The primary question is the product of form-based codes different in terms place-character? A secondary question that follows is if this lack of differentiation based on place-character is a result of the code itself or of issues peripheral to the code. Each places represents a customized interaction between a 'code' (conceptual framework) and a 'place' (contextual framework) which could be described as a 'narrative'. Individually dissecting these narratives along specific cross-sections, such as location, chronology, typology, scale, and fit, could reveal patterns of similarities and differences. Research shows that each of these cross-sections impact specific aspects of place-character and place-making. Qualitative correlations across codes and cross-sections, could explain certain patterns observed in the codes along specific cross-sections. It is concluded that the process of place-making could be lost in the melee. While form-based codes appear to be extremely flexible, this complex condition could prove burdensome for any code or regulation without compromising its place-making potential. Factors in shaping the output of form-based codes are place, process and the policy framework. In establishing responsiveness to context, the negotiation is between traditions and aspirations, which could be divergent concepts. Yet there is almost always a paradigm that successfully mediates this condition. Form-based codes present a simple response to a complex set of urban issues, it is important to maintain place-specific context around the application of this approach. Another consideration in this mediation could be eliminating zoning but it is never possible to replace a system of rules with the absence of rules
