good high-rise, bad high-rise
June 23, 2013 4:29 AM Subscribe
My city banned the construction of high-rise buildings in the eighties. Political winds have shifted (along with economic growth) and now city hall is set to make some permissible again in a new specific plan for the downtown.
My layman's intuition combined with some background reading tells me there is a big difference between a well-designed high-rise and one that's poorly designed. I want to be more conversant with the design issues involved so I can contribute intelligently to the civic discussion.
What key articles, reports, manifestos or monographs should I read?
The planning department of my city is guided by what seems to be a kind of New Urbanist / smart growth style thinking. The goal is to create a walkable, bikeable mixed-use downtown where visitors park once and residents can lead a car-free existence. The focus is on fostering life on the street. In the next year or two, several light-rail stations are coming the the city. There has been a lot of 4-6 storey mixed-use residential + ground floor retail infill going on, partially in anticipation of this, and more is expected. (Not everyone in the city is happy with this change. For one, it has entailed a loss of light and sky.)
Some developers and architects are arguing that some new high-rises would fit right into this high-density picture, and introduce some variety to a skyline that's growing monotonous with all the infill. They would contain mostly condominiums. Heights being discussed are 15 to 20 storeys. Others fear that high-rises would threaten the tone and human scale of the area. A common phrase heard amongst opponents is that it would become "like Miami Beach," as if that would be a self-evidently dire result.
I imagine a crop of badly designed high-rises could indeed ruin the human scale and harm the pedestrian orientated vibe of the area. Some suggest that avoiding this consequence is as simple as making sure the first couple of storeys create a low-scale street wall, while the high-rise proper is set considerably back.
I want to cram on the literature of this issue, preferably in the form of a variety of perspectives in article or essay length chunks. Especially interested in case studies of failures and successes, in if there are universally acknowledged consequences of high-rise construction on street life, data about how variations in design affect pedestrian patterns and emotional quality of an area and the like.
The planning department of my city is guided by what seems to be a kind of New Urbanist / smart growth style thinking. The goal is to create a walkable, bikeable mixed-use downtown where visitors park once and residents can lead a car-free existence. The focus is on fostering life on the street. In the next year or two, several light-rail stations are coming the the city. There has been a lot of 4-6 storey mixed-use residential + ground floor retail infill going on, partially in anticipation of this, and more is expected. (Not everyone in the city is happy with this change. For one, it has entailed a loss of light and sky.)
Some developers and architects are arguing that some new high-rises would fit right into this high-density picture, and introduce some variety to a skyline that's growing monotonous with all the infill. They would contain mostly condominiums. Heights being discussed are 15 to 20 storeys. Others fear that high-rises would threaten the tone and human scale of the area. A common phrase heard amongst opponents is that it would become "like Miami Beach," as if that would be a self-evidently dire result.
I imagine a crop of badly designed high-rises could indeed ruin the human scale and harm the pedestrian orientated vibe of the area. Some suggest that avoiding this consequence is as simple as making sure the first couple of storeys create a low-scale street wall, while the high-rise proper is set considerably back.
I want to cram on the literature of this issue, preferably in the form of a variety of perspectives in article or essay length chunks. Especially interested in case studies of failures and successes, in if there are universally acknowledged consequences of high-rise construction on street life, data about how variations in design affect pedestrian patterns and emotional quality of an area and the like.
Defensible space theory
Jane Jacobs, author of many books including The Death and Life of Great American Cities
Le Corbusier
Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York
posted by Unified Theory at 5:03 AM on June 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Jane Jacobs, author of many books including The Death and Life of Great American Cities
Le Corbusier
Rem Koolhaas, Delirious New York
posted by Unified Theory at 5:03 AM on June 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
I personally would look at info on some of the people and their theories behind famously well designed cities. Paris is the first thing that comes to mind. Google tells me the designer's name is Haussman. Haussman wanted to make the streets and sidewalks feel homey and human scaled. He wanted buildings to give the sidewalks a sense of enclosure on a human scale. Savannah Georgia, while not a huge city, is also famously well designed. I have read a bit about the theories behind the street layout, etc. Depending on the size of your city, that might be another example to look for info on.
