Can eco-density be beautiful?
Vancouver, B.C. wrestles with how to make new buildings and greater density produce better, less uniform architecture. It turns out nobody has a very clear image of what that would look like.
With Vancouver's city councillors listening, a citizen of Upper Kitsilano took the lectern and offered a plea against the controversial Eco-Density Charter. The gist of his complaint: Eco-densification has so far been a rash, hasty, and seemingly undemocratic process.
Then councillor and mayoral hopeful Peter Ladner posed one simple question: What ideal outcome would you envision for the Vancouver of the future?
Mr. Upper Kitsilano replied something about wanting a city nurtured by a grassroots process and community input and . . . .
"Let's just leave process out of it for the moment," clarified Ladner. "What outcome do you want?"
An outcome that is formed by the views and needs of residents . . . .
"Not process — outcome," repeated Ladner, his voice growing crisp.
The now-stammering presenter wound up his manifesto not with a bang but a whimper. He seemed to know what kind of process he wanted, but not what kind of outcome. Stage fright, perhaps. But as he shuffled back to the pews, the guy's real contribution to the debate became clear. He reminded us that nobody has a clue what an eco-dense city will actually look like — or even what we want it to look like. New York? Shanghai? Disneyland?
At this and other eco-density public hearings, presenter and star eco-densifier Peter Busby has brandished a freshly produced, beautiful little booklet entitled mdash; what else? mdash; "Busby on Eco-Density," as he offered an impassioned manifesto. The booklet contains clear and attractive illustrations of what Vancouver might "look like" under varying degrees of eco-density mdash; but in the abstract. The illustrations of towers, mid-rises, and low-rises are configured as symbols, like Monopoly houses, or geometry homework. Not a hint whether our eco-dense future portends sterile boxes or architectural gems. Even the booklet cover shows poetic images of grass, water, docks, clouds — everything but buildings.
Here's what the Eco-Density Draft Charter says: "Design density with new and existing architecture that meshes greener performance, with values for neighbourhood context, character and identity, for high quality and neighborly buildings and developments, at all scales." Sounds great, but those big, broad words have a lot of leg room. Vancouver could end up with some pretty sound projects like Arbutus Walk or the West End's Mole Hill Community Housing. Or, could Vancouver end up with something oppressively boring or just plain stomach-churning?
Architect/developer Michael Geller, ardent eco-densifier and mastermind of Simon Fraser's UniverCity housing development, knows the risk. After his presentation, he conceded that the first multi-family complex he was involved in designing, back in Ontario in the 1970s, did not yield a happy outcome. "It ended up looking absolutely awful!" winced Geller. "But I blame the guy who was working next to me at the office. He disagreed with me that we should design it all together as a coordinated project. He said that each home could have its own character." The complex ended up looking like a dog's breakfast. And who was that guy working next to him, fomenting all the hodge-podge? "His name was Daniel Libeskind."
Libeskind is a future starchitect-du-jour, designer of the overgrown sharded-glass barnacle on Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum, and would-be sculptor of New York's upcoming Freedom Tower at Ground Zero. And: a bust at making a decent multi-family complex. If having a future starchitect on your team doesn't lead to a good outcome for high-density projects, then what can?
"The reality is that there will be a range of architecture, just as there is now: good, bad, and ugly," says Dream City author Lance Berelowitz, another urbanist in the audience waiting to speak his piece. "What I would not want to see is some kind of dead-hand style rules that would say: You can only do this or that."
To put it another way, as one architect at the public hearings asserted bluntly in a sideways whisper: "There's no doubt about it: Eco-density architecture can be as shitty as any other kind."
Vancouver's chief planner Brent Toderian offers us what you might call the Spider-Man Proviso for Eco-Density: "With greater density," asserts Toderian, "comes greater responsibility." He means the responsibility to do it right, with the best possible design (better than our past track record, I'd infer), good neighborhood amenities and convenient transportation links.
"Most of the single-family houses in the city are not designed by architects but by design-builders," Toderian adds, diplomatically leaving us to draw our own conclusions. But he, too, is uncomfortably aware of the challenges to come. Too much architectural diversity and you have visual chaos. Too much monotony and you have a big, boring city.
"Beauty in aggregate becomes ugly," notes Toderian. Take our skyline, for instance. Some like it, but others have told Toderian they think it's ugly. "When I probe, they eventually explain that it's too much of the same," he adds.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Sat, Mar 29, 2:10 p.m. inappropriate
No! No! No!: I'm an architect/Urban Designer in Seattle. And, this disucssion will uultimately miss the desired mark if focused first on architecture and urban planning for density and eco development.
Our North American cities have gone astray by not working together and including the population to be housed and/or marketed to. Here's what I suggest:
Start with a community/neighborhood focus group. Have them start with the URBAN DESIGN issue and how best to include them. This subject is the key to creating wonderful/responsive enclaves in the city. Architcture HAS to take a backseat to this discussion. If we can't get people to describe what they want, it's because they don't know how to get there. That's the first task. Examples of these small discussions include: studying all four corners of an intersection to maximize sunlight on pedestrian spaces, creating safe and secure spaces in and outside of the buildings, find opportuity spaces for people to gather, play and find quiet.
