Aerial picture of Alhambra in the area of 710 freeway.
Another aerial picture of Alhambra, East of previous picture in the residential zone. Alhambra is a city inhabited by a majority of Asian and their descendants in America, followed in percentages by Chicano population. In residential areas, the Zoning Code allows to build a lot coverage of 50%, with a FAR of 38%. Supposedly, for a bigger lot, a bigger house could be built.
Legally, for any new house or addition, given the project complies with the Zoning regulations, the final decision of the house square footage will be taken by Planning Commission. The problem here is the criteria and methodology to take this decision.
The process begins with an investigation of the declaration of surfaces of housings, according to the office of the Assessor´s of collection of taxes, in a radius of 300´ around the house in question. Main issue here, in several cases this information is not updated and - obviously - it doesn't include the illegal additions that are also part of the urban fabric and city growth. Once the planners have a list of all square footages in this area, they take an average of this chart and force the homeowner to respect a maximum square footage according to the average of the other houses inside the radius map, regardless the lot size (!).
Nowadays, we have many research tools to analyze the city and have outputs of the best way to avoid urban sprawl. I do not mean to use powerful softwares based on fractal morphology, or land use as GIS (geographical information systems), but at least apply a reasonable criteria.
Let us see an example. If the area selected includes the small houses of workers, annexed to the local 710 freeway, any person with a big lot here, will be absolutely restricted by the average. Continuing with the example, Planning Commission would overlook the fact that these houses were built between the years 1934 and 1939. This type of urban politics stop the neighborhood overall growth. Most probably, these houses will have a record at the Assessor’s with 900–1000 sq ft. That I consider substandard for the current necessities of a modern family, specially if the majority of population in Alhambra is Asian and Chicano, cultures that are grouped by kinship and an average of five people could be living in each house.
A possible action, could be to displace the 300’ radius map. But this is not acceptable, the radius map has to strictly show the house selected in the center. What is an abstract geometrical concept that does not reflect the real urban issues.
The strict numeric analysis does not take into account urban perceptions, habits, morphology, land use, culture of the inhabitants, urban fabric. It is just a number, and citizens are not numbers.
Legally, for any new house or addition, given the project complies with the Zoning regulations, the final decision of the house square footage will be taken by Planning Commission. The problem here is the criteria and methodology to take this decision.
The process begins with an investigation of the declaration of surfaces of housings, according to the office of the Assessor´s of collection of taxes, in a radius of 300´ around the house in question. Main issue here, in several cases this information is not updated and - obviously - it doesn't include the illegal additions that are also part of the urban fabric and city growth. Once the planners have a list of all square footages in this area, they take an average of this chart and force the homeowner to respect a maximum square footage according to the average of the other houses inside the radius map, regardless the lot size (!).
Nowadays, we have many research tools to analyze the city and have outputs of the best way to avoid urban sprawl. I do not mean to use powerful softwares based on fractal morphology, or land use as GIS (geographical information systems), but at least apply a reasonable criteria.
Let us see an example. If the area selected includes the small houses of workers, annexed to the local 710 freeway, any person with a big lot here, will be absolutely restricted by the average. Continuing with the example, Planning Commission would overlook the fact that these houses were built between the years 1934 and 1939. This type of urban politics stop the neighborhood overall growth. Most probably, these houses will have a record at the Assessor’s with 900–1000 sq ft. That I consider substandard for the current necessities of a modern family, specially if the majority of population in Alhambra is Asian and Chicano, cultures that are grouped by kinship and an average of five people could be living in each house.
A possible action, could be to displace the 300’ radius map. But this is not acceptable, the radius map has to strictly show the house selected in the center. What is an abstract geometrical concept that does not reflect the real urban issues.
The strict numeric analysis does not take into account urban perceptions, habits, morphology, land use, culture of the inhabitants, urban fabric. It is just a number, and citizens are not numbers.
Hola Myriam, gracias por compartir experiencias y artículos tan interesantes y con ello ofrecer un camino para aquellos que quieran obtener una nueva visión de la arquitectura y el urbanismo.
ReplyDeleteEn este artículo es sorprendente el criterio de regulación urbana que describes, no sólo es totalmente represivo e ilógico, sino que atenta directamente contra el confort y bienestar de los habitantes de esa ciudad. Pero aparte de esto, particularmente, llama mucho mi atención la gran cantidad de área verde que se observa en la zona urbana, ¿acaso a través de reglas de regulación como la que describes, logran mantener este equilibrio? Y es que en Chiclayo, la ciudad donde vivo, cada día se gana más el nombre de “Ciudad de Cemento”. Contamos con planes reguladores y con una reglamentación a nivel nacional, pero al parecer no es suficiente.
Hola Dora, gracias por tu comentario. El landscape sale del FAR que es la ocupación del terreno. En algunas ciudades incluso es obligatorio presentar un preliminary landscape, que es una intención de paisaje. Lo que no dice el blog, y realmente es inquietante, que la primera etapa de revisión del board de planning, está sujeta a la opinión de dos arquitectos licenciados en CA más otra gente que no tiene relación con la arquitectura. Desconozco el criterio de selección, pero me imagino.... No es bajo ningún aspecto diseño participativo, es autoritario y desgraciadamente con un criterio muy cerrado. Agregar un macetero también es parte de Planning Commission, créase o no. El estilo que busca la Ciudad es Ranch Style, que era el estilo de posguerra de los ´30 (!!!)Cariños desde el Norte, Myriam
ReplyDelete