Urban Center, Downtown, and Special Contexts and Districts (City of Denver 2014). A brief descrip-tion of each neighbourhood context is included in the code to highlight the general char-acter, street and block patterns, building placement and height and mobility patterns, as shown in Figure 1.

These neighbourhood contexts are derived from existing and preferred physical and functional attributes that include land-use patterns, street network patterns, block sizes, building placement and height, and transportation options. Each of the neighbourhood contexts is further divided into several zone districts that are characterized by existing and permitted building types, such as multi-unit or mixed-use buildings, within that district.1 For example, in the Suburban Neighbourhood Context, a zone district identified by the code S-MU-5 indicates that it is a suburban multi-unit district that permits five-storey buildings.

In addition to the context-based approach, a form-based approach is used to specify building form standards that regulate height, setbacks, placement and configuration as well as the location of parking (City of Denver 2014). In particular, the FBC emphasizes building form, use and placement standards for promoting active street frontages for improving the quality of the public realm. Although the FBC relies considerably on illustrative figures to delineate permitted building forms, it does not regulate buildings in terms of shape or architectural styles.

Denver’s first zoning ordinance was adopted in 1925. The City adopted a new zoning ordinance in 1956, known as Chapter 59 of the Revised Municipal Code, which was amended hundreds of times before the FBC replaced it. The FBC was adopted, in part, because Comprehensive Plan 2000 (Plan 2000) adopted by the City of Denver emphasized that the 1956 zoning ordinance did not facilitate sustainable growth as proposed in the Plan 2000 and called for a comprehensive reassessment of the existing zoning approach (City of Denver 2000). Plan 2000 also called for development regulations that are user friendly and accessible to the public.

In 2002, the City adopted Blueprint Denver to implement the vision laid out in Plan 2000, to accommodate future growth in a sustainable manner, and to more closely integrate land use and transportation planning throughout the city (City of Denver 2002). Blueprint Denver indicated that Denver County is expected to have a population increase of 132,000 by 2020, and included a development scenario based on the zoning capacity of the existing code to reveal that the existing zoning approach was inefficient and unsupportive of transit and restricted mixed-use developments. In particular, Blueprint Denver highlighted that new development under the existing zoning code would increase traffic and air pollution in certain neighbourhoods and exacerbate the shortage of affordable housing.

Blueprint Denver specified steps to implement the vision of Plan 2000 and also identified ‘areas of stability’ and ‘areas of change’ across Denver. The areas of stability included estab-lished residential neighbourhoods where the preservation of a neighbourhood’s character was emphasized and new developments that were to be considered primarily for reinforce-ment of the existing urban fabric. The areas of change were identified as those parts of the city where growth was to be accommodated. These areas of change were usually located around multimodal streets that were considered target areas for mixed-use developments and were slated for transit and infrastructure investments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 849

Figure 1. a description of general urban neighbourhood Context in Denver’s form-based code. source: City of Denver, Denver Zoning Code (2014, 6.1-1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

850 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

The focus on mixed-use development along multimodal streets initially (before the adop-tion of the citywide FBC) led to the adoption of three form-based Main Street zoning districts for commercial areas, identified in Blueprint Denver as enhanced transit corridors (City of Denver 2002).2 With the intent to accommodate growth and promote sustainable develop-ment along the city’s commercial corridors, the Main Street zoning districts permitted mixed uses and higher densities along these transit corridors and reduced the minimum parking requirements. The adoption of Main Street zoning districts was seen as an important achieve-ment by city officials, because, by using this approach, the City of Denver allowed more intense, by-right development without going through lot-by-lot conflicts with residents of adjacent neighbourhoods and without much opposition from the property owners, even though the new regulations imposed stronger controls for building form (Elliot, Goebel, and Meadows 2012).

With the adoption of the three Main Street districts, and based on the experience of the type of redevelopment projects that were being built under these regulations, the form-based zoning approach was later used to adopt a citywide FBC for Denver with the intent to promote sustainable growth, as proposed in Denver’s Comprehensive Plan and reiterated in Blueprint Denver. In addition, the FasTracks programme, approved by Denver Metropolitan Area residents in 2004, which provides funding for 70 new transit stations in the metropolitan area, contributed to the adoption of the citywide FBC because the form-based approach offered better opportunities for promoting mixed-use and higher density development along transit corridors (City of Denver 2002). The stated objectives of Denver’s FBC included establishing physical design standards to address the transition of building scale, density and use between existing and new development; promoting sustainable design practices in building and site design; facilitating mixed-use developments along transit corridors; improving walkability; enhancing the quality of the public realm; and promoting a variety of housing types, especially affordable housing (City of Denver 2014).

Research method, data and analysis

Denver’s FBC can provide valuable insights to other cities that are considering a zoning overhaul. With this in mind, a case-study method was adopted for this study, following the general guidelines for a single revelatory case, as discussed by Yin (2014). The latest versions of the FBC and the CZC, which include texts, tables, figures and relevant maps, constitute the data for this study.3 Denver’s FBC and the CZC it replaced were analyzed, primarily to examine the extent to which each of the LEED-ND criteria is addressed in these zoning regulations. Particularly examined were: (1) the extent to which the FBC adopted by the City of Denver integrates LEED-ND criteria; (2) the extent to which the previous CZC that was replaced by the FBC integrates LEED-ND criteria; and (3) the extent to which the FBC differs from the CZC in addressing LEED-ND criteria.4 Details of the data analysis are discussed below. The study also made a comparison of the overall structure of the two zoning codes and then summarized the key differences.