I spent six months last year in downtown San Diego. I was surprised at the amount of greenery, how pedestrian friendly it was, etc. The Gaslamp District was the main reason why and it also likely dates to about the same era as the design footprint for Paris. So civic design prior to the modern car era is what I would look at. I lived in Germany in my twenties and cities designed and built before cars are scaled different from those designed and built since. They are human scaled and human oriented. I think that is the key.
I will second the writings of Jane Jacobs.
I am glad to hear your city has shops at street level. That makes a really big difference.
posted by Michele in California at 7:20 AM on June 23, 2013
I spent six months last year in downtown San Diego. I was surprised at the amount of greenery, how pedestrian friendly it was, etc. The Gaslamp District was the main reason why and it also likely dates to about the same era as the design footprint for Paris. So civic design prior to the modern car era is what I would look at. I lived in Germany in my twenties and cities designed and built before cars are scaled different from those designed and built since. They are human scaled and human oriented. I think that is the key.
I will second the writings of Jane Jacobs.
I am glad to hear your city has shops at street level. That makes a really big difference.
posted by Michele in California at 7:20 AM on June 23, 2013
Nthing Jane Jacobs for general urban planning.
For a high rise perspective in particular you may want to look at the Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. They are an international not-for-profit set up to encourage the share of information on tall buildings across disciplines and countries (as well as being the arbiters of what is the current 'tallest building in the world' and how high it exactly is!).
They are generally associated with the glamorous super tall buildings around the world but as they say a tall building is defined by being taller than those relative to it. The main issues at their conference in London last week concerned exactly the issues you mention - the right mix of uses, interaction with street level, public transport links etc. There is a conference digest on the Monocle radio show though I haven't got round to listening to it yet so can't vouch for how much detail it goes into!
What you are talking about sounds quite like what from an architectural perspective is often referred to as a "masterplan" for an area, going beyond individual projects and buildings and looking at how they fit together in the long term. If you are looking at the various developers and architects involved I would want to know who has masterplan experience capability as it is not the same as project level (e.g. Terry Farrell are known for this in London).
On a more practical level the now defunct-in-all-but-name Commission for the Built Environment (CABE current / archived) put out a number of publications from 1997 - 2010 trying to raise the standard of the built environment in the UK. Obviously some aspects are particular to the UK but I would hope the principles would be of use and I have always found their guides to be excellent. From a quick trawl of the current publications list and archived original site:
-Large scale urban design - getting the big picture right
-Creating successful masterplans
-Guidance on tall buildings
-Principles of inclusive design
-Helping local people choose good design
A key common thread between CTBUH and CABE is that they aim to spread experience and best practice from successful projects. This is particularly important for large scale re-developments and masterplans, where by definition they only come around at most once in a generation for a particular area and so there is great potential for time to be spent re-inventing the wheel or worse repeating the mistakes already made elsewhere!
In my professional life I am not an architect or a planner, I just work in the construction industry and have a keen interest in these things. Hope your town works out well!
posted by Albondiga at 8:31 AM on June 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
For a high rise perspective in particular you may want to look at the Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. They are an international not-for-profit set up to encourage the share of information on tall buildings across disciplines and countries (as well as being the arbiters of what is the current 'tallest building in the world' and how high it exactly is!).
They are generally associated with the glamorous super tall buildings around the world but as they say a tall building is defined by being taller than those relative to it. The main issues at their conference in London last week concerned exactly the issues you mention - the right mix of uses, interaction with street level, public transport links etc. There is a conference digest on the Monocle radio show though I haven't got round to listening to it yet so can't vouch for how much detail it goes into!
What you are talking about sounds quite like what from an architectural perspective is often referred to as a "masterplan" for an area, going beyond individual projects and buildings and looking at how they fit together in the long term. If you are looking at the various developers and architects involved I would want to know who has masterplan experience capability as it is not the same as project level (e.g. Terry Farrell are known for this in London).
On a more practical level the now defunct-in-all-but-name Commission for the Built Environment (CABE current / archived) put out a number of publications from 1997 - 2010 trying to raise the standard of the built environment in the UK. Obviously some aspects are particular to the UK but I would hope the principles would be of use and I have always found their guides to be excellent. From a quick trawl of the current publications list and archived original site:
-Large scale urban design - getting the big picture right
-Creating successful masterplans
-Guidance on tall buildings
-Principles of inclusive design
-Helping local people choose good design
A key common thread between CTBUH and CABE is that they aim to spread experience and best practice from successful projects. This is particularly important for large scale re-developments and masterplans, where by definition they only come around at most once in a generation for a particular area and so there is great potential for time to be spent re-inventing the wheel or worse repeating the mistakes already made elsewhere!
