Communities with strict building codes

[golden eagle]

Around here, it's Madison, MS. It's a rather tony suburb north of Jackson and this place looks so vanilla, you sometimes wonder if you're stepping into a scene of The Stepford Wives. First, just about everything has to be built in brick. The Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Lowe's stores there do not look like the stores you usually see. Businesses like Wal-Mart and McDonald's, as well as gas stations, cannot have their signs on poles. Instead, they have to be on ground level. Also, a recently-built CVS looks like a Greek agora. I expect to see Socrates and Plato walk in there with their togas on.

In addition, apartments are not allowed in Madison. If you really want the mayor to go into a tizzy, just mention apartments and she'll start spinning like the Tasmanian Devil. The city had also passed an ordinance that would make it illegal to violate a subdivision's covenant (if there is one), but it was deemed unconstitutional.

The mayor wanted to mirror the city after the Memphis suburb of Germantown, but I've been to Germantown and it seems more original to me than Madison does. Of course, a copy-cat won't look original. 

[realjd]

That sounds a lot like Disney's artificially quaint planned community of Celebration, FL.
http://g.co/maps/th9y9

I remember Hilton Head, SC having some weird restrictions on commercial signage, landscaping, and such when I was there last.

My city, Palm Bay, has strict design requirements for commercial buildings. They all have to fit with their "Florida Vernacular" architecture style. It has resulted in some interesting things like a pink Walmart.
http://www.palmbayflorida.org/development/documents/florida_vernacular_style_guide.pdf

[1995hoo]

The District of Columbia has fairly strict limits on the height of buildings pursuant to a statute.

[bugo]

Class warfare at its finest.

[golden eagle]

The District of Columbia has fairly strict limits on the height of buildings pursuant to a statute.

I remember reading something about that before. I had always wondered why there's no "downtown" Washington with skyscrapers and such.

[bassoon1986]

A couple of the DFW suburbs have uppity building codes.I know that Coppell, Addison and Frisco all have the "bricked-in" rule. Never seen a Dairy Queen or an Arby's look that nice    

[NE2]

It's the Libertarian Dream (for the one who owns all the land)

[1995hoo]

The District of Columbia has fairly strict limits on the height of buildings pursuant to a statute.

I remember reading something about that before. I had always wondered why there's no "downtown" Washington with skyscrapers and such.

The statute is a federal statute (remember that DC is a territory that is constitutionally subject to Congress except insofar as Congress delegates authority to a local government) and it provides something along the lines of how no building can be more than the width of the street on which it fronts plus 20 feet, although there are certain exceptions allowed for decorative features if approved by the mayor (who delegated that authority to a city agency). The general practical effect is that most buildings don't have more than 12 storeys. The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception was granted a waiver; One Franklin Square (1301 K Street NW) also got an exception (I used to work in that building and we called it the "Madonna Building" due to the twin peaks with gold tips on them, a la the "Open Your Heart" music video). The Old Post Office was built prior to the statute's enactment and so was grandfathered in. There have been various proposals to amend the law to allow for taller buildings away from downtown DC, such as up Wisconsin Avenue NW, but it's not likely there will ever be skyscrapers downtown because it would require Congress and the president to pass an amendment to the current law. Quite frankly I kind of like it the way it is as to downtown and I think many other local residents do as well–the Capitol, Washington Monument, and Lincoln Memorial all really stand out, whereas if there were skyscrapers they could easily be swallowed up (like the State Capitol in Richmond or St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York). I wouldn't object to taller buildings in appropriate locations away from downtown (likely clustered around Metrorail stops), though.

I've lived in the DC area since I was 1 year old and because we don't have tall buildings here I didn't realize that most buildings have no 13th floor until the year 2000, when I started dating someone (now my wife) who lived on the 18th floor of a condo building in Virginia and I discovered that the elevator went directly from 12 to 14.

[kphoger]

I heard once that, in Oak Park (IL), there is a no-build policy.  No new buildings are constructed, just rehabbing existing structures.  I never bothered to verify if that was true or not.  I've also heard that, in Paris (France), no buildings may be constructed to be taller than the Eiffel Tower; perhaps this is why Paris doesn't really have a skyline.

[Duke87]

I believe there are parts of Ireland where you cannot build a house unless you can prove that you have ancestors who lived on the land you intend to build it on, and you cannot build it in a new location, you must build it on the foundation of an old structure.

This is done to prevent the countryside from developing into suburbs. Because, you know, people want to see green meadows on the Emerald Isle, not subdivisions.

[huskeroadgeek]

I heard once that, in Oak Park (IL), there is a no-build policy.  No new buildings are constructed, just rehabbing existing structures.  I never bothered to verify if that was true or not.  I've also heard that, in Paris (France), no buildings may be constructed to be taller than the Eiffel Tower; perhaps this is why Paris doesn't really have a skyline.