The LEED-ND rating system was used as the analytical framework because it includes operationally defined and measurable criteria that are considered important for advancing the sustainability of projects. More specifically, the rating system includes sustainable design criteria that are similar to those criteria that are recommended in the American Planning Association’s (2000) Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability, those included in the Smart

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 851

Growth principles (Smart Growth Network n.d.) and those identified by a number of scholars (Jabareen 2006; Daniels 2014; Jepson and Haines 2014; Larco 2016; Garde, Kim and Tsai 2015). The LEED-ND rating system was developed using a consensus-based approach by the USGBC in collaboration with the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Congress for the New Urbanism and it is widely used in the United States to measure and certify sus-tainability of development projects, (USGBC 2013). Furthermore, key sustainable design criteria included in LEED-ND rating system are similar to those included in other rating systems such as BREEAM Communities and DGNB-NSQ that are used in other countries to measure and certify the sustainability of projects.5

In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain further insights about the strengths and weaknesses of Denver’s FBC. Specifically, the Principal Planner at the City of Denver was interviewed, who was involved in the development of Denver’s FBC and also a local architect who has substantial experience in the design and development of large-scale projects in Denver and is familiar with the new FBC. Key findings from these interviews are summarized in the results section and in the conclusions.

Details of data analysis

The online version of the LEED-ND rating system was used as the analytical framework, as discussed in detail below. The LEED-ND rating system is divided into five categories: (a) Smart Location and Linkage, (b) Neighbourhood Pattern and Design, (c) Green Infrastructure and Buildings, (d) Innovation and Design Process, and (e) Regional Priority Credit. The first three categories include operationally defined criteria as credits for which points can be earned. The last two categories provide credit for topics that are considered important but are not explicitly addressed in the rating system. The objective of this study is to evaluate the extent to which sustainable design principles included in the rating system are reflected in the zoning codes. Given this, Denver’s FBC and CZC were compared using criteria included in the first three categories. The last two categories were not pertinent to this study and, there-fore, were not used in the analysis.

Regulations that are generally applicable to all zones were analyzed, as well as those applicable only to specific zones, and weighted concordance scores (W) of LEED-ND criteria reflected in the FBC and CZC were calculated.6 The contents of Denver’s FBC and CZC were coded on a 5-point scale (0–4) for their concordance with LEED-ND criteria, as shown in Table 1. Examples of the analytical coding approach are shown in Table 2. The analytical coding method used in this study is similar to the method used in previous research by the

Table 1.  levels of concordance.

Concordance measure Concordance level Concordance scoreCriterion is addressed in the regulations to the extent that maximum

leeD-nD points can be achievedexcellent 4

Criterion is addressed in the regulations to the extent that more than minimum but less than maximum leeD-nD points can be achieved

good 3

Criterion is addressed in the regulations to the extent that minimum leeD-nD points can be achieved

fair 2

Criterion is addressed in the regulations, but no leeD-nD points can be achieved

Weak 1

leeD-nD criterion is not addressed or has no relevance in regulations none 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

852 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

authors (Garde, Kim and Tsai 2015). For LEED-ND criteria that could be directly addressed by municipal-level development regulations (e.g. maximum density or parking require-ments), concordance scores were determined based on the extent to which regulations mandate or encourage the specific requirements. For criteria that could not be directly addressed by municipal-level regulations (e.g. the percentage of water conserved through water-efficient landscaping design), concordance scores were determined based on the extent to which regulations promote or are in accord with the intent of the criteria.

Weighted concordance scores (W) were calculated based on maximum concordance scores (M) of LEED-ND criteria reflected in Denver’s FBC and CZC, as presented below.7

The M scores were calculated as follows:

The W scores were calculated as follows:

where:W is the weighted concordance scoreM_a is the maximum concordance score for sub-criterion aWt_a is the weight for sub-criterion aM_b is the maximum concordance score for sub-criterion bWt_b is the weight for sub-criterion bWt_total is the total weight for the criteria, as determined by the authors

To discuss the results, the W scores of LEED-ND criteria reflected in Denver’s FBC and CZC for regulations generally applicable to all zones and those applicable to specific zones are presented. Further, as discussed earlier, the CZC and the FBC divide the city into a large number of specific zones. Given this, to keep the tables concise and to compare zones that are similar across FBC and CZC, zones were combined, as described in Table 3, and the

M =Maximum concordance score assigned by the authors

to a regulation for a zone in the code

W =(M_a *Wt_a + M_b *Wt_b + … .)

Wt_total

Table 2. examples of analytical coding approach.