In my professional life I am not an architect or a planner, I just work in the construction industry and have a keen interest in these things. Hope your town works out well!
posted by Albondiga at 8:31 AM on June 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
You don't mention your location, but my city -- and my neighborhood, in particular -- is facing the same problem. The exact same problem. Down to the impending arrival of light rail and the Miami Beach comparison. I'm also trying to muddle through this so I'm glad to see all these resources.
More specifically, if my city is your city you are probably familiar with LUCE; Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City is not neutral on the issue but they may be able to point you to other resources.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:13 AM on June 23, 2013
More specifically, if my city is your city you are probably familiar with LUCE; Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City is not neutral on the issue but they may be able to point you to other resources.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:13 AM on June 23, 2013
Response by poster: A belated thanks to all for your responses.
The CTBUH looks just great for material on the issue. They post videos of all the presentations at their conferences. I've watched several from previous years and they're very illuminating. Complete with graphics. This year's aren't up yet; hopefully soon -- its focus was indeed right on topic for me.
Richard Florida turns out to be affiliated with Atlantic Cities, which have a wealth of articles on the high-rise question.
From the reading I've done so far I'm familiar with the significance of Corbusier, Koolhaas and Jacobs for the issue; you remind me that to have a solid grasp of the discussion I'll have to read their actual writings, even if right at the moment I'm looking for a quicker fix. Though perhaps I should have a look at some of CIAMs own discourse.
Room 641-A: yup, we live in the same city. SMCLC don't appear to accept the validity of some of the basic strategies of high-density urbanism; or at least not for our town. And they may be right, but the angle I want to explore is to accept at face value the humanistic, pedestrian-oriented, post-automobile and community-fostering aspirations of the LUCE (which does imply higher density downtown) and try to figure out if or how high-rises could fit in. Or more specifically, what types might fit in and what types not.
I'm actually a little under-travelled to be doing serious comparative urbanism, but San Diego isn't far. Maybe worth a short trip. Does anyone have any other suggestions for model areas for the human scale pedestrian scene in or near the L.A. area? There are parts of Pasadena that come to my mind...
If anyone reading has leads on further good & fairly technical discussions of this basic question of how to design high-rises that promote vital and flourishing pedestrian activity and human interaction and gathering zones on the street level, please add a comment!
posted by bertran at 4:17 AM on June 25, 2013
The CTBUH looks just great for material on the issue. They post videos of all the presentations at their conferences. I've watched several from previous years and they're very illuminating. Complete with graphics. This year's aren't up yet; hopefully soon -- its focus was indeed right on topic for me.
Richard Florida turns out to be affiliated with Atlantic Cities, which have a wealth of articles on the high-rise question.
From the reading I've done so far I'm familiar with the significance of Corbusier, Koolhaas and Jacobs for the issue; you remind me that to have a solid grasp of the discussion I'll have to read their actual writings, even if right at the moment I'm looking for a quicker fix. Though perhaps I should have a look at some of CIAMs own discourse.
Room 641-A: yup, we live in the same city. SMCLC don't appear to accept the validity of some of the basic strategies of high-density urbanism; or at least not for our town. And they may be right, but the angle I want to explore is to accept at face value the humanistic, pedestrian-oriented, post-automobile and community-fostering aspirations of the LUCE (which does imply higher density downtown) and try to figure out if or how high-rises could fit in. Or more specifically, what types might fit in and what types not.
I'm actually a little under-travelled to be doing serious comparative urbanism, but San Diego isn't far. Maybe worth a short trip. Does anyone have any other suggestions for model areas for the human scale pedestrian scene in or near the L.A. area? There are parts of Pasadena that come to my mind...
If anyone reading has leads on further good & fairly technical discussions of this basic question of how to design high-rises that promote vital and flourishing pedestrian activity and human interaction and gathering zones on the street level, please add a comment!
posted by bertran at 4:17 AM on June 25, 2013
You need to also learn the history of L.A. and why it is laid out the way it is. i cannot find a title but the short version is that the sprawl of L.A. predates the auto and is rooted in the desert climate. They had to develop large tracts at a time in order for financing of water infrastructure to make sense/be practical and viable. So there was light rail. Try to find out the history of the light rail. If they are bringing back light rail, that may be key to creating a pedestrian-friendly L.A., which sprawled before it was a cult of the car.
