The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTACO BELL RESTAURANT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PUD - 51-90A - CORRESPONDENCE - HISTORIC PRESERVATIONDecember 11, 1991 MEMO TO: Bernhard Strom Chairman, Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Rheba Massey Chairman, Lan marks Preservation Commission The Landmarks Preservation Commission applauds the decision of Taco Caliente to rehabilitate their residential property on South College for their Taco Bell Restaurant. This will be an excellent example of an adaptive reuse of,historic residential architecture, and hopefully lead the way in protecting the other residences in that block from deterioration/demolition. I have enclosed a recent article on this subject and th'e Commission is pleased that Taco Caliente and Fort Collins city staff have developed a similar creative solution to this nationwide problem. s I f) It PRESERIATION forum THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PRESERVATIONISTS: A NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENT AND PRESERVATION: A NATURAL PARTNERSHIP A NEW DIRECTION FOR CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS, HISTORIC LANDSCAPES, AND RURAL PRESERVATION BEYOND BUILDINGS: PRESERVING CULTURAL LANDSCAPES FAST-FOOD CHAINS: A REVIEW OF THEIR EVOLUTION AND VISUAL IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES January I February 1991 The Journa 'of the National Tr•nst for Historic Preservation �a FAST FOOD CHAINS: A REVIEW OF THEIR EVOLUTION AND VISUAL IMPACT ON COMMUNITIES R. KENT MILLARD ast-food chains have had a great visual impact on nearly every community in the United States. They differ in appearance from local restaurants because of two major factors: First, fast-food chains are designed to get people in and out quick- ly in order to accommodate high customer volume. The drive -through windows, garish interiors, and lightning - quick service provide a sharp contrast to the less hectic at- mosphere of local restaurants. Second, fast-food chains are successful to a great extent because they sell a nationally recognized name brand. The uniform architecture and sig- nage of the chains serve the dual purpose of identifying and advertising their product. In fact, their look has become so pervasive and symbolic of speed, modernity, and uniform quality, that even local businesses have adopted the chain store "look." The economic benefits that these businesses bring to the community are not without repercussions. A serious side ef- fect of this ever-growing phenomenon is communities' loss of individuality and uniqueness. As Stan Luxenberg ob- serves in Roadside Empires, `By the 1980s people in Abi- lene, Texas, and Roanoke, Virginia, in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Columbus, Ohio, all patronized identical - looking businesses. Frequent travelers would wake up in a chain motel uncertain where they were. Shaking sleep out of their eyes, they could peer across the parking lot at the rows of outlets and still have no clue to the city's or region's identity" (6). According to a study conducted by the ac- counting firm of Laventhol & Horwath and by the International Franchise Association, fast- food franchises will be among the five fastest - growing franchises in the 1990s (Whittemore 69). One of the concerns of the preservation com- munity will be how to mitigate the potential vi- sual and physical damage to significant buildings caused by this growth. Prince Charles recently commented on this issue in an address to the American Institute of Architects: "Much of the commercial building of today bears as much rela- tion to architecture as advertising slogans bear to literature ... [The] buildings seldom bear any meaningful relationship to the areas in which they are placed" (5). [Refer to Figs. 1-3.1 While the mansard roof of a typical McDon- ald's restaurant or the elab- orate "Victorian" signage of a Wendy's franchise are considered inviolate corpo- rate trademarks, some communities have been able to successfully adapt franchise design with min- imal adverse effects to in- dividual structures and the surrounding area. As the ubiquitous chains find their way into older commercial and residential areas it is incumbent upon the preservation community to familiarize itself with this industry, develop appropri- ate zoning mechanisms to FIGURE 1: MCDONALO'S Control its grow, and col- RESTAURANT, EL PASO, TEXAS lect good examples of com- patible fast-food restaurants in new and existing structures. This paper will discuss the impact of the franchising phenomenon, especially that of fast-food chains. Specific attention will be paid to the evolution and importance of architecture to the industry. McDonald's will be highlighted as rep- resentative of the fast-food field. Finally, selected zoning ordinances will be examined and exam- ples of architecturally successful and not -so -suc- cessful fast-food franchises in Texas and New Mexico will he reviewed. mid -nineteenth century; General Motors estab- lished one of the first successful franchise opera- tions in 1898. The system was quite simple: GM, acting as a franchisor, granted dealers die right to sell their automobiles as franchisees. This ar- rangement allowed the company to expand into numerous retail outlets, despite a lack of capital needed to finance such rapid growth on its own. This type of franchise system is still universally used by the automobile industry, as well as by service station dealers and major oil companies, and by soft-drink bottlers and manufacturers. Business -format franchising began in the early 