I know there are other cities that currently have or have in the past had height restrictions on buildings. My hometown of Lincoln, NE has this-no building can be built taller than the State Capitol(419 feet) and furthermore no building can be built that blocks the view of the Capitol from the main entrances to the city. San Francisco enacted a height limit after the Transamerica Pyramid was built in 1972, but it has since been relaxed. Same with Seattle-they had a height limit of 540 feet that was enacted in 1989(several taller buildings were built prior to the limit) although the limit was repealed several years ago. Although it wasn't actually a law, Philadelphia had a gentleman's agreement that lasted until the late 1980s that no building would be built taller than City Hall.

[agentsteel53]

This is done to prevent the countryside from developing into suburbs. Because, you know, people want to see green meadows on the Emerald Isle, not subdivisions.

I wish the US had a similar instinctive ethos.  I wouldn't want it codified into law, but it would be nice if people got the same sense of revulsion whenever they built more houses (especially subdivision upon subdivision of identical houses) as if they were asked to consume their own fecal matter.

[SSOWorld]

I heard once that, in Oak Park (IL), there is a no-build policy.  No new buildings are constructed, just rehabbing existing structures.  I never bothered to verify if that was true or not.  I've also heard that, in Paris (France), no buildings may be constructed to be taller than the Eiffel Tower; perhaps this is why Paris doesn't really have a skyline.

They have a height by street width rule like DC does - nothing to do with the Eiffel Tower.

Madison, WI has a building height law that says that no building may be taller than 1032.8 feet above sea level (to the layman - the base of the pillars surrounding the dome of the State Capitol) to preserve the view of the Capitol dome from afar as the center of attention.

Rhinelander, WI does not allow flashing or motion light signs and as a result, variable message signs businesses install on their storefronts are forced to have about a 30 second delay between message changes.  The lone exception to this rule is a movie cinema downtown.

[english si]

worth pointing out that Paris' building code only refers to the city itself (which is pretty narrowly defined) - La Defense has lots of tall buildings. And, of course, Paris the city itself does have a skyline: just one that is lots of low buildings peppered with church spires, towers and hills, rather than skyscrapers.

[intelati49]

That sounds a lot like Disney's artificially quaint planned community of Celebration, FL.
http://g.co/maps/th9y9

I swear I had a dream there once.   Creepy

[webfil]

Montréal does not allow a building to be higher than the very peak of mount Royal (alt. 232,50 metres/762.8 feet above sea level) or, when applicable, taller than 200 metres/656.2 feet above ground, which might look quite lower than Madison, WI standards, but downtown MTL sits around 20-100 metres/75-300 feet above sea.

The highest skyscraper, Le 1000 de la Gauchetière points at 227 metres above sea level.

[empirestate]

Hugely common in the Northeast...just for one example, Carlisle, PA has a historic district in the center of town that regulates the architectural appearance of buildings, down to the lettering of signs and the number of panes in windows. I am sure that Gettysburg does also, and of course all of the surrounding land is protected by National Park Service preservation. Basically, no building anything that doesn't look like 1863. It works; the landscape at Gettysburg is strangely different than elsewhere in PA, largely because the land is clear-cut, as almost all of the Northeast was in that century. Most of that has been allowed to regrow in other areas, as small-scale subsistence farming declined.

[Duke87]

Montréal does not allow a building to be higher than the very peak of mount Royal

If you've ever been up to the top of Mont Royal, you will appreciate why they have this rule. It's a beautiful view and nobody wants it spoiled by blocking it with buildings.

[Landshark]

Commercial structures in Leavenworth, Washington must be "old world Bavarian" styled.  


(Leavenworth Chamber, Experiencewa.com)

[webfil]

Montréal does not allow a building to be higher than the very peak of mount Royal

If you've ever been up to the top of Mont Royal, you will appreciate why they have this rule. It's a beautiful view and nobody wants it spoiled by blocking it with buildings.

I do live at a walkable distance from there
Keep in mind that section 5.1.1 from Plan d'Urbanisme de la ville de Montréal is always subject to change and to exemptions, like every urban planning regulations. Many projects in the 50's and 60's were meant to be taller than the mountain, but have not seen the light of day due to lack of funding.

For example, the residential/commercial complex to be located in front of Centre Bell (Montréal Canadiens arena) proposed by Cadillac Fairview is to be 61 stories high, 230 metres over the ground and to hold 1600 apartments.

It does not respect the code for this particular zone (44 stories) and, as stated, the general max 200 metres in height/232.5m above sea level. It also does not follow the city strategy to include 15% of social housing + 15% of affordable units in every 200+ units projects.