When Woodson Motorsports moved downtown in early 2007, city officials rejected its request for a $30,000 grant because they weren't thrilled with the decision to cover a stately 80-year-old brick building with a colorful metallic facade and eye-popping signs.

Later that year, owners of a Subway restaurant relocated for the Harrison Square project were denied assistance after insisting on a drive-through window and street-side parking - features deemed incompatible with efforts to promote a “pedestrian-friendly” downtown.

When it comes to enforcing their vision of Fort Wayne's “new” downtown, city planners clearly have been willing to withhold fat, juicy carrots. Soon, however, they may also be able to wield a stick - a plan with potential benefits and dangers that must be thoroughly explored and understood before it goes into effect as early as next spring.

In the bland language of bureaucracy, the so-called “downtown design standards” project seems innocuous enough. Several months ago, some members of City Council expressed concerns that guidelines for downtown development adopted by the Plan Commission in 2004 were not always implemented. So a group of officials, architects and others - guided by about 700 responses to an online survey of architectural preferences - has been working to develop a series of design standards for future downtown projects.

Most of the guidelines will be just that: recommendations intended to yield a more cohesive, functional, and attractive downtown. Some, however, will be mandatory - and that's where the need for caution comes in.

“We want to encourage a distinctly urban form (of architecture): Close to the street to engage pedestrians … streetscapes and similar window patterns,” said city planner Sherese Fortriede, noting that a preliminary review of responses to the online survey revealed a preference for “brick and stone vs. metal, vinyl and wood, landscaping, wider sidewalks, and lower signs.

“Downtown buildings are going to be here for a long time. It makes sense to protect that investment.”

Fortriede and others point out that the use of metal and other less-durable building materials - especially on the first floor - can create problems that are both functional and aesthetic. The corner of the Woodson building at 436 E. Washington Blvd., for example, is crumpled from an apparent collision of some sort. And some buildings featuring exterior insulation and finish systems, a composite often called “synthetic stucco,” are also showing signs of wear and tear.

Happily, Fortriede and other planners acknowledge the subjective nature of architecture, and seem willing to mostly offer non-binding suggestions when it comes to building design. But there are likely to be mandatory aspects as well, such as a requirement that street-level floors offer a certain amount of transparency (as opposed to solid walls that can attract graffiti).

In theory, all of this is fine. We've all seen buildings and other features that just don't seem compatible with their surroundings, and a downtown that attracts people and dollars will benefit the entire city.

But even city officials acknowledge some of their proposals are likely to increase the cost of construction, despite incentives that could mitigate the expense. Higher initial costs may or may not make sense in the long run, but may deter investment in an area that in recent years has been the recipient of mostly public dollars. If the cost and headaches associated with downtown development exceed the perceived benefits, private dollars - already scarce in a recessionary economy - will simply go elsewhere.

City officials understand that, of course, which is why I don't expect them to get too draconian when it comes to mandating simple likes and dislikes. Some building materials are indeed more durable than others, but all eventually require maintenance. Mechanisms already exist to address property owners who fail to make necessary repairs.

But if a careful handful of “shalls” and a design manual full of “shoulds” can help attract more and better investment downtown - especially private investment - property owners should gain in value what they lose in flexibility.

The devil, as always, will be in the details.