FairFAR.org

Post edited 2:19 pm – June 11, 2009 by admin

There are at least two major problems that I see with FAR, which is one of three primary regulatory methods the city is currently considering as part of its regulatory mix.

One, it is an inaccurate measure of “house bulk”–one of the proponents of the FAR ordinances chief complaints”–because it is a two-dimensional and not a three-dimensional measure.  In fact, Matt Applebaum's latest proposal of virtual floors is an attempt to address that very failing.  But why start with a measure that needs repair?  Why not just use a measure that is volume-based to begin with?

Two, the FAR links house size to lot size.  However, lot sizes in the city vary widely for reasons of topography, history and accident.  For example, on 3rd street there are lots on one side of the street that are 70,000 sf (I kid you not) and ones on the other side of the street that are 6000 sf.  On Stanford Ave in Table Mesa a similar situation exists–some lots are over 25,000 sf, others quite small.  And on University Hill, in Whittier, on Mapleton Hill, Downtown, and elsewhere there are numerous small lots whose existence predates the standard lot size regulations. To me the idea that a home size to lot size ratio based measure will promote neighborhood character is an idea that could only be promulgated by people unaware of the real variety of lot size distribution in the city.