Number of floors should at least equal number of travel lanes
There are many formulas to determine the ideal relationship between street width and adjacent building height. They often involve drawing cross sections with precise measurements. I’ve got a simpler idea – a rule of thumb, if you will. Build up to the property line and the number of floors of adjacent buildings should be at least as many as travel lanes on the road.
Two lanes = two stories. Three lanes (2 + center turn) = three stories, and so on. If too wide streets like Jefferson were fronted by six story buildings they wouldn’t seem too wide. It doesn’t have the precision of some of the formulas but it is simple – important for a rule of thumb.
It works for two-lane Locust (above). Most of the buildings are two stories high. Not far away we see taller structures along a stretch of Pine.
The curb-to-curb distance is roughly the same but the feel is totally different. Clearly more than two floors doesn’t help Pine be a better urban street. Of course many other qualities make this block of Pine the horrible street that it is – lack of building entrances, windows, through traffic, interesting architecture, etc…
The opposite of low suburban sprawl is the mega skyscraper. Today the new world’s tallest building, Burj Dubai, opens in the United Arab Emirates:
The building boasts the most stories and highest occupied floor of any building in the world, and ranks as the world’s tallest structure, beating out a television mast in North Dakota. Its observation deck – on floor 124 – also sets a record. The finished product contains more than 160 floors. That is over 50 stories more than Chicago’s Willis Tower, the tallest record-holder in the U.S. formerly known as the Sears Tower. (USA Today: Dubai to open world’s tallest building)
I’m not impressed. I care more about the sidewalk perspective than a skyline seen from afar. I personally prefer areas of 4-6 story buildings over those that are 40-60 stories, or more.
I see our major streets lined with active buildings of a height corresponding to at least the number of lanes. Block by block, street by street, we can re-urbanize the core. Don’t want to require 6-7 story buildings then reduce the number of lanes of traffic. We must get the lanes/buildings in balance.
– Steve Patterson
Lots of city streets come nowhere near to meeting this guideline. Hampton, Grand, Jefferson, Kingsighway, Natural Bridge, and Page all come to mind as averaging more traffic lanes than building floors. What do you think of restriping them, adding angled parking, and new concrete barriers to reduce the number of travel lanes? Who will lead this effort? This is a good idea to get some of the city's planning and development focus away from downtown and out into the neighborhoods.
Major streets or all (including residential) streets? Travel lanes in one direction or both directions? How do parks and cemeteries fit the equation? Major civic structures, like churches and libraries? My initial response is “one size does not fit all” and that this would negatively impact trees and green space in the city (unless your goal is to create a city of private, walled courtyards). But, for certain commercial arterials, it is an interesting concept/goal.
An interesting idea, and I think it does have merit. “Taking back” the street from automobiles on too-wide streets will also help immensely. If we could lower the speed limits and give priority to public transportation and bikes (via dedicated lanes) on these streets they would instantly become safer and more attractive to pedestrians. I've read recently, and I completely believe, that the more traffic a street receives the less likely pedestrians will hang out on it. So by removing cars and replacing them with more sustainable (and quieter and more attractive) modes of transportation the perceived safety and attractiveness of a street will increase.
I tend to avoid the phrase “removing cars” because people go too far and we end up with dead pedestrian malls. I see a balance between autos, bikes, pedestrians, transit, etc. No one mode should dominate to the point others are pushed out.
That's a great idea, and the best part is that it's simple. Might be a good rule of thumb for corridors deemed commercial or mixed-use. There are residential and industrial areas where this would not be a good fit.
Of course then comes the problem – it will be much more difficult to find developers to build such large structures on existing wide streets. Also, reducing the number of lanes costs money as would widening the sidewalks to make them more pedestrian friendly.
It doesn't cost much to use concrete barricades, angled parking, and restriping. New curbs and wider sidewalks creates all kinds of added costs: new drainage, new sewer inlets and connections, etc. Why not get the same net effect for a fraction of the cost? Use Schoemehl pots, restriping, and angled parking and call it done. Paint the concrete pots in decorative designs. Plant flower in them. Etc.
sort of like this? http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_14122445
One major nuance – this makes a whole lot more sense if there's on-street parking available. Building speculative retail structures with store windows facing streets without on-street parking is usually an exercise in futility. Two recent examples are the small retail structure on Chippewa at Lindenwood (Qdoba, Clarkson Eyecare and AT&T) and the new shopping center on the southwest corner of Manchester and Rock Hill (Bandanna's, Steinmart, Baskin-Robins, etc.). Both went to great lengths to build up to the sidewalk and to provide “traditional” glazing facing four-lane arterial streets (be more “urban”), yet both ended up with a majority of those windows covered over or converted to mini-billboards.
Part of it is that the “fronts” end up being functionally the backs of the stores and part of it is (apparently) there are no enforceable rules mandating that these windows be left as viable vision panels. Add in the reality that walking along a sidewalk with no real buffer from 30-40 mph vehicular traffic is in no way pedestrian friendly, and parking is being provided (and the vast majority of the customers are using it) on the side of the structure that's away from the main street, and it's no surprise that reality isn't meeting expectations.
So, ultimately, the best solution/definition would likely be limited to collector or arterial streets in urban areas, combining your concept that building height should/must match the number of lanes (both drive and parking), with a requirement that on-street parking (parallel or angled) be maintained adjacent to the structure(s). This would allow more-suburban environments to opt-out naturally and would help minimize the NIMBY concerns that will be inevitable in most existing residential areas.
Its good to see that civil Engineering has reached to its peak.