Etc. Etc. etc>!
I could go on!
But please get the idea that URBAN DESIGN MUST take the lead and is the CORE of the design process. Without it, we are left with parcelled architectural egos and competitive structures that are not designed with the community as a partner.
Thanks for this chancve to advise you.
Arthur M. Skolnik FAIA
arthurmskolnik@comcast.net
Posted Sat, Mar 29, 10:50 p.m. inappropriate
RE: No! No! No!: I think Mr. Skolnik has the right idea. Focusing on what people want is paramount to creating attractive urban communities. As a resident of Seattle's Capitol Hill, I see developments come in that overtake the existing neighborhood with no regard for its character.
There is actually one development (Pine and Bellevue) that is soliciting feedback from prospective residents via a participatory website. I believe the owner is the Stratford Company and though I don't know much about their other projects, I applaud their trying to involve the community in the design process.
As for the eco-density side of the argument, I think it's the only way to progress. But with these new, denser communities, the potential residents should have a say in what they're buying in to; otherwise, it seems to me that they are more likely to choose traditional, single-family housing.
http://ghcollab.blogspot.com
Posted Sat, Mar 29, 11:14 p.m. inappropriate
Sunlight?!: Another presumption is the idea that the public wants sunlight everywhere. Many do of course, but personally I go for the shady side of the street every time.
The Seattle Center debate provides another example. The main current concept shows a massive empty field for concerts. But go up the Space Needle on a warm day during a festival sometime, and look at the crowds -- they're not in the sunny areas, but clustered around the shade trees! It's pretty remarkable actually.
Posted Sat, Mar 29, 11:17 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Sunlight?!: More on that...
If you're on a long walk, a lack of shade can be a health problem too. I've gotten scorched too many times.
Posted Sat, Mar 29, 11:17 p.m. inappropriate
The problem is unrealistic expectations: Part of the issue is that people are too damned picky and simply like to meddle.
And then people have been poisoned by starchitecture to expect that "good design" means...well they are confused as to what it means – but they know it means "SPECIAL!!!" Hands are raised in horror at a plain but perfectly-decent mixed-use building because people don't understanding that it's not critical what an individual building looks like so long as it follows the standard urban form of built-to-the-sidewalk-with-retail-on-the-ground-floor. (That's for mixed-use areas, of course.) It's the assemblage that we are seeking -- the whole streetfront and it's a fools-errand to be striving for "innovative design." Go look at the great part of Manhattan and Paris -- the buildings all look similar. Good streets and neighborhoods are NOT made of great buildings. Get it out of your mind. "Greatness" is not the issue. Forget about standing back and studying the building as if you are in a pompous art museum. You experience the building primarily from sidewalk level so what is above the 3rd floor is of little consequence.
If you want unique and phantasmagorical go live in Dubai.
Sure some buildings won't be as good as others -- but one of the reasons for that is that we demand that every building be unique and innovative so people make mistakes. We'd be farther ahead if we just asked architects to copy a few successful models.
Posted Sun, Mar 30, 8:08 a.m. inappropriate
RE: The problem is unrealistic expectations: Your point about being realistic is taken, though I'm not convinced that our main problem is overly high standards among the masses. Many of the buildings going up in Seattle don't even aspire to be good, let alone great. Their guiding design principle is to be as cheap as possible, and to no one's surprise, the final product ends up looking like shite.
I don't know what the remedy is. Perhaps we can take comfort knowing most these crappy buildings won't last more than 50 years, anyway.
Posted Sun, Mar 30, 12:35 p.m. inappropriate
architecture: That's an extremely good point David.
Much of the problem is the concept among many architects that their buildings must "say something new" or "reflect 2008", and that anything that tries to blend in Haussmann-style is to be scorned, and certainly not worthy of an architect's time.
Another problem is the idea that a facade should "inform" what's happening inside...offices should look like offices, above-grade parking should look like above-grade parking. The result is sometime blank pedestals topped by what appear to be separately-designed buildings. If we're going to have above-grade parking, how about blending it in?
At the root of these problems is the idea some have that public opinion is to be ignored. "The public goes to Applebees and has no taste," they'll say. "Architects are more knowledgeable about these things and should be the arbiters of style." Well, maybe that works with paintings in museums or bought by individuals, but architecture is something we all live amidst! There's nothing wrong with designing places where we can all feel comfortable.
PS, on the broader topic, everyone should read David's book "City Comforts".
Posted Mon, Mar 31, 10:51 p.m. inappropriate
RE: architecture: Very well said, and right on the money, mhays.
Curious what you all think of the "award winning" Queen Anne home by pbElemental that was profiled in The Stranger last week. That group has done some nice buildings in my neighborhood (the Central District), but when I saw what they did in Queen Anne, all I could think was that I pray no one does anything like that to my block.
Posted Tue, Apr 1, 8:48 a.m. inappropriate
RE: architecture: I agree about the house!