Coding detail High concordance Low concordanceregulation “The downtown context is the centre of the multi-modal

transit system. Key elements of this system are: Denver union station as the hub of the regional transit system; 16th street Mall shuttle, light rail on downtown streets; local, regional and express bus service; bike lanes and access to the Platte river and Cherry Creek greenway trails; and detached sidewalks on every street”(City of Denver 2014, 8.1–2)

“The open space Context has varying levels of access to the multi-modal transit system” (City of Denver 2014, 9.3–1)

Codes (a) leeD-nD criterion: locations with reduced auto dependence; (b) leeD-nD sub-criterion: Transit-served location; (c) applicable zones: downtown; (d) Concordance score = 4

(a) leeD-nD criterion: locations with reduced auto dependence; (b) leeD-nD sub-criterion: Transit-served location; (c) applicable zones: open space; (d) Concordance score = 1

rationale reflects excellent support of the leeD-nD criterion by describing downtown as the centre of transit service in the city and listing specific examples of transit service

reflects weak support of the leeD-nD criterion by vaguely describing how the open space zone is served by transit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 853

Tabl

e 3.

 Zon

ing

dist

ricts

sum

mar

ized

for p

rese

ntin

g th

e re

sults

of a

naly

sis o

f Den

ver’s

form

-bas

ed c

ode

and

conv

entio

nal z

onin

g co

de.

Low

Den

sity

Re

side

ntia

l M

ediu

m/H

igh

Den

sity

Re

side

ntia

lCo

mm

erci

al/M

ixed

Use

D

ownt

own

Spec

ial D

istr

icts

O

pen

Spac

e

(LD

R)

(MH

DR)

(CM

X)(D

)(S

D)

(OS)

Form

-bas

ed C

ode

subu

rban

-sin

gle

uni

t-a,

D,

fx,

f, f

1, ix

, i; u

rban

ed

ge-s

ingl

e u

nit-

a, b

, D,

Dx,

D1,

D1x

, g, g

1;

urb

an e

dge-

Two

uni

t-b,

C; u

rban

-sin

gle

uni

t-a,

a1,

a2,

b, b

1,

b2, C

, C1,

C2,

e, e

1, H

, H

1, u

rban

-Tw

o u

nit-

b,

b2, C

subu

rban

-Tow

n H

ouse

-2.5

; su

burb

an-M

ulti

uni

t-3,

5,

8, 1

2, 2

0; u

rban

ed

ge-T

own

Hou

se-2

.5;

urb

an e

dge-

Mul

ti u

nit-

2.5;

urb

an-r

ow

Hou

se-2

.5, 3

a; g

ener

al

urb

an-r

ow H

ouse

-3;

gen

eral

urb

an-M

ulti

uni

t-3,

5, 8

, 12,

20

subu

rban

-Com

mer

cial

Cor

ridor

-3x,

3, 5

x, 5

; sub

urba

n-M

ixed

u

se-2

x, 2

, 3, 5

, 8, 1

2; s

ubur

ban-

Mai

n st

reet

-3, 5

; urb

an

edge

-res

iden

tial M

ixed

use

-5; u

rban

edg

e-Co

mm

erci

al

Corr

idor

-3x,

3; u

rban

edg

e-M

ixed

use

-2x,

2a,

2, 3

a, 3

; urb

an

edge

-Mai

n st

reet

-2x,

2, 3

, 5; u

rban

-res

iden

tial M

ixed

use

-5;

urb

an-M

ixed

use

-2x,

2, 3

; urb

an-M

ain

stre

et-2

x, 2

, 3, 5

; gen

-er

al u

rban

-res

iden

tial o

ffice

-3, 5

; gen

eral

urb

an-r

esid

entia

l M

ixed

use

-5; g

ener

al u

rban

-Mix

ed u

se-3

; gen

eral

u

rban

-Mai

n st

reet

-3, 5

; urb

an C

entr

e-re

side

ntia

l Mix

ed

use

-5, 8

, 12;

urb

an C

entr

e-M

ixed

use

-3, 5

, 8, 1

2, 1

6, 2

0;

urb

an C

entr

e-M

ain

stre

et-5

, 8, 1

2

Dow

ntow

n-Co

re,

Thea

tre

Dis

tric

t, lo

wer

, Ci

vic,

gol

den

Tria

ngle

, ar

apah

oe

squa

re

indu

stria

l-Mix

ed u

se-3

, 5, 8

; in

dust

rial-l

ight

, gen

eral

; Ca

mpu

s-H

ealth

care

, H

ealth

care

2, e

duca

tiona

l, ed

ucat

iona

l 2, e

nter

tain

men

t; o

verla

y u

se, C

onse

rvat

ion,

D

esig

n, a

irpor

t infl

uenc

e;

Den

ver i

nter

natio

nal a

irpor

t

ope

n sp

ace-

Publ

ic

Park

s, re

crea

tion,

Co

nser

vatio

n

Conv

entio

nal Z

onin

g Co

dere

side

ntia

l-0, 1

, 2, 2

-a,

2-b

resi

dent

ial-3

, 3-X

, 4, 4

-Xbu

sine

ss-1

, 2, 3

, 4, 8

, a-1

, a-2

, a-3

, a-4

; Mai

n st

reet

-1, 2

, 3;

resi

dent

ial-M

ixed

use

-20,

30;