Best.
posted by Michele in California at 6:48 AM on June 25, 2013
Best.
posted by Michele in California at 6:48 AM on June 25, 2013
Unfortunately, I am not readily finding resources but please also keep in mind that San Diego is nowhere near as hot as L.A. so some things will not translate. I would look for info on what is known to work in Middle Eastern cities. The Middle East has some well established city patterns that are very much a case study in best practices for creating a walkable, tolerable environment at street level in spite of the heat of the desert. Their cities are typically on plateaus with streets running in certain directions to take advantage of the natural cooling of local winds, etc. These design practices keep temperatures on the city streets bearable and pedestrian-friendly for much of the day.
I can memail you a link to a discussion of (among other things) Iranian cooling tower designs if you care to check that out. Dealing effectively with the heat is a big part of the history of Middle Eastern architecture.
Best of luck. I envy your involvement with this.
posted by Michele in California at 1:33 PM on June 25, 2013
I can memail you a link to a discussion of (among other things) Iranian cooling tower designs if you care to check that out. Dealing effectively with the heat is a big part of the history of Middle Eastern architecture.
Best of luck. I envy your involvement with this.
posted by Michele in California at 1:33 PM on June 25, 2013
So this isn't reading, but I'm very familiar with Santa Monica in general and work in architecture (in Santa Monica) and have some thoughts about this:
- It's ridiculous to lament a loss of light and sky in Southern California - there is MORE than enough of it. High rises provide more shade for the street which is actually a good thing, considering how hot it is in the summer - I spend nearly every weekend on long walks around downtown Santa Monica, and I would love more shade. The medieval Romans did this on purpose... you could call it "green building" if you wanted to. It makes the street much more usable.
- The Miami Beach comparison is totally silly because Miami beach has some of the most vibrant street-life of anywhere I've ever been. It's pretty amazing, actually.
- 15-20 stories isn't so high (for comparison, the tallest towers in Century City are about 45 stories).
- Santa Monica has a huge commuter problem - there's way more jobs in the city than residents. A few high rises with more residential units downtown would go a long way towards reducing the insane congestion of people trying to get to work here. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how affordable they'll be for regular people - I'd focus on that. Downtown Santa Monica apartments seem to be either very expensive or "low income" with byzantine requirements that average Joe doesn't meet. I'm convinced half the existing units downtown are empty because they were required by the low income housing minimums and no-one can meet the requirements to move in. And we certainly don't need more luxury hotels. I would be more concerned about USE than about the fact of a high rise. I would really want these new buildings to be usable for people that already live here, not just for rich out-of-towners.
- I think the city of Santa Monica is aware of and *very* on board with the active street thing... the requirements of high rise set-backs and ground floor commercial are pretty well known and not controversial. These aren't going to be soulless pink granite monoliths like the towers in downtown LA.
- Another thing that strikes me as more of an issue than the fact of the high-rise is the tortured building permit process in Santa Monica. It takes a really long time to get approvals, and it's really expensive. Perhaps they could include a streamlined/express permit program for new tenants in these proposed high rises, the minimize the empty storefront problem?
- I assume you're aware of the proposed Gehry hotel? I don't really know what I think of it, but it could be a cool landmark, and Gehry is nothing if not a Santa Monica architect. It seems somehow appropriate that he have an iconic building here. Unfortunately it is a luxury hotel though...
- Finally, Santa Monica has an Architectural Review board, that every high-rise project would be subject to. There are some really competent architects on that board (look up their firms if you want to see their work). They're not going to let terrible projects through.
posted by annie o at 10:31 AM on June 30, 2013
- It's ridiculous to lament a loss of light and sky in Southern California - there is MORE than enough of it. High rises provide more shade for the street which is actually a good thing, considering how hot it is in the summer - I spend nearly every weekend on long walks around downtown Santa Monica, and I would love more shade. The medieval Romans did this on purpose... you could call it "green building" if you wanted to. It makes the street much more usable.
- The Miami Beach comparison is totally silly because Miami beach has some of the most vibrant street-life of anywhere I've ever been. It's pretty amazing, actually.
