Buildings - Architectural Design
Jane Jacobs, the 1950’s champion for a return to humane urbanism, put into words that which we all feel: buildings with plenty of windows and doors – and occupants inside those windows and doors – put “eyes on the street”. This simple act of design establishes and maintains a safe comfortable public realm and is easily accomplished within a wide range of architectural styles and philosophies.
Despite the obvious benefits of this fundamental design philosophy, and the relatively minor cost, many urban infill buildings have no windows on their primary façade. Blank-walled buildings give criminals a perfect place to do their work. Developers, architects, and building owners have offered many rationales for not putting windows on the front of their buildings including: “The function inside the building doesn’t need windows”; “Windows are too costly and energy inefficient”; and “That’s not the front of our building.” These are often excuses made by selfish bullies who have no regard for the communities in which they wish to place their buildings.
Communities must understand the long-term detrimental effect of blank walls and respond firmly. To those questions listed above, citizens must reply: “The function of the exterior of an urban building is as important as its interior”; “Storefront is not as costly as the price our community and our police will pay” and “You don’t get to decide that the rear of your building is to be placed on our public street – to do so is to literally turn your back on our community.”
Even the best developer, who wishes to serve their communities well, must mitigate their financial risk for a project. They have to do this by balancing the need to keep the construction cost down while constructing a building that is durable enough to require low maintenance for just as long as that developer owns it. The design of urban buildings has become, in many respects, an exercise of figuring out how to achieve the best short-term financial gain. The design of multi-family buildings has become a particularly challenging test of balancing the minimal amount of quality needed to obtain the maximum amount of return on investment – at least until the time at which the investment will be sold. While the desire to keep renter and buyer costs down is admirable, this has resulted in the erection of cheap buildings and an “anywhere America” aesthetic that is so unworthy of respect and affection it has even recently gained unfortunate attention from general media sources (like this recent article from Curbed).
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Sought after communities, or municipalities who own the property being developed or who offer financial incentives for development, can – and must – require better buildings. That goes for economically challenging multi-family structures as well. Well-designed and well-built buildings tell visitors, homebuyers, investors, and businesses – even at a glance – that a community is valued, of great quality, and will last a very long time. Insisting on the high quality design and construction of a building now also sets the bar high for the next building that gets built.
Communities can look for clues to understand if a newly proposed building design will benefit the public realm of a neighborhood or not. A fundamentally well-designed building will have – at a minimum –
massing and placement on the site that is complimentary to the context and which fits the community’s vision of its future,
building entries facing the street (not just facing parking lots in back),
many windows facing streets,
logical proportions and rhythms to its facade, and
quality materials.
Buildings in business districts should have 1st floors with un-obscured glass storefronts. Even buildings in residential areas should have a substantial number of windows on any façade that is seen from a street - this includes side elevations of corner buildings.
Buildings that don’t have these simple elements are erected by those who could not care less about the neighborhood in which such a building is placed.
Architects use the term “context sensitive” to define designs that respond somewhat to surrounding architecture. This term has become a mild reference, however, sometimes used by architects who use only the most basic elements from neighboring buildings as cues for their own design. Just because a building is roughly the same height as its neighbors doesn’t mean it fits within its context. Well-designed buildings take cues from surrounding architecture and are custom-designed with those references embedded in the design.
However, the architectural design of buildings doesn’t have to be historically replicative. New buildings can be, and often should be, designed intentionally as markers of their time. A building designed in 2019 should look like it was designed in 2019.
Sometimes, though, modernism and contemporary design dogma is used as an excuse. Only a few building types have a right to be pure art: museums, churches, and key civic institutions such as courthouses. All buildings can be artistically designed. The claim that a building is itself “art” has often been used as a permission slip to create buildings whose primary design goal is to attract attention, not to honor its neighbors. This philosophy, coupled with an oversized mass, can result in buildings that are obviously out of place.
Communities must judge how much to regulate and how much to leave to the developer’s and architect’s discretion. Codifying design is tricky, and regulating taste is impossible. There will never be a code that is an adequate substitute for a talented architect and a willing developer / owner. Regulating the built environment is a balancing act and an unenviable task, but the result can be better long-term investments; a valued, cherished neighborhood; and even easily understood regulations and streamlined approvals for developers. Form-Based Codes offer such a solution.