Com

mer

ical

-Mix

ed-u

se-1

0,

20, 3

0; Tr

ansi

t-M

ixed

-use

30;

C; P

rV

busi

ness

-8-g

, 8-

a, 5

, 7, 5

-Tr-

5 (in

stitu

tiona

l); H

ospi

tal;

indu

stria

l-0, 1

, 2; P

arki

ng-1

; o

verla

y

o-1

, 2; o

pen

spac

e-1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

854 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

average of W scores of these specific zones was used. For any specific LEED-ND criterion, a higher W indicates a stronger propensity of regulations to promote that criterion. The study relied primarily on W scores to interpret the results and used thresholds (W ≥ 2.5 indicates that the LEED-ND criterion is reflected strongly in the regulations, 1 < W < 2.5 indicates that the LEED-ND criterion is reflected moderately in the regulations, and W ≤ 1 indicates that the LEED-ND criterion is reflected weakly in the regulations) to infer the strength of these scores. The results are reported as W scores for each of the LEED-ND criteria reflected in Denver’s FBC and in the CZC.

The research method used in this study has limitations that are similar to those of any case-study method that relies on qualitative evaluation of data, including the problems of inter-rater variability in coding and generalizability of findings, as well as limitations in meth-ods for environmental evaluations (Yin 2014). To ensure consistency in coding and to increase the reliability of findings, a coding protocol was established and tested prior to conducting the analysis. Although case studies generally do not provide an adequate basis for general-izations (because they are not based on a random sample), the findings of this paper, which are based on a single revelatory case, provide valuable insight for cities that are considering an FBC to advance the sustainability of new developments. The research method also has limitations related to methods for evaluating environmental design attributes, including the problems of multiplicity of values and a lack of agreement among scholars on a framework for analysis (Bentivegna 1997; Garde, Kim and Tsai 2015).

Results and discussion

In general, the results indicate that Denver’s FBC addresses several LEED-ND criteria more strongly than does the CZC. The results also reveal that some of the LEED-ND criteria, such as walkable streets, are integrated relatively strongly in the FBC as well in the CZC, whereas other criteria, such as certified green buildings, are rarely addressed in either code. In addi-tion, the FBC includes figures to describe typical building volumes that are permitted within each neighbourhood context and to illustrate how new buildings should relate to adjacent buildings (see Figure 2). In the CZC, the emphasis is primarily on land use and what is (and is not) permitted within each zone.8

It is noteworthy that the FBC includes a section on design standards for each neighbour-hood context, which describe the general intent and the building form intent and clarifies the performance standards for the site and building design in that section. As a brief example, in the chapter on Urban Neighbourhood Context, the FBC includes design standards that are applicable to all 26 zoning districts in that context. Here, the FBC emphasizes that the general intent of design standards is to arrange land uses (such as residential, retail, service and open space) to complement each other and to be compatible with transit. Further, in describing the siting requirements for the location of parking, the FBC calls for minimizing conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. In addition, the FBC includes design standards that emphasize maximizing transparency of windows at the street level to achieve active street frontages in Urban Neighbourhood Contexts. Collectively, these design standards set the tone of regulations for all zoning districts in that neighbourhood context.

Detailed results are presented in Table 4, which shows the weighted concordance scores (W) for FBC and CZC that are generally applicable to all zones as well as those applicable

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 855

only to specific zones. The main findings for the comparison of FBC and CZC are summarized below for the three LEED-ND categories: smart location and linkage (SLL), neighbourhood pattern and design (NPD) and green infrastructure and buildings (GIB). The findings from the interviews are also summarized below.

Smart location and linkage (SLL) category

The LEED-ND criteria in the SLL category address the environment, economy and equity primarily in terms of location of developments. These criteria encourage locating mixed-use development closer to alternative modes of transportation with the intent to bring jobs and housing closer and to reduce automobile dependence. In addition, criteria in this category are intended to improve access to public amenities, support the local economy and contrib-ute to more equitable development.

The new FBC incorporates several criteria in this category to a greater extent than does the CZC. In particular, the FBC focuses on reducing auto dependence, locating development in preferred locations (i.e. in places that have interconnected streets and transit access), housing and jobs proximity, long-term conservation and bicycle parking and storage.

It is important to reiterate that Denver had adopted form-based regulations for three Main Street zones before adopting a citywide FBC and that these regulations were updated

Figure 2. example of form-based regulations in Denver’s code. source: City of Denver, Denver Zoning Code (2014, 6.3-21).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

856 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

Tabl

e 4.

 res

ults

of a

naly

sis:

wei

ghte

d co

ncor

danc

e sc

ores

(W) o

f lee

D-n

D c

riter

ia a

ddre

ssed

in D

enve

r’s fo

rm-b

ased

cod

e an

d co

nven

tiona

l zon

ing

code

.

(Con

tinue

d)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 857

not

e: g

 = g

ener

al r

egul

atio

ns, l

Dr 

= l

ow D

ensi

ty r

esid

entia

l, M

HD

r =

 Med

ium

/Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

entia

l, CM

X =

 Com

mer

cial

/Mix

ed u

se, D

 = D

ownt

own,

sD

 = s

peci

al D

istr

icts

, os 

= o

pen

spac

e.