1900s and is used extensively in the fast-food in- dustry. In this type of franchising, an entrepreneur (i.e., the franchisor) who has developed a success- ful formula for making a product and selling it, of- fers his expertise to a potential franchisee for a fee and a continuing percentage of sales. The fran- chisor provides the techni- cal information and training necessary to build and op- erate a replica of the parent company's outlet. This en- ables the franchii or to open identical units across the country without incurring any direct financial risk. The relationship between franchisor and franchisee in business -format fran- chising is ongoing, consist- ing of not just a product and trademark, but s complete business concept with mar- keting plan, operating man- uals, and quality control as well (U.S. Dept. of Com- merce "Franchising" 3). One of the earliest busi- ness -format franchises was started in 1902 by forty druggists who formed a cooperative. Each owner renamed his drugstore Rexall and began to share manufacturing costs. Soon they were selling the right to use the Rexall name, distinc- tive signage, and products to independent fran- chisees. In the 1920s Howard Johnson also turned to franchising as a means for grow when the Depression altered his plans for expansion of his popular soda fountaintrestauranthnotel con- cept. By 1940 there were 100 Howard Johnson's to attract travelers. Following the suc- cess of these pioneers, many new franchise companies emerged after World War 11. Most of today's huge chains --Holiday hnn, AAMCO Transmis- sions, Roto-Rooter, Dunkin' Donuts. Mc - Donald's, and Ken- tucky Fried Chicken for example —were created in the 1950s and early 1960s. These businesses benefrtted tremendously from franchising. As Luxenberg notes in Roadside Em- pires,'"The growth of the companies was speed- ed enormously by franchising. Towns where no chains had existed could suddenly be blanketed with outlets in a couple of years" (29). Much of this growth can be attributed to the ap- peal that the franchising system has for new busi- ness owners. While there is a ninety-two percent failure rate for all new businesses in the first five years, the failure rate for a new franchise outlet is a comparatively low twenty-three percent (Kelley 48). The chances for success are greatly enhanced because the chain owner is selling a packaged con- cept with a catchy, perhaps well-known name, dis- tinctive operating method, attention -grabbing sig- nage, and uniform arcl itecture. By offering the consumer a low-cost product of uniform quality through a systematic opera- tion, chains have continued to appeal to an ex- panding market. There are now more than half a million franchise outlets in the United States, with a new store opening at the incredible rate of one every seventeen minutes (Kelley 42). Fran- chises account for more than one third of all U.S. retail sales, and are expected to increase to fifty percent of retail sales in the 1990s (Baker 61). Total franchise sales reach nearly $600 billion annually (Kotite 65). Fast-food chains constitute a large and highly visible segment of the franchising market. It is no coincidence that eight of the franchises ranked the top ten in the country for 1989 by Entrepreneur magazine were fast-food restaurants (97). The U.S. Census Bureau's latest Economic Census FIGURE 2: MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT EL PASO, TEXAS segment of the food -service indus- try (qtd. in APA "Billions" 1). Cur- rently, there are more than 90,000 restaurant franchise outlets in the U.S., representing more than $63 billion in annual sales (U.S. Dept. of Commerce "Franchising" 28). TheearliestAmer- ican restaurant chain originated in Kansas in 1876. An English immigrant named Frederick Henry Harvey opened his first restaurant in the rail- road depot in Topeka to meet the travelers' need for good food and dependable meal service. To speed up service, he implemented a system whereby meals could be ordered from the rain and be ready when travelers arrived at the depot. When Harvey died in 1901 there were forty-five Harvey restau- rants in twelve states along the railroad lines (Lang - don 5-7). initially there were few restaurants serving quick, inexpensive food. Some of the earliest ex- amples included saloons, which provided free food to patrons, and horse-drawn lunch wagons dispensing sandwiches, beverages, and pie. in the late 1800s, diners and soda fountains began to ap- pear. These innovations were followed by the utilitarian yet economical lunchrooms. Many of them developed into chains; there were more than 100 Thompson's lunchrooms in a number of cities, eighty-six Childs Unique Dairy Lunch restaurants, and seventy-five Waldorf Lunch restaurants by 1920. Concentrated in urban areas, most of these made little architectural impression on their surroundings because they utilized por- tions of existing buildings and unobtrusive sig- nage (Langdon 9-10). The only exception was the Childs chain, which used white tile on its facades whenever possible to foster the impression of cleanliness and modernity (Langdon 20). On the other hand, Howard Johnson's restau- rant chain, which also began in the 1920s, boasted a completely distinctive look. Because his chain consisted of roadside eating places, Johnson de- veloped an eye-catching look for the buildings in . I n ". , , "in pristine white clapboards, each Howard Johnson's restaurant loomed at highway's edge like a very tiny colonial mansion, its spreading hipped roof of jarring brilliant orange topped by a prim white cupola. Here and there were turquoise