Sneaking good design into town
New York City is littered with places like Ground Zero where the aspirations for grand architecture have left dead zones. Meanwhile, thanks to an enlightened director of Design and Construction, David Burney, a British architect, all kinds of great little buildings (firehouses, libraries, community centers) have sneaked into the Big Apple. Read the story in New York.
It seems like a good idea for Seattle, now that the age of grand public buildings and starchictecture is over. Mayor Newbie might start by insisting on good design for modest public buildings, not lowest-bidder stuff, and building up the authority of city planner Ray Gastil, who worked on some of this stuff in New York City before returning to his hometown in Seattle. There's a good example of this in the branch libraries, using some of the best local architects and greatly enlivening many urban neighborhoods.
Small can be beautiful if you follow some policies like those in New York. Insist on good design, even if you have to reject the first proposals. Put together a list of the top local firms who have done great work and arrange so they are short-listed in bidding. Convince these firms that public work need not be "last-resort" work, hampered by tight budgets and endless review processes that produce mediocre compromises. Shift the bidding process so you are not stuck with the lowest bidder (who will often get the job that way and then drive up the costs with change orders). And then really advocate for the integrity of striking designs.
I can think of two other illustrations of this kind of thinking. One is Columbus, Indiana, where a local philanthropist funded the architect fees for public buildings, if they drew from an A-list of some of the country's top architects. (Hint to the Allen Foundation.) The other is Scandinavia, particularly Sweden, where fine design is coupled with egalitarian democracy, making the case that even ordinary things like milk cartons should exhibit beautiful design, with credit always given to the designer.
The magazine article sums up the effect of David Burney's small revolution:
Burney’s wave of public buildings is striking for its motley vigor. Each design emerges from a specific constellation of site and response, not from some officially sanctioned style. Instead of imposing uniformity, the DDC is demanding imaginativeness. Rather than choosing designers that will do what they’re told, it is asking them what can be done. And so the agency quietly demonstrates that architecture is not just a tool to sell luxury condos, but a democratic art.










Comments:
Posted Thu, Nov 5, 6:04 p.m. inappropriate
Thank you for wading right in without worrying whether you are over your head--the essence of Crosscut!
But it's more than that, David. You really have a nose for the heart of the controversy and getting the dialogue going by putting your foot in it. Smart thinking though to first put out a feeler by starting off in a fast passing blog. Most certainly, architects are not very edifying so who knows what the public has managed to figure out on there lonesome.
I clicked through all the New York examples. You are right about one thing--every one of them is edgy. But without seeing them in context (almost always avoided in publicity shots) there is no way of knowing if they are "good design" or not. That's the side of this understated controversy you intentionally (my guess) ignore.
Next you leave out private buildings where most of us live and work. Here the side of
controversy you ignore insists that "density" must have long term appeal to be sustainable. Most often that means buildings that add up to consistent patterns, otherwise known as neighborhoods. That message that Chuck Wolfe thinks Denver might have stolen? Well defined new character in areas designated "areas of change," and enhanced character in areas designated "areas of stability." If this sounds like the urban village strategy--that's Chuck's point. And it's pretty much every where, not just Denver stealing the message.
To sum up, you are right we probably don't need pattern books, but we do need to limit departures to well executed ones. Some, but not all public buildings make good departure candidates. That's true too. But most of all you are dead right that the new mayor needs to tackle good design and that all of Seattle needs edifying or we will be at this for ever and over and over.
.
Posted Thu, Nov 5, 6:16 p.m. inappropriate
P.S. The controversy in full, at least from the non-modernist point of view is best presented in "Designing Community, Charrettes, Masterplans, and Form-based Codes, David Walters, 2007.
Problem is no bumper sticker type understanding emerges even after reading Walters with great care and the book is expensive--why I have had the UW's copy for months and will probably have to give it back if someone with a UW library card reads this.