Dar

k sh

adin

g in

dica

tes W

 ≥ 2

.5, m

ediu

m sh

adin

g in

dica

tes 1

 < W

 < 2

.5, a

nd n

o sh

adin

g in

dica

tes W

 ≤ 1

. em

pty

cells

indi

cate

W =

 0.0

0.

Tabl

e 4.

 (Con

tinue

d).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

858 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

and integrated into the citywide FBC. Consequently, Denver’s citywide FBC emphasizes mixed-use development along parts of commercial streets in most neighbourhood contexts. The FBC also includes relatively stronger regulations to reduce auto dependence than does the CZC. Although the CZC encourages access to public transit only in specific mixed-use zones, the FBC encourages new development to reinforce public transit centres and transit corridors in most zone districts, which is expected to reduce auto dependence over time. Figure 3 shows a transit-oriented development approved under the new form-based code. To reduce the number of home-to-work trips, the FBC permits live/work uses and home occupation opportunities in the general regulations applicable to all zones. Further, the design standards included in the FBC for most neighbourhood contexts encourage the organizing of residential and employment uses to be convenient to access with transit. In addition, the FBC addresses the LEED-ND criterion, ‘long-term conservation management of habitat and water bodies’ to a greater extent than does the CZC. Finally, the FBC generally has stronger regulations for bicycle parking than does the CZC. Nevertheless, both the FBC and CZC fall short of addressing some of the LEED-ND criteria. Neither the FBC nor the CZC includes regulations that address redevelopment of brownfield sites and neither code encourages the restoration of ecosystems, wildlife habitat, wetlands or water bodies in their site design.

Figure 3. a leeD Platinum Certified transit-oriented development approved under the form-based code. Photo used with permission. Photo source: KePHarT Community :: Planning :: architecture. Photo by: andrew Clark Photography.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 859

The interviewees stated that the FBC has been quite successful at redirecting growth toward locations with transit access, especially in downtown, downtown adjacent neigh-bourhoods and along major transit corridors. They also pointed out that the FBC has per-mitted increased development density and intensity in areas of change while shielding areas of stability from higher-density development, following the recommendations outlined in Blueprint Denver.

Neighbourhood pattern and design (NPD) category

The LEED-ND criteria in the NPD category address the environment, economy and equity in terms of neighbourhood planning and design features. These criteria encourage mixed-use, compact developments that include a variety of housing types, pedestrian-friendly streets and public amenities within walking distance. Criteria in the NPD category are intended to mitigate social and spatial segregation, emphasize development practices that support local retail, reduce adverse environmental impacts associated with automobile dependence and decrease the parking footprint by encouraging shared parking.

Denver’s FBC integrates several NPD criteria to a greater extent than does the previous CZC. In particular, the new code emphasizes walkable streets, access to recreation facilities, a reduced parking footprint, and access to civic and public space more than does the CZC.

The FBC emphasizes pedestrian-oriented design in all neighbourhood contexts and includes design standards that regulate building form, façade and uses along sidewalks for visual appeal with the intent to make neighbourhoods more walkable. In fact, even in low-er-density areas, such as the Suburban Neighbourhood Context, regulations in the FBC promote walkable streets. Moreover, the ground-story activation standards that encourage active street frontages are stronger, more detailed and more frequent in the FBC, which mandates shallow front setbacks and requires a certain proportion of glazed windows (win-dows that have clear glass for transparency) for most non-residential buildings and for some types of apartments. For example, in the Commercial Corridor and Main Street districts in the Urban Edge Neighbourhood Context, buildings along primary streets are required to have a minimum of 40% glazing for non-residential buildings and a minimum of 30% glazing for residential-only buildings. Although the CZC also promotes active street frontages in the downtown, Main Street, mixed-use and high-density residential districts, in many cases these design standards are optional.

Access to recreation facilities is emphasized in the FBC in the general design standards that are applicable to all zones. More specifically, general regulations in the FBC emphasize pedestrian connections to public gathering places, parks, greenways, schools, recreation facilities and public office buildings. In the CZC, recreation facilities are addressed in regu-lations for specific zones, but the discussion is focused on whether and how such uses are permitted rather than on their accessibility and connection to surrounding uses.

The theme of integrating open space into the urban fabric to make it more accessible runs throughout the FBC document, while the CZC focuses on these elements in specific mixed-use zones. The FBC includes regulations that require pedestrian walkways with direct access and convenient connections to public gathering places, parks, schools, recreation areas and other public facilities. The FBC generally encourages interconnected streets and permits reduced parking requirements for certain types of developments. In addition, the FBC includes regulations that require parking lots to be located behind the buildings in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

860 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

many neighbourhood contexts. In the CZC, the discussion of reducing parking impacts and encouraging interconnected streets is confined to certain mixed-use zones.

