As early as 1997, Ft. Collins, Colorado adopted a new zoning code that was met with a great deal of opposition from local homebuilders. The new code was call City Plan, and it promised to undo some of the problems that their building boom had created, namely traffic congestion and unattractive housing developments in which the garage was the most prominent feature visible from the street.
City Plan was initially developed by the City Council in 1995, and was presented as their vision of what Ft. Collins should look like in the year 2025. It was developed using “visual preference” surveys, which entailed asking residents to pick which picture best described what they wanted their city to look like.
There were also open houses and public workshops to collect input from the public in order to help formulate the new zoning code.
(Is any of this sounding familiar? Hmmm.)
At the same time they developed their Transportation Master Plan, Natural Areas Policy Plan, and Air Quality Plan.
The result of all of this planning was a plan that was touted to be both “anti-suburban” and “pro-urban”. New subdivisions must be designed to be mixed use rather than purely residential or commercial districts.
For example, a new housing subdivision cannot be designed to contain only homes of similar size. Home sizes must vary, and garages cannot be a prominent feature. In fact, alleys are making a comeback to allow garages to be placed at the back of the homes.
The subdivision must also contain apartments (to “promote density and social equity”), a meeting place, a convenience store, other types of stores, and even a church, all of which are within walking distance of the homes.
New subdivisions will only be allowed on established or planned bus routes, to promote mass transit use and reduction of the use of automobiles.
To help create City Plan, Ft. Collins brought in an expert urban planner, Peter Calthorpe, to give public lectures on “transit-oriented” design. It was his firm who conducted the “visual preference” survey that was severely criticized as being biased. Participants in the survey apparently revealed that they liked the look of old neighborhoods more than the look of suburbia, which was the desired outcome of the survey.
A local homebuilder’s association was very critical of City Plan. A spokeswoman said, "The problem is we don't live the way we used to. We own a lot of cars, and we need a three-car garage to store our snowmobiles, boots and bikes. We need workout rooms, computer rooms, game rooms. Naturally, the builder wants to meet those needs -- at a price the buyer can afford. But the city of Fort Collins doesn't like the look of what buyers are saying they need."
In City Plan, streets will get much smaller, being reduced in width from the former city standard of 40 feet to as narrow as 24 feet. (The narrow streets will prevent parking.)
Sidewalks are also a part of City Plan. New subdivisions will provide sidewalks that are separated from the curb to allow for a green area between pedestrians and cars.
Cul-de-sacs will be a thing of the past. All streets will be connected.
Parks are a big part of City Plan subdivisions. Homes must be within one-third of a mile from a park.
Big-box stores will be required to conform to strict guidelines so that they fit into the design criteria of City Plan.
Now, is this all bad? Of course not. In many respects, City Plan may make Ft. Collins a better city.
However, I would be interested to see how much freedom has been lost in Ft. Collins. It appears to me that if you choose to live there, you are volunteering to live in a community that has been built and is operated under some very strict guidelines.
I would also be interested to see how churches fit into the City Plan scheme, or any New Urbanism scheme for that matter. City Plan calls for “a” church in new subdivisions. Who determines what church that will be? Will only one denomination be allowed in each subdivision? Will they be limited in size? Will churches eventually be excluded from new subdivisions because they do not produce property taxes?
I think that New Urbanism needs to be accepted only with a great deal of caution, and it should never be allowed to threaten our freedom by its imposition rather than voluntary participation.