accents —an illuminated ladder sign in the shape of a broken pediment stood out front, with Simple Simon and the Pieman ... logo of the chain since the early 1930s, on display above. The entire ensemble functioned as a beacon of traditional values, yet at the same time managed enough flash to catch the attention of the passing motorist" (202). In the early years Howard Johnson's restaurants varied somewhat in appearance from each other, in addition to a staff of house architects continual- ly tinkering with the prototype, franchisees were free to add individual details as long as they held to the basic concept of white clapboard walls and orange tile roof with cupola (Liebs 203). At the same time that roadside family restau- rants like Howard Johnson's grew in popularity, roadside food stands, the precursors of today's multibillion -dollar fast-food industry, began to ap- pear. At first these were individually owned stands of widely varying food quality and architectural design. Building shapes often echoed their func- tion, such as an ice cream stand in the shape of a giant milk bottle or ice cream freezer. Another common marketing technique was to cover virtu- ally every surface of an unprepossessing food stand with giant signs advertising menu items. These food stands seemed to crop up everywhere along the highways, resulting in public outcry over their lack of aesthetic value. In 1928, a competi- tion sponsored in part by Mrs. John D. Rockefeller was billed as, "A far-reaching effort to clean up the miscel- laneoushodgepodge of unsightly hot dog stands and the ac- companying riffraff of roadside mar- kets" (Liebs 206). Urban food -stand o chains also evolved that would greatly influence their road- side counterparts; in 1921 Edgar W. In - FIGURE 9: ARST'S RESTAURANT Anderson began what would become the White Castle hamburger chain. They focused on offering decent. inexpensive food in a memorable setting. This setting took the form of small, freestanding "castles" of rock -faced concrete blocks with crenelated parapets and comer towers. Because of the negative perception of hamburger stands as unsanitary greasy spoons, white, symbolic of pu- rity and cleanliness, was chosen for the name and building color. The white "castle" was easy to identify and served as an advertising tool. The chain was immediately successful; in fact, "the founders of the White Castle System developed a retail format that revolutionized the short-order trade. Within a few years, dozens of similar ham- burger chains ... opened for the growing market of the quick -lunch trade" (Liebs 208). The next critical innovation was the drive-in restaurant. Teenagers especially enjoyed the nov- elty of eating in their cars in the restaurant's park- ing lot, with service provided by waitresses known as car hops. The Pig Stand Company of Dallas is considered the first drive-in restaurant, opening in September 1921 on the Dallas/Fort Worth high- way (Liebs 208). It was not until the two McDon- ald brothers —Maurice and Richard —started a drive-in restaurant near Pasadena, California, in 1937, though, and began experimenting with food service, that the fast-food industry truly was un- derway. They limited the menu, broke food preparation down into simple, repetitive steps, eliminated the car hops, and made customers walk up to a take-out window to order. This self- service concept was revolutionary. After initial resistance, the McDonalds' new method of providing inexpensive, uniform-quati- ty in an un- precedented short time became ex- tremely successful. They opened more 1 outlets and gave away their trade secrets to a host of imitators. By the time the McDonald brothers began to seriously focus on franchising, teaming up with Ray Kroc in 1954, "entrepre- the United States (had] launched competing chains with similar formulas" (Langdon 90). Most of these chains were admittedly based on the Mc - Donald's example. As the number of chains grew, competition in- tensified. Restaurants were being built along high- ways, forcing franchisors to move toward "high- ly visible 'image buildings' almost of necessity. Bold structural or pseudostructural elements showed up even in restaurants that had first gotten along without them" (Langdon 93). In 1957 Burg- er King added huge, gaudy "handlebar" forms in bright red painted metal to the rooftops of its buildings. Dari-Delite, a division of the Good Humor Company of California, adopted shocking pink roofs in 1964. A few years before, in 1961, the Whataburger chain, headquartered in Corpus Christi, Texas, in- corporated the tall orange - and -white -striped A-ftame shape into their architectural prototype that is still used today (Langdon 94-96). Whether conscious or not, these color choices re- flected contemporary stud- ies of the effects of color on human behavior. K. Gold- stein's research in 1942 showed that the color green operates in a calming fash- ion, while red excites and seems to advance toward the viewer rather than re- cede. L. B. Wexner in 1954 found her subjects per- ceived red as exciting and stimulating; blue and green as tender and soothing; and orange as upsetting and dis- turbing(Brebner 174-177). It is interesting to note that with the chains' emphasis on fast service and their need for quick customer turnover, the "soothing" FIGURE a: PIZZA FIGURE S: PIZZA HUT RESTAURANT SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS conspicuously absent from their architecture and signage; chains opted instead for the "jarring" and "exciting" effects of the red and orange tones. The brash spirit of the fast-food structures re- flected