Interviewees pointed to the problems associated with higher-density projects with reduced parking standards that are permitted under the FBC. Specifically, a local architect stated that higher-density projects with reduced parking requirements frequently face strong opposition from adjacent communities. He also pointed to the challenges associated with higher-density projects along transit routes that are likely to be under-used and therefore are unlikely to reduce automobile dependence in the near future.

Green infrastructure and buildings (GIB) category

The LEED-ND criteria in the GIB category address the environment, economy and equity in terms of building and infrastructure design as well as emphasize the preservation and reuse of historic buildings. These criteria promote energy and water efficiency in building and landscape design, reduce the urban heat island effect and minimize light pollution.

The FBC incorporates several GIB criteria to a greater extent than does the CZC. Many of these GIB criteria are dealt with in the FBC general provisions for all zones. For example, the FBC general provisions seek to improve site permeability, reduce urban runoff and encourage the design of paved and landscaped areas to help treat and manage storm waters. The CZC requires adequate drainage of zone lots, but does not place as much emphasis on perme-ability of pavements or call for an integrated design of sites with storm water management features.

The FBC places more emphasis on regulations that promote water conservation in land-scaping as compared to the CZC. Although neither code document specifically requires xeriscaping, the FBC specifically encourages water-efficient landscaping through the use of drought-resistant plants, whereas the CZC does not. Both codes address on-site, renewable energy sources only to a modest extent. For example, both codes allow solar panels to encroach into setback areas in most zones. However, the CZC downtown zone does not specifically mention this type of exception, whereas the FBC does allow such setback excep-tions in downtown. The FBC also emphasizes reuse of existing buildings and historic resource preservation in its general provisions for all zones and incorporates this criterion to a greater extent than does the CZC. Several areas of LEED-ND criteria do not receive much emphasis in either code, including requirements that relate to certified green buildings, building energy and water efficiency, district heating and cooling, wastewater management and use of recycled construction materials.

The FBC tends to reference the goals of creating interconnected streets that support multiple modes of transportation and collocation of different land-use types more than does the CZC. In addition, the FBC places more emphasis on creating a pedestrian-friendly public realm with enhanced access to amenities such as open space and recreation facilities. There are some areas of LEED-ND criteria that receive little attention in both codes, including solar orientation, restoration of natural habitats and certified green buildings.

Interviewees pointed out that the FBC more strongly promotes some of criteria included in the GIB category than the CZC. For example, while solar orientation of buildings was rarely addressed in the FBC, certain provisions for sunlight access (reducing building shadows) were substantially emphasized in the new code. The FBC also makes it easier to renovate and reuse existing buildings, which was difficult under the CZC.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 861

Conclusions and recommendations

Several local governments are considering zoning reform for advancing the sustainability of new development and are evaluating options for facilitating planning and design objec-tives that are difficult to achieve under their existing CZCs. In this context, Denver’s new zoning code (an FBC) is considered an example of best practices by a number of municipal-ities that are considering zoning reform. With this in mind, this study examined the extent to which Denver’s new FBC, and the CZC that it replaced, address LEED-ND criteria, which integrate key sustainable design principles. City officials in Denver, and in other cities that are considering zoning reform, can benefit from the findings of this study, as discussed below.

Overall, Denver’s FBC integrates LEED-ND criteria to a greater extent than does the CZC. The FBC includes many of these criteria in regulations that are generally applicable to all zones in the city as well as in regulations that apply only to specific zones in a given neigh-bourhood context. The results of this study reveal the extent to which LEED-ND criteria are addressed in Denver’s FBC. City officials in Denver could consider the findings presented in this paper, review the LEED-ND criteria that are addressed relatively weakly (or are not addressed) in the FBC, and evaluate which of these criteria could be further addressed in regulations. Although not all LEED-ND criteria are equally important for every part of the city, some of these criteria deserve more attention for advancing the sustainability of new development.

Before adopting the FBC, Denver’s city council had acknowledged that there is a shortage of moderate- and low-income housing within the city and that most new development does not serve low-income households (City of Denver 2002). The city council also pointed out that a strong housing demand, short supply of developable land in the city, and lack of incentives for developers to offer a variety of housing types restrict opportunities for pro-viding affordable housing in the city. The objective of an even distribution of a diverse range of housing throughout the city also was emphasized in Plan 2000 and in Blueprint Denver (City of Denver 2000, 2002). The results of the study here suggest, however, that the con-struction of low-income housing is more likely to be confined to certain areas around down-town, which would not contribute to the objective of an even distribution of low-income housing throughout the city. This is because, although the FBC encourages a diverse range of housing throughout the city in its general provisions and in general design standards, it does not adequately promote low-income housing in most of the regulations applicable to specific zones, and low-income housing development bonuses offered in FBC are applicable primarily to zones near downtown. Although the FBC indicates that parking requirements may be reduced for developing affordable housing, similar incentives are available for pro-viding ‘bike share parking’ spaces. Given this, developers will be more likely to include bike share parking as compared to affordable housing in their projects.

