Urban Design 101

Urban Design 101

Story Options

John King writes a column titled Place focusing on urban design and architecture for the San Francisco Chronicle. Earlier this month he listed what he sees as the principles of good design, particularly multi-use structures in cities. After the jump, a summary of his article that is suitable for printing, saving and applying in Buffalo.

Want to build something? Fine. But please read this first. John King, Chronicle Staff Writer

In my ideal architectural world, each new building would glow with timeless grace. The materials, the proportions, the craftsmanship and details -- all would be just so, whatever the architectural style. As opposed to the real world, where too much of what goes up has all the presence of papier-mâché.

True, not every project can claim an extravagant budget or a big-name architect. But there's no reason new buildings in suburban downtowns or big-city neighborhoods can't be modest triumphs of quality and care. The problem is when developers have formulas, communities have demands, architects have rent to pay and the actual building becomes an afterthought.

So consider today's column a manifesto of sorts -- or at least a checklist of what our priorities should be when the next multiuse building proposal comes around the bend.

Make the ground floor shine. Nothing counts like first impressions, and if a building meets the sidewalk with a spacious urbanity, people are bound to be impressed. There should be generous heights and lots of glass.

Be realistic. We don't build buildings like we used to for a reason: we can't. Building codes are different now. Goodies like thick granite or kiln-fired brick cost exponentially more than they once did.

So instead of starting with elaborate designs and lavish materials and dumbing them down each step of the way, understand the constraints and turn them into virtues. For instance, an architectural approach that sticks to clean lines and simple setbacks can come alive with the use of handsome tiles at pedestrian level, or nicely detailed windows up above.

Don't be fussy. This isn't aimed at developers or architects so much as at the folks they deal with: planners and commissions and residents who pop up at hearings to complain that a new condo complex doesn't look like it was designed by Thomas Jefferson in full classical mode.

Some of this is inevitable, to be sure -- but when a design is pulled apart and second-guessed at each step of the review process, because everyone has their own idea as to what architecture should be, the scenic quality can be diluted past the point of no return.

ec2.jpg

Amp up the colors. In line with the tendency to tone down designs to the point where one building blurs into the next, there's often a phobia about colors. Anything that seems bright or bold makes developers/planners/neighbors nervous.

There's a better approach: pick good strong colors and don't be shy. People might be startled at first, but in no time at all they'll enjoy the change of pace.

Make a few smart moves. You don't need to shatter the mold, just shake it a little bit.

Keep paying attention. The most dreaded phrase in architecture is "value-engineering." Developers decide after all the approvals that recessed windows cost too much. Or they decide that any material beyond spray-painted stucco is a frill. It happens all the time -- unless cities coordinate their planning and building departments to make sure late changes don't suck the life from what everyone thought they had agreed on.

Does any of this guarantee a masterpiece? Of course not.

But it might make things move more quickly. Planners might focus on big details that matter. Developers and architects might try to make something they'll be proud of, instead of just making a profit.

The result might even be buildings that neighbors embrace. Imagine that! Instead of being resented, growth and change can strike a positive chord.

Place appears in the Chronicle at www.sfgate.com. Complete article here.

Photos of Ellicott Commons by Mark Byrnes.

digulios

What Others Have To Say

  1. davvid

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 24th 2007, 03:22

    "residents who ... complain that a new condo complex doesn't look like it was designed by Thomas Jefferson in full classical mode."

    NICE ARTICLE!

  2. buffcitygirl

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 24th 2007, 07:23

    Thanks WCP for a nice piece. Well said. Ellicott Commons looks great!

  3. MisterChips

    3 ratings12345
    Jun 24th 2007, 22:56

    I am not sure what makes this article a work of genius for Buffalo to follow. For example, the author admires "simple setbacks." Seems to me we have way too many setback buildings and if anything, the city should abolish setbacks wherever possible and require that commercial buildings come up to the sidewalk line.

    Bright, bold colors? Nothing is more ephemeral than a color fad but buildings have to (or should) last a lifetime or two. Consider the lurid blue apartment towers on Delaware. Would they be any better if they were orange (the 1970s) or teal (the 1980s)or forest green (the 1990s)?

  4. allthingsbuffalo

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 25th 2007, 00:55

    the color/design scheme on the 1st floor is obnoxious on an otherwise pretty good project.

  5. dude

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 25th 2007, 12:01

    I agree overall this is a very positive project for downtown. But here is my armchair architectural two cents:

    To my trained eyes, these buildings (well, at least the facades) look like they are made out of a combination of styrofoam, glue, and cardboard. This is what happens when trying to emulate historic styles using very cheap veneer materials.

    The facades look like they were transplanted from suburban stripmalls onto the fronts of these slender, steel skeleton buildings. The middle building's facade looks like it's a spawn child of the Cheesecake Factory. The one on the left is plagued by a useless architectural element--a window frame outline that goes way beyond the bounds of the actual window just for the sake of breaking up a solid monotonous space. The building on the right is the best of the three. The more contemporary makes it feel less of a victim of a limited budget coupled with squeamish, lowest-common-denominator taste towards anything that says "we're now in the 21st century."

    Moral of the story: If you don't have the $$ to use real materials for the particular style you're trying to emulate, stick to contemporary materials and contemporary styling. At least in that case, the building won't be trying to be something it's not.

  6. Chris

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 25th 2007, 15:35

    I thought that only one of those buildings was new?

  7. davvid

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 25th 2007, 16:26

    Maybe if the Washinton market building wasn't cropped out of the top picture we would be able to more easily compare authentic buildings of that time period with the imitation facades. But I think its pretty easy to see the diff.

    I don't think the author of this article ever intended it to be coupled with a building like the Ellicott Commons.

  8. MisterChips

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 25th 2007, 22:24

    Chris, all three are new builds. I watched them go up over the past two years on my daily commute. The only vintage building in the photo is the one at the extreme right, of which only a sliver with two windows is showing.

Would you like to subscribe to this conversation?

Enter your email below, and you will receive an alert each time someone leaves a comment on this post.

What Do You Think?

Text Links