the public's mood; turning their backs on bleak memories of the Depression and war years, Americans looked forward to an exciting future of limitless possibilities. This optimism began to fade, however, with the beginning of the 1960s. As the public awoke to the threat of nuclear war and environmental pollution, the flamboyant look of the fast-food chains came to symbolize the na- tion's recent history of thoughtless extravagances (Liebs 64-65). In an address to Ameri- can architects in 1961. Rus- sell Kirk, a well-known political philosopher, com- mented that "we have done more damage to our coun- try's artificial and natural beauty since the Second World War than we were able to accomplish in the one hundred years preced- ing" (qtd. in Langdon 97). For decades Americans had been told that anything new was superior, but now the negative effects of progress began to manifest them- selves. Large sections of American cities had been tom down to build super- highways and high-rise buildings; urban renewal programs replaced historic structures with new pro- jects, their very 'newness' serving as their only justifi- cation. Early in her hus- band's presidency, Lady Bird Johnson began apublic campaign to beautify Amer- ica, especially the America visible from highways. The most flagrant offenders were billboards and junk - NUT RESTAURANT yards, but the envimnmen- Johnson embraced quickly developed into a critical way of looking at the totality of American sur- roundings. Drive-ins became a major tar- get, and by the latter half of the 1960s the uproar against them resounded through- out the land. The complaints were di- rected at the drive- ins' visual disor- der —bright colors, treeless expanses of asphalt, litter left behind by cus- tomers (Langdon 73-74). Public objection to the more than 35,000 drive- in restaurants in the country (Liebs 210) was so strong that even industry spokesmen admitted that there was a problem and urged restaurant owners to take corrective measures. An editor for Drive -In Restaurant magazine acknowledged that only a half a dozen of the more than 1,000 drive-ins he had visited in the past few years had litter -free, nicely landscaped grounds. The mag- azine began to emphasize the drive-ins' need to seek respectability, in part by planting trees, shrubs, and flowers (Langdon 75-76). While this new environmental consciousness, as propound- ed by Mrs. Johnson, resulted in legislation for his- toric preservation and cleaning up air and water pollution, the public found a more immediately accessible issue to target: visual pollution along the highways (Liebs 65). This backlash of public sentiment encouraged fast-food chains to tone down their buildings and signage to a less obtrusive visual style. Liebs de- scribes this new style as the "Environmental Look" by which muted earth tones replaced the predominant bright colors and landscaping be- came the norm for fast-food franchise design (65). Kentucky Fried Chicken, the largest fast-food chain in 1969 with 1,800 restaurants (Luxenberg 21), adapted its distinctive red -and -white -striped look to changing public tastes. The bold red -and - white stripes that originally adomed the roof were now relegated to a diminutive hip roof incorpo- rated into the sign. Most of the other chains also subordinated their signature motifs and colors in - FIGURE 6: MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS No discussion of the fast-food fran- chising industry would be complete without a close look at McDonald's. The pervasiveness of the giant chain has made it an integral part of American life; an astounding ninety-six percent of American con- sumers have eaten at a McDonald's restaurant within the past year. Generations of children grow up avid McDonald's fans. The convenience of satisfying a 'Big Mac Attack' guarantees their continued loyalty; more than half of the United States popu- lation lives within a three -minute drive of a Mc - Donald's unit. McDonald's' 19.5 percent share of the $45-billion fast-food market is more than the next three largest chains combined (Love 3). Appropriately enough, it was Richard and Maurice "Mac" McDonald's widely imitated, rev- olutionary food service concepts that touched off the entire fast-food business in the 1940s. Mc - Donald's has since then continued to be an indus- try trendsetter. From the beginning other en- trepreneurs have looked to McDonald's for ideas to adopt for their own operations: these have ranged from food -preparation methods to quality controls, from menu items to architectural style. In 1952, when the McDonald brothers were designing a new prototype for their franchises, they discarded the octagonal shape of their first outlet as well as a round building idea because both were already commonplace shapes for drive-ins in Califomia. They finally settled on a rectangular building distinguished by a roof tilt- ed upward in front and two large nonstructural parabolic arches projecting the length of the building. The exterior of the new building fea- tured horizontally striped cherry red -and -white tile and yellow arches for contrast. At that time the parabolic curve had been used by such architects as Eero Saarinen, Oscar Niemeyer, and Le Corbusier as emblematic of the modem spirit. The McDonald's arches conveyed a feeling of skyward momentum, symbolic of an t into the heavens. The enthusiasm for bold forms and modem ways that McDonald's exploited was by no means confined to the narrow ranks of the ar- chitectural profession. It had become part of the national outlook, an expression of the potential of the twentieth century (Iangdon 85). The look was quickly adopted by such other chains as Dari-Delite and Burger King, which added their own colorful nonstructural elements to rectangular buildings with tilted or overhanging roofs. in 1961 Ray Kroc bought out the McDonald brothers' remairting interest in the restaurant chain. Even after he had sole control, Kroc kept the mod- em red -and -white -tiled prototype until forced to bow to public pressure in the mid-1960s. In his au- tobiography he related a Mc - Donald's executive's com- plaint: "How can we go into these towns and propose to put up these slant -roof build- ings, which are absolute eye- sores?" (Kroc 143). Eventu- ally, due to the country's changing mood McDon- ald's, like the other chains, found it necessary to con- form to a toned -down, envi- ronmentally sensitive look. Recognizing the important role that architecture and sig- nage had played in McDon- ald's success, Kroc was ap- prehensive about the consequences of imple- menting the new design. In commenting on this deci- sion, he said, "It was a drastic change in the image we'd established and in which we had a big in- vestment, and Fred [Turner] and I had to fight like hell to push it through the board of directors" (160. Although some of the other chains had already begun similar changes, McDonald's new look again became the model to follow. The revamped restaurants, with indoor dining areas and large win- dow expanses, epitomized the Environmental Look: the red and white We was replaced by beige and brown brick, the yellow arches that had been part of the building design were reborn as a dual - arched motif in the signage and the exaggerated, tilted roof became a double mansard roof. Mc - FIGURE is WENDY'S RESTAURANT SAN ANTONIO. TEXAS tempt to prevent copying by competitors, but this strategy failed because while "the exact configura- tion of McDonald's new roof may have been pro - meted from infringement ... its general character became virtually standard for fast-food architec- ture" (Langdon 140). Today the mansard roof can be seen on almost every type of commercial struc- ture. It would seem that the problem with business franchises, particularly fast-food restaurants, is their uninspired cookie -cutter approach to design issues and the detrimental effects of their compul- sion to standardize existing buildings. Such prac- tices are vital to the success of the fast-food indus- try because they keep construction costs down and ensure immediate identification of their product. However, while architec- tural standardization is of tremendous benefit to the franchise companies, the communities that support these businesses are re- warded with nondescript, commercial structures that have no contextual rela- tionship to their surround- ings. It would therefore ap- pear that the problem with fast-food restaurants is not one of architectural incom- patibility nor one of inap- propriate signage: the prob- lem with fast-food restaurants is the problem with local zoning regula- tions. In order to discuss the zoning mechanisms that can be used to control fast- food restaurants it is necessary to define the term "fast-food restaurant." While the definition varies, based on the ordinances reviewed for this study, there are several characteristics that distinguish fast-food restaurants from other eating establish- ments: —The food that is served is packaged in such a manner that it may be eaten on- or off -premises; —The food is prepared in a short amount of time; —lire food may be served from over a counter, from an outdoor service window, or from an auto- mobile service window. must be noted that fast-food restaurants create other prob- lems. Due to drive - through activity, the most salient problem is increased vehicu- lar traffic in the im- mediate area. The obvious effects of this proliferation are: 1) increased noise levels; 2) increased air pollution; and 3) increased parking vi- olations (particularly in urban areas). Littering becomes an additional problem exacerbated by the fast-food restaurants' reliance on plastic and paper packaging. These problems are common characteristics of the strip shopping centers of suburban sprawl where the first fast-food restaurants thrived. How- ever, these same problems are compounded, and therefore more evident, in the dense urban areas and rural downtowns that are being targeted by the fast-food industry (APA, "Billions" 1). As such, it becomes necessary to implement appro- priate zoning measures to ensure adequate regu- lation of these businesses. In the following sec- tion, some of the zoning regulations that communities can use to control fast-food restau- rants will be examined. Signage: Signage ordinances can be particu- larly useful tools for controlling the unsightly vi- sual blight caused by inappropriate signs. Fast- food chains use their colorful signs to lure would-be diners into their restaurants, of- ten to the detriment of streetscapes and existing buildings. In Learning From Las Vegas, architect Robert Venturi ob- served that, "The sign at the front is a vulgar extravaganza, the building at the back, a modest ne- cessity" (13). [Refer to Figs. 1-3.1 FIGURE Y: MCDo FIGURE 8: MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT TAOS, NEW MEXICO set standards for the illumination, type (i.e., freestanding, projecting, wall) and size of signs. The ordinance in Aspen, Colorado, is quite stringent. Indi- viduals applying for sign permits must submit detailed blueprints of the sign design showing proposed dimen- sions, materials, col- ors, and how It will be illuminated. Any graphic design must be rec- ommended