Future amendments to the code could encourage low-income housing in the medium- and higher-density zones, especially along major transit corridors that were ‘upzoned’ in the FBC to facilitate new development and to accommodate future growth. To encourage the construction of low-income housing in new development, city officials could provide appro-priate financial and regulatory incentives in addition to development capacity bonuses in a way that would retain the integrity of the neighbourhood contexts and restrict the con-struction of tall buildings near low-rise homes (Garde, Kim and Tsai 2015). Encouraging

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

862 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

low-income housing along major transit corridors would contribute to an even distribution of affordable housing throughout the city and provide more transportation choices for low-income households. Similarly, LEED-ND criteria that are weakly addressed in the FBC, such as building energy efficiency, building water efficiency and heat island reduction, could be emphasized in zones that permit higher-density projects by providing appropriate incentives.

Although the new FBC is relatively easier to understand than the CZC it replaced because it includes graphics and illustrative figures to explain the rules, its overall structure is some-what complicated and, occasionally, confusing. An interviewee stated that the CZC was easier to follow because it contained all the relevant information in the same section; in contrast, the FBC is difficult to follow because the reader is forced to look into multiple sections of the document to understand the rules. This is due to the way that the idea of neighbourhood contexts is used to organize regulations for zoning districts. For example, the FBC includes general provisions ‒ regulations that are applicable to all property within the city ‒ as well as specific regulations for each zoning district in each neighbourhood context. Although there are only seven neighbourhood contexts in the FBC, each one is divided into several zoning districts that permit a variety of land uses, densities and building forms. Moreover, the FBC includes a separate set of regulations for each district. For example, the Suburban Neighbourhood Context is divided into nine Residential Districts, four Commercial Corridor Districts, six Mixed-Use Districts and two Main Street Districts. Further, there are 14 ‘primary building form standards’ associated with the nine Residential Districts. Within this framework, the code seems to permit buildings up to 20 storeys in height (S-MU-20) in the multi-unit district, under the suburban house building form category; in reality, however, it allows buildings up to only three storeys (and a maximum of 32 feet) in height in that category. City officials should identify and fix these types of problems in future amendments to the code.

What can officials in other cities learn from Denver’s FBC? First, this paper presents a detailed method to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of zoning codes in promoting sus-tainable design principles. Officials in cities that are considering zoning reform could evaluate the effectiveness of their current regulations and the effectiveness of different alternatives in promoting sustainable design principles in a similar way. Second, FBCs are more likely to address built form characteristics than are CZCs. When considering amendments to the existing regulations, city officials should weigh the extent to which built form characteristics need to be emphasized in these rules. Third, Denver’s FBC, which includes illustrative draw-ings (plan, section and three-dimensional perspective drawings), makes it easier for people to understand the regulations and related built form objectives. When adopting new regu-lations, city officials should consider how to make the rules and intended built form objec-tives easier to understand. Fourth, as an interviewee suggested, cities should offer training sessions to educate the users regarding the use of the code to ensure a smooth transition between old and new regulations.

Finally, in Denver it was the successful adoption of the three form-based Main Street zoning districts that contributed to the adoption of the citywide FBC. The Main Street zoning districts increased development opportunities along key commercial corridors by permitting higher-densities, mixed uses and a variety of housing types along multi-modal streets and by reducing parking requirements in these zones. Using a similar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 863

approach, Denver’s new citywide FBC regulates development to achieve a gradual tran-sition in development intensity between areas of change and areas of stability and allows higher-intensity growth along major transit corridors. The process of adoption of the three form-based Main Street zoning districts also served as a pilot test of the form-based approach to zoning before Denver adopted the citywide FBC. Officials in other cities that are considering zoning reform could similarly initiate a planning vision first and pilot-test their zoning approach for a part of the city before launching a citywide rezoning project.

Notes

1. Within this framework, the first six neighbourhood contexts (Suburban, Urban Edge, Urban, General Urban, Urban Center and Downtown) include a total of 106 zoning districts, while the Special Contexts and Districts include another 29 districts.

2. The FBC for the three Main Street zones along Colfax Avenue, which is generally referred to as Denver’s Main Street, was adopted in 2006 (Elliot, Goebel, and Meadows 2012).

3. The latest versions of the FBC and the CZC were retrieved (that is, the latest version of Former Chapter 59 of the Revised Municipal Code that was replaced by the FBC) available online from the City of Denver (City of Denver 2010, 2014) and the citywide zoning maps for the CZC and FBC were obtained from city officials.

4. In the analysis of the CZC, the three Main Street zones included in the CZC were excluded. This approach was used to appropriately compare the FBC and the CZC given that these three Main Street zones were conceived as FBCs.

5. While the LEED-ND rating system differs from BREEAM Communities and DGNB-NSQ rating systems that are used in other countries, including the United Kingdom and Germany, in terms of certification process, certification types and specific thresholds for certification, key sustainable design criteria are similar across these rating systems.

6. Denver’s FBC and CZC include regulations for special cases including Master Planned Development, Planned Unit Developments (PUD), special area plans and overlay districts. These regulations for special cases were excluded from the analysis because their applicability is restricted to distinctive areas in Denver and because the findings are unlikely to provide useful insights for other municipalities.

7. Given that the rating system assigns more (or fewer) credit points to sub-criteria that it deems more (or less) important, the authors retained these credit points as weights to maintain the overall integrity of the rating system. However, for sub-criteria without defined points, the authors used the maximum achievable credit points for that specific criterion as the weight.

