Post-Calthorpe

I was attempting to talk about form-based codes earlier tonight but wanted to make sure I actually knew what I was attempting to talk about, so I looked through the zoning book I read however many months ago and found this paragraph that seems to provide a good, quick summary:

Standing on the foundation laid by Christopher Alexander and Anthony Nelessen, form-based zoners said that good urban form requires regulating much more than imaginary boxes within which buildings could be built [like in Euclidean zoning]; it requires some level of control over the architecture of the buildings themselves--not only individually but in relation to their neighbors. After all, if we know what makes "the people" happy, we should require builders to do some of that. A few free-spirited architects might complain, but city councils aren't there to make the architects happy. So form-based zoning tends to be somewhat prescriptive about what buildings should look like, sometimes including such things as height relative to the width of the street, degree of detail on the facade, placement of parking in relation to the building, placement of public buildings within a block, and, in some cases, even the architectural style of the building. In general, the controls are intended to create a more pedestrian-oriented layout and scale and to focus on "place making" rather than a uniform set of rights for each lot.

Donald L. Elliott, A Better Way to Zone, p. 30-1

Cool, thank you, Donald. While I get the advantages of zoning based on the feeling of a neighborhood and a desire to promote placemaking and all that might entail (but isn't what makes a place different for different people--physical determinism again, right Fernando?), the predetermination of the aesthetics of a neighborhood has struck me and continues to strike me as pretty authoritarian. But does it have to be that way? How does this square with the "funkiness" Calthorpe mentioned occurs when urbanism is "done right"? And Karen, you asked a question that got dodged, which got at how form-based codes could incorporate change, and I think that's a really good question. Because isn't it always the case that city areas change, that areas are used in ways that can't be thought up by designers and officials, and aren't the layers of meaning that accrue as different (sometimes weird) buildings are built and used for different purposes over time, aren't those layers an integral part of a dynamic urbanism? Please help me become less confused, my colleagues.