Re: Design Review | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: psproefrock (psproefrockntsource.com) | |
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 20:28:58 -0700 (MST) |
Having worked, until fairly recently, for an architectural firm which did architectural review for a couple of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) communities (as well as being the authors of the guidelines) I would like to say a couple things about design guidelines. Firstly, I think that there are two separate sets of issues that are getting intertwined here. There are issues which pertain to original construction, and then there are post-construction issues (such as when a homowner wants to put on an addition). Architectural guidelines are really post-construction (or for latter phases of construction if the community is being built in more than one phase). Making choices and setting constraints during the initial design and construction is not really so much a matter of architectural guidelines (unless everyone has a custom unit). Joani had a very good point about customization raising costs for everyone. The contractors can't get volume pricing (either for materials or for labor) when there are too few units using any given scheme. Settling on a few basic packages and limiting the variations on those is more economical. How much a group wants to trade off individuality for economy is a community decision. If you want everyone to have their own custom unit, with its own style and character, you will end up paying for that, in professional fees and in construction costs. On the other hand, making every unit exactly alike does not serve anyone well, and tends to produce a monolithic and uninteresting appearance, too. The community needs to determine among themselves how much flexibilty they want to have in the design of their buildings, and they must realize that there are costs attached to these decisions. The communities we did design guidelines and design review for were far from cookie-cutter in terms of style or construction. Architectural guidelines need not be highly restrictive, and in my opinion, the best guidelines are those which allow for a lot of flexibility while seeking to protect the important issues. For example, our guidelines stated that side loaded garages were preferable to garages that dominated the front elevation. This was to prevent (or at least reduce) the tendency of developments to look like nothing more than a forest of garage doors. If a design needed a front-loaded garage (sometimes lot configuration, or a plan someone really loved made a side-load difficult or impractical), then the front of the house should be closer to the sidewalk than the garage doors. Design guidelines should (ideally) serve the interest of the community, and should only address issues that concern the community. They should not (in my opinion) be a stylistic straitjacket that forces everyone to build exactly the same thing. Good guidelines should promote a community identity, but not at the expense of individuality; after all, you don't live in my house, and I don't live in yours. But we do live in a community, and I think that expressing the community nature of the project is important. Many universities have an overall design aesthetic that ties the whole campus together. In a college town, you can tell which are the school's buildings, and which are the rest of the town. That doesn't mean that every dorm and classroom building looks exactly alike. But there are common elements (a pallete of materials, perhaps a period architectural style, etc.) which help to identify the community as a whole. Looking at a cohousing community in terms of a campus is not, I think, a bad metaphor for understanding what architectural guidelines should do for a community. Some of these ideas can be applied to both initial-construction and post-construction periods within a community. But, what I think is most important is that the design guidelines work to further the ends of the community, and that that is done with minimal impact on design elements which do not affect the community. Philip Proefrock psproefrock [at] ntsource.com (not speaking for anyone other than myself)
- Re: design review, (continued)
- Re: design review Marya S. Tipton, December 19 1999
- Re: design review Kay Argyle, December 22 1999
- Re: design review Bitner/Stevenson, December 22 1999
- Re: design review Marya S. Tipton, December 22 1999
- Re: Design Review psproefrock, December 23 1999
- RE: design review Rob Sandelin, December 23 1999
- Re: design review Howard Landman, December 27 1999
- design review Witten & Fitch, July 2 2000
- Re: design review Lynn Nadeau, July 2 2000
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.