for approval by the city planning di- rector and approved by the zoning con mission. The ordinance prohibits internal lighting and neon, limits lettering height to eighteen inches, and lim- its the size of the sign to "the area of the smallest geometric figure which encompasses the facing on a sign" (Aspen 5-8 1). Signs within the Strand/Mechanic Historic Dis- trict in Galveston, Texas, must also adhere to strict design guidelines. Signs must be "in keeping with and complement the historic character and period of the building on which they are placed and the Strand/Mechanic Historic District, with respect to materials, colors, lettering, lighting, placement, etc." (Galveston 163). The ordinance prohibits in- ternally lighted, flashing, and neon signs. Free- standing and roof signs are also prohibited. Signs on buildings that are individually desig- nated or within historic districts in San Antonio, Texas, must be ap- proved by the Board of Review for His- �''e ''ww" toric Districts and Landmarks. The or- dinance stipulates that signage "must be in proportion to the facade,respect- ing the size, scale, and mass of the fa- cade, building height, and rhythms and sizes of window NALD'S RESTAURANT and door openings" i that house one business are allowed one major sign per facade per structure and two minor signs. [Re- fer to Figs. 4 & 5.1 Buildings housing more than one business are limited to one major and two mi- nor signs per business. [Refer to Figs. 6 & 7.] Ad- ditionally, no sign may exceed fifty square feet. [Compare McDonald's sigrage in Fig. 6 to that in Fig. 2.1 Neon and internally -lighted signs are per- mitted. [Refer to Figs. 5 & 6, respectively.] Site Plan Review: Some communities require that site plan information for certain activities be reviewed and approved before a special -use per- mit is granted so that the project can proceed. In the Town of Canandaigua, New York, the site plan approval process allows for some input in the final project by the planning board and general public. During preliminary site plan approval the board considers such issues as vehicular and pedestrian traffic access and circula- tion, parking, and the "location, arrange- ment, size, design, and general site com- patibility of build- ings, lighting, and signs" (Town of Canandaigua 105- 102). After a public hearing is conduct- ed, the preliminary site plan is either ap- proved, disapproved, approved with modifications, or approved by de- fault after ninety days. Any modifications recom- mended by the board must be contained within the final detailed site plan before it is approved. A proposed update to the Somerville, Mas- sachusetts, zoning ordinance will be particularly effective if approved. In addition to submitting plans on the location, dimensions, and the pro- posed use of the land, fast-food restaurants may be asked to provide information on: the design features of any proposed structures; the location and significance of historic structures; demoli- tion and construction procedures including im- pact mitigation measures; and traffic volume generated by the proposed use and projected fu- ture conditions. Approval of a special permit to fast-food restaurants by the Special Permit the "need for such a facility in the neighborhood or in the city." Furthermore...... impacts on traf- fic circulation, parking, and visual, physical, or historical characteristics of the particular loca- tion shall not be detrimental" (Somerville 5-5). Parking and Drive-Throughs: One of the least aesthetically pleasing features of a fast-food restaurant is its parking lot. Often used as trash receptacles by thoughtless patrons, these barren expanses of asphalt disrupt the streetscape and act as eyesores. Typically, ordinances require a spe- cific number of parking spaces, based on the number of employees/customers, adequate light- ing, and screening. In Portland, Oregon, the ordi- nance provides for landscaping of parking lots in certain zones. Screening is required along the perimeter of the lot and can be done with hedges and trees or fencing. In Fredericks- burg, Texas, exten- sive landscaping is required of busi- 0 nesses that allow ve- hicles to "traverse the property as a function of the pri- mary use" (Freder- FIGUREIO: BASKIN-ROBBINS TAOS, NEW MEZICO icksburg 2). This would include ser- vice stations, gro- cery stores, banks, restaurants, and oth- er businesses pro- viding drive -through service. The ordinance requires that a five -foot - wide strip of land separate the parking lot from the street. The strip must have a two -foot -high hedge or wall along the perimeter and a tree plant- ed every fifty feet. Additionally, for every interi- or parking space, ten square feet of landscaping must be provided. Design Review: One of the most effective ways to control the impact of fast-food chains on exist- ing buildings is through design review. In San An- tonio, the Historic Districts and Landmarks Ordi- nance requires that any action affecting a historic landmark or property within a historic district must be referred to the board of review by the historic preservation officer. The permit application must be reviewed and then approved by the board with- in sixty days. The design guidelines used by the or's Standards. The tastefully restrained " designs of the fast- food restaurants in San Antonio are a testimony to the ef- fectiveness of their ordinance. [Refer to Figs. 4-7.] While design re- view is a common practice for historic districts, other areas where fast-food de- velopment can be equally destructive are often overlooked. The proposed amendment to the