I know an
architectural project manager who once took a creative approach to the
development of adjoining parcels.
The
development firm for whom he worked was committed to revitalizing a Sacramento
neighborhood. The area had once been
bustling, but had fallen on hard times.
The neighborhood economy was so bad that the firm was able to acquire a
pair of prime but vacant lots on the primary street. And they decided to gamble big on a neighborhood
rebound by concurrently constructing multi-story office buildings on both
parcels.
The project
manager selected a pair of architectural firms.
He specified brick as the facing material for the buildings and set the
floor elevations for the upper floors. He
then insisted that each firm work solo.
He refused to tell either firm who the other firm was.
At first,
the firms were puzzled. Then they became
frustrated. That wasn’t how modern
architecture was done. The designs needed
to be coordinated so the buildings could look like they belonged together. But the project manager was adamant and
refused to proffer the names.
I was
surprised by his courage in the matter, but am convinced he was right. Jane Jacobs would have described his decision
as promoting “fine-grained” development.
She was a proponent of having cities built in the smallest chunks
possible. She believed that a
fine-grained land-use pattern would maximize the chances to experiment with
different forms, finding the ones that would work best in particular neighborhoods.
Jacobs also believed
that there are more reinvestment incentives in a fine-grained
neighborhood. The owner of an aging
building can always spot a more successful building in the neighborhood to
which he can aspire with a remodel.
And now Jeff
Speck offers another common sense reason to commend the project manager’s decision. In “Walkable City”, Speck writes about the
four elements needed to promote walkability, which are usefulness, safety,
comfort, and interest. Speck
specifically notes that architecture which changes as a pedestrian walks along
a street creates interest.
Perhaps a
pair of dissimilar buildings is only a small step toward building pedestrian
interest. But the fact that a step
doesn’t comprise the entire journey isn’t a reason to reject the step if it’s heading
in the right direction. And walkability,
like urbanism, is comprised of many small steps (pun intended).
What makes
this insight about pedestrian interest particularly remarkable is that Speck presents
it in a few sentences. And that every
few sentences in the entire book contains an insight of comparable value. A highly walkable street is said to draw the
pedestrian onward with promises of new points of interest in the next
block. Similarly, “Walkable City” draws
readers onward with promises of new insights in the next paragraph.
Despite the continual
cascade of walkability insights, Speck never comes across as a professor. Instead, the mental image that appeared in my
head was of a wise bartender, polishing walkability thoughts with a well-worn
bar towel and dispenses them across the bar with an engaging good humor.
I won’t try
to summarize the entire extent of “Walkable City” in a single blog post. Instead, I’ll return to Speck regularly over
the next few weeks. And I encourage you
to find a copy to read along. I promise
that you’ll enjoy the journey.
If you’re
wondering what happened to the adjoining Sacramento buildings, the story ends
on an unhappy note. The economy
collapsed, the design on both projects was halted, and the project manager
moved to a different job. But I still
respect his vision.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Interesting tale of not letting the two architecture firms coordinate; one of the big criteria we had when we were home shopping was a neighborhood that had grown and evolved so that it had a heterogeneous character. Our theory was that an architecturally diverse neighborhood would be more resilient to demographic changes, and would tend to be more demographically diverse because there'd have been time for the ages of residents to become staggered.
ReplyDeleteEngineering some of that heterogeneity in from the beginning may provide a little less efficiency at the start, but seems like it'd build a stronger neighborhood in the long-term.
Dan, you're right that heterogeneous neighborhoods are more robust demographically, which complements the economic robustness. I'd love for us to get back to where new neighborhoods can be more heterogeneous, but our current model for funding the new infrastructure won't allow it.
DeleteInterest makes a big difference. My wife and I walk to Sushi every Friday night as our reward for another week survived. We tend to walk the same suburban streets to and from. It's a boring, somewhat long walk. One night we took a whole different route home, got a bit lost and took over an hour and an extra mile to get home. We didn't even realize the time had past. Since we had not gone that way before, and cut through Case Grande high school while we were at it, we added interest to the walk. We had never seen the school from the inside before, and so it was new.
ReplyDeleteNot the best example of interest, as it'll only work once. The streets are still suburban and the housing mostly the same, but I feel it exemplifies the concept. By keeping the walk interesting, it made it feel shorter and less distance.
Erik, thanks for the comment. I think your comment is dead on. Also, small blocks make a real difference because they offer more different routes to take the same walk, which maintains interest.
Delete