8. The three Main Street zone districts that were included in the CZC (as an amendment to the previous CZC) prior to adoption of the FBC are an exception to this general trend in the CZC.

Acknowledgements

We owe a special note of thanks to city planners at the City of Denver who were supportive of our research and provided valuable information and zoning maps. We are grateful for the insights provided by the interviewees for this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

864 A. GARDE AND A. HOFF

References

Adams, D., and S. Tiesdell. 2013. Shaping Places: Urban Planning, Design and Development. London: Routledge.

American Planning Association. 2000. Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability. https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/pdf/sustainability.pdf

Ben-Joseph, E. 2005. The Code of the City: Standards and the Hidden Language of Place Making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bentivegna, V. 1997. “Limitations in Environmental Evaluations.” In Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability, edited by P. S. Brandon, P. L. Lombardi, and V. Bentivegna, 25–38. London: E & FN Spon.

Borys, H., and E. Talen n.d. The Codes Study. Accessed August 15, 2016. http://www.placemakers.com/how-we-teach/codes-study/

Carmona, M. 2016. “Design Governance: Theorizing an Urban Design Subfield.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (6): 705–730.

Carmona, M. 2017. “The Formal and Informal Tools of Design Governance.” Journal of Urban Design 22 (1): 1–36.

City of Cincinnati. n.d. Cincinnati Form-Based Code Approved by City Council. Accessed November 12 2015. http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/news/cincinnati-form-based-code-approved-by-city-council/

City of Denver. 2000. Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000: A Vision for Denver and Its People. https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/community-planning-and-development/planning-and-design/comprehensive-plan-2000.html

City of Denver. 2002. Blueprint Denver: An Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan. https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/community-planning-and-development/planning-and-design/blueprint-denver.html

City of Denver. 2010. Former Chapter 59. https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/community-planning-and-development/zoning/denver-zoning-code.html

City of Denver. 2014. Denver Zoning Code. https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/community-planning-and-development/zoning/denver-zoning-code.html

Congress for the New Urbanism. 2004. Codifying New Urbanism: How to Reform Municipal Land Development Regulations (Planners Advisory Service Report No. 526). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, Planners Press.

Daniels, T. 2014. The Environmental Planning Handbook for Sustainable Communities and Regions. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, Planners Press.

Duany, A., and E. Talen. 2002. “Transect Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (3): 245–266.

Elliot, D., M. Goebel, and C. Meadows. 2012. The Rules That Shape Urban Form. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.

Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, and D. Chen. 2007. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Chicago, IL: Urban Land Institute.

Form-Based Code Institute. n.d. Form-Based Codes Defined. Accessed April 10 2016. http://formbasedcodes.org/definition

Garde, A., C. Kim, and O. Tsai. 2015. “Differences Between Miami's Form-Based Code and Traditional Zoning Code in Integrating Planning Principles.” Journal of the American Planning Association 81 (1): 46–66.

Gordon, P., D. Beito, and A. Tabarrok. 2005. “The Voluntary City, Choice, Community, and Civil Society.” In Regulating Place: Standards and the Shaping of Urban America, edited by E. Ben-Joseph and T. Szold, 189–202. New York: Routledge.

Hansen, G. 2014. “Design for Healthy Communities: The Potential of Form-Based Codes to Create Walkable Urban Streets.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (2): 151–170.

Imrie, R., and E. Street. 2009. “Regulating Design: Practices of Architecture, Governance and Control.” Urban Studies 46 (12): 2507–2518.

Jabareen, Y. R. 2006. “Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (1): 38–52.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17

JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 865

Jepson Jr, E. J., and A. L. Haines. 2014. “Zoning for Sustainability: A Review and Analysis of the Zoning Ordinances of 32 Cities in the United States.” Journal of the American Planning Association 80 (3): 239–252.

Larco, N. 2016. “Sustainable Urban Design – A (Draft) Framework.” Journal of Urban Design 21 (1): 1–29.Lung-Amam, W. 2013. “That Monster House is My Home: The Social and Cultural Politics of Design

Reviews and Regulations.” Journal of Urban Design 18 (2): 220–241.Parolek, D. G., K. Parolek, and P. C. Crawford. 2008. Form-Based Codes: A Guide for Planners, Urban

Designers, and Developers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Pendall, R. 1999. “Do Land Use Controls Cause Sprawl?” Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design 26 (4): 555–571.Smart Growth Network. n.d. Smart Growth Principles. http://www.smartgrowth.org/network.phpTalen, E. 2012. City Rules: How Regulations Affect Urban Form. Washington, DC: Island Press.Talen, E. 2013. “Zoning for and against Sprawl: The Case for Form-Based Codes.” Journal of Urban Design

18 (2): 175–200.The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 2014. Zoning Best Practices. Accessed

19 August 2016. http://zoningpgc.pgplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Zoning-BP_edited-11_4.pdf

U.S. Green Building Council. 2013. LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development Rating System. https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2845

Yin, R. K. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

UC

Irv

ine

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

8:02

12

Nov

embe

r 20

17