Somerville, Massachusetts, zoning ordi- nance would require that fast-food restaurants ap- plying for special permits in certain districts would be subjected to design review. Two inter- esting features of the design guidelines are that "roof types and slopes [must be] similar to those of existing buildings in the area" and parking lots that break the street wall and are situated between buildings along a primary street must "provide a strong design element to continue the street wall definition across the site, such as a low brick wall, ironworks or railing, trees, etc." (Somerville 5-6). Moratoria: The most effective and contro- versial way of curbing fast-food restaurant growth is by prohibiting construc- tion. In July 1985 the San Francisco City Council adopted a moratorium on I-. the construction of new fast-food restaurants in the North Beach neighbor- hood. At the time, San Francisco had almost 120 fast-food restaurants, most of which were concentrat- ed in a few neighborhoods. The situation had become so critical that the city planning director was at- tempting to secure a city- wide moratorium of up to nine months on construc- tion of new fast-food restaurants (APA "Cities FIGURE 12: FIGURE 11: KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN TAOS, NEW MEZICO With cities plac- ing restrictions on their development and the public mak- ing their opinions known, the fast- food franchise com- panies have started to respond by break- ing away from their prototypical designs and constructing compatible struc- tures. Across the country numerous examples of archi- tecturally compatible fast-food franchises exist: Freeport, Maine: In the spring of 1983 Freeport residents formed the Freeport Mac Attack to pre- vent McDonald's from razing the 1850 Gore House. Public criticism caused the fast-food giant to alter its original plans and opt instead for rehabilitating the structure. The McDonald's restaurant now housed in the white clapboard Greek Revival house is far removed from the typical McDonald's outlet Steven L.erdy, the manager of media relations at Mc - Donald's corporate headquarters in Oak Brook, Uh- nois, stated that the Freeport store, "indicate[s] that we're willing to listen, that we have some flexibil- ity, that we are tuning in to the community and its needs .... Every community we deal with has its own flavor. We want to be open and willing to team" V. (Goodman 46). i :r Washington, D.C.: Afor- mer bank in the Adams Morgan area was converted into a Burger King restau- rant. Although there are some problems with sig- nage, the neoclassical struc- ture has remained largely in- tact (Rosson 46-47). Taos, New Mexico: The fast-food restaurants in Taos are demonstrative of the franchises' attempts to design compatible new stores. [Refer to Figs. 8-I1.1 The McDonald's is a par- DOMINO'S PIZZA ticularly good example. stores. [Refer to Figs. 8-11.1 The McDonald's is a particularly good example. [Refer to Figs. 8 & 9.] This building success- fully incorporates such vernacular features as wood posts, which have now been re- moved, exposed "adobe" brick, tile roof, and "latia"- FIGURE 13: DOMINO'S inspired spandrels. In comparison, the Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) across the street is a halfhearted attempt at compatibility. [Refer to Fig. 11.] The "vigas" poking through the standing seam mansard roof and the "posts" that appear as half-timbering along the side of the building illustrate a poor un- derstanding of the region's architecture. KFC's failure becomes even more apparent when look- ing next at the Baskin -Robbins. [Refer to Fig. 10.] Located on the same road, this store features a simple, straightforward design that recognizes its limits. Houston, Texas: The Domino's Pizza located in the old S.H. Kress Building (built 1913) in downtown is another good example. Like the rusticated base that is not original to the build- ing, the store has been well adapted to its space despite the somewhat overpowering neon. [Refer to Figs. 12 & 13.1 Aesthetically, fast-food chains and their pre- cursors have been mired in controversy since their inception. It is ironic that at the same time that they have inadvertently provoked irate public re- sponse to their appearance, fast-food franchises have attempted to appeal to the public through their architecture. While the need for high visi- bility and instant recognition of the name brand have always been important factors, the chains historically have also tried to address contempo- rary public concerns through their external ap- pearance. For example, in the 1920s Howard Johnson's employed various design elements to convey an impression of tradition and re- spectability as well as an easily visible, signature look. The chain wanted to reassure travelers that PIZZA, HOUSTON. TEXAS fordable restaurant at a time when families had begun to travel more by car and rep- utable eating places along highways were still difficult to find. The White Castle chain relied on its memorable castle mo- tif for advertising and chose gleaming white facades suggesting antiseptic cleanliness to combat the popular perception of ham- burger stands as unsanitary greasy spoons. Later, drive-in restaurants featured eye-catching archi- tecture and color schemes that suited the ebul- lient, car -crazy 1950s but were toned down for the more sober, ecologically -conscious 1960s and 1970s. Today fast-food restaurants generally consist of standardized, nondescript structures; the focus is on large, immediately identifiable signage. The chain's brightly lit logo is often prominently dis- played in several places on the building itself and at the entrance to the parking area as well as perched on a pole high overhead. In addition to their traditional presence along highways and in strip malls, fast-food restaurants are now becom- ing increasingly prevalent in older, historically significant areas where their architectural incom- patablity with the surrounding buildings is high- ly apparent. Once again public discontent is be- ginning to exert an impact, encouraging fast-food chains to make their dining areas more comfort- able and aesthetically pleasing for customers who eat out more often and tend to linger longer than in the past. In some cases, pressure by communi- ty groups has led restaurants to better adapt their exterior appearance to the architectural style of a particular area. From the golden arches, red handlebars, and orange -striped A -frames to the subdued styling of the Environmental Look, fast-food franchises have always been concerned with the architec- tural image that they project to the public. Preser- vationists can capitalize on this aesthetic concern (which is motivated by the chains' desire to at- tract and please the customer) to effect change ...;.1„, 0. ..D,. inn o..r......,,.., a: of these businesses, we can assist communities in limiting the adverse effects that these widespread chains have on our historic and cultural re- sources. R. Kent Millard is the field representative in the National Trust's Texas/New Mexico Field office in Fort Worth, Texas. WORKS CONSULTED Abilene, Texas. City of Abilene. Zoning Ordi- nance. American Planning Association. "The Big Mac Attack." Zoning News (February 1984): 3. -. "Billions and Billions Zoned." Zoning News (February 1985): I. -. "Cities Serve Up Fast -Food Controls." Zoning News (October 1985): 2. Anton, Maria, Diana Valdez and Shelley Lind- sten. "Entrepreneur's 1 lth Annual Franchise 500." Entrepreneur 18.1 (Jan. 1990):97-199. Armstrong, Kiley. "A McChic Setting for Burg- ers: McDonald's Caters to Pinstripe Crowd." Dal- las Morning News 5 Nov. 1989: 10 H. Aspen, Colorado. City of Aspen. Aspen Land Use Regulations. Baker, Nancy Croft. "Franchising into the '90s." Nation's Business (March 1990): 61-68. Beem, Edgar Allen. "Why So Different?: Corpo- rate Strategy Can't Explain Modem Art that Makes a Customer Dizzy." Maine Times 25 Jan. 1985: 2-6. -..'McDonald's With a Difference: The Op- ponents Are Not Appeased." Maine Times 25 Jan. 1985: 7. "Big Mac Attack on Commercial Historic Dis- trict." Urban Conservation Report 13.1 (Feb. 1989): 5. Boulder, Colorado. City of Boulder. Zoning Or- dinance. Brebner, John. "Environmental Psychology in Building." London: Applied Science, 1982. Canandaigua, New York. City of Canandaigua. Municipal Code. Canandaigua, New York. Town of Canandaigua. Zoning Ordinance. Charles, His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales. Accent on Architecture Gala Dinner. Amer- ican Institute of Architecture. Washington, D.C., 22 Feb. 1990. Dallas, Texas. City of Dallas. Zoning Ordinance. Deasy. C.M. Design For Human Affairs. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1974. "Fallen Arches Mark End of Era." Preserving Pennsylvania 4.2 (1989): 1, 7. Fredericksburg, Texas. City of Fredericksburg. Zoning Ordinance. Fuller, Charles. "The Year of the Hero: Fred trepreneur 18.1 (Jan. 1990): 93-94. Galveston, Texas. City of Galveston. Zoning Or- dinance Goodman, Denise. "McConfrontation in Freeport Reaches Peak Tomorrow Night." The Boston Globe 27 Nov. 1983: 44, 46. Kelley, Bill. "The Franchise Option." Sales & Marketing Management (Jan. 1990): 42-49. Kem, Richard. "Where Burger Is King: Demo- graphics in Action." Sales & Marketing Manage- ment (Jan. 1990): 26. Kotite, Erika "Franchises Storm America." En- trepreneur 18.1 (Jan. 1990): 64-66. Kroc, Ray. with Robert Anderson. Grinding It Out: The Making of McDonald s. Chicago: Regn- ery, 1977. Langdon, Philip. Orange Roofs, Golden Arches: The Architecture of American Chain Restaurants. New York: Knopf, 1986. Lang, Jon, et al., eds. Designing for Human Be- havior: Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences. Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1974. Liebs, Chester H. Main Street to Miracle Mile: American Roadside Architecture. Boston: Little, Brown, 1985. Love, John F. McDonald s: Behind the Arches. New York: Bantam, 1986. Luxenberg, Stan. Roadside Empires: How the Chains Franchised America. New York: Viking, 1985. Somerville, Massachusetts. City of Somerville. Proposed Update to the Somerville Zoning Ordi- nance. Portland, Maine. City of Portland. Zoning Ordi- nance. Portland, Oregon. City of Portland. Zoning Ordi- nance. Rosson, John, and Celeste McCall. "Fast -Food Outlets Getting Face -Lifts." insight 16 June 1986: 46-47. San Antonio, Texas. City of San Antonio. His- toric Districts and Landmarks Ordinance. United Press international. "Freeport McDon- ald's Foes Lose Big Round." The Boston Globe 14 Dec. 1983. United States. Dept. of Commerce. International Trade Admin. Franchising in the Economy 1986- 1988. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1988. -. -. Bureau of the Census. 1987 Census of Retail Trade. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1989. Venturi, Robert. Denise Scott Brown, Steven Izenour. Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten Symbolism of Arclu'tectural Form. Cambridge: Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology, 1972. Whittemore, Meg. "Franchising's Growth Pat- tems." Nation's Business (March 1990): 69. - "A Snapshot Of The 1990s." Nation's Busi- ness (March 1990): 67. "Why Not Accommodate the Design to the Dis-