- 15-20 stories isn't so high (for comparison, the tallest towers in Century City are about 45 stories).
- Santa Monica has a huge commuter problem - there's way more jobs in the city than residents. A few high rises with more residential units downtown would go a long way towards reducing the insane congestion of people trying to get to work here. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how affordable they'll be for regular people - I'd focus on that. Downtown Santa Monica apartments seem to be either very expensive or "low income" with byzantine requirements that average Joe doesn't meet. I'm convinced half the existing units downtown are empty because they were required by the low income housing minimums and no-one can meet the requirements to move in. And we certainly don't need more luxury hotels. I would be more concerned about USE than about the fact of a high rise. I would really want these new buildings to be usable for people that already live here, not just for rich out-of-towners.
- I think the city of Santa Monica is aware of and *very* on board with the active street thing... the requirements of high rise set-backs and ground floor commercial are pretty well known and not controversial. These aren't going to be soulless pink granite monoliths like the towers in downtown LA.
- Another thing that strikes me as more of an issue than the fact of the high-rise is the tortured building permit process in Santa Monica. It takes a really long time to get approvals, and it's really expensive. Perhaps they could include a streamlined/express permit program for new tenants in these proposed high rises, the minimize the empty storefront problem?
- I assume you're aware of the proposed Gehry hotel? I don't really know what I think of it, but it could be a cool landmark, and Gehry is nothing if not a Santa Monica architect. It seems somehow appropriate that he have an iconic building here. Unfortunately it is a luxury hotel though...
- Finally, Santa Monica has an Architectural Review board, that every high-rise project would be subject to. There are some really competent architects on that board (look up their firms if you want to see their work). They're not going to let terrible projects through.
posted by annie o at 10:31 AM on June 30, 2013
This is a slightly different take on the push for denser development. Transit-Oriented Development and Communities of Color: A Field Report (2011)
While I've seen high-rise apartments coexist and even lead to flourishing street life in Asian megalopolises, the impact of high-rise developments in the U.S. can be quite different. For one, condominiums often have amenities like swimming pools or tennis courts sited behind gates or on top of the parking structure, creating a "vertical gated community" effect in which residents often just drive home and never venture out into the neighborhood.
I'm writing an economic analysis paper for one of my urban planning classes on housing development in Honolulu. If I come across anything useful, I'd add it in here.
posted by spamandkimchi at 1:38 AM on July 5, 2013
While I've seen high-rise apartments coexist and even lead to flourishing street life in Asian megalopolises, the impact of high-rise developments in the U.S. can be quite different. For one, condominiums often have amenities like swimming pools or tennis courts sited behind gates or on top of the parking structure, creating a "vertical gated community" effect in which residents often just drive home and never venture out into the neighborhood.
I'm writing an economic analysis paper for one of my urban planning classes on housing development in Honolulu. If I come across anything useful, I'd add it in here.
posted by spamandkimchi at 1:38 AM on July 5, 2013
Response by poster: @annie o: ask.mefi is not a good place for actual political debate, but I feel I should correct what you say about the Architectural Review Board here, in case anyone who's interested should happen upon this page.
The Santa Monica ARB does indeed have very considerable power over normal buildings which are being built under the zoning ordinance, and over stuff like signage and paint hue. But any high-rises built here would be by way of a development agreement, which is a singular contract between a municipality and a developer that legally bypasses that municipality's zoning ordinance, and is decided upon by the City Council. In Santa Monica in the case of D.A.s the ARB has almost no real power about major design questions. As the City currently has the process set up, the ARB weighs in without any binding discretion very early on, at a project's conceptual stage. And then the next time it comes before them would be at final design review, which is after the terms of the D.A. have been agreed to by the City, and the project thus already approved. (Final ARB review must be negotiated for by the City like any other terms of a D.A., and developers typically seek to minimize its scope or eliminate it.) So, in effect, with D.A.s the ARB here can dictate very minor adjustments to a design scheme. But, as a board, they have absolutely no power to, as you suggest, stop a "terrible project" if it's a D.A. and the City Council is favorable to it.
posted by bertran at 4:59 AM on September 27, 2013
The Santa Monica ARB does indeed have very considerable power over normal buildings which are being built under the zoning ordinance, and over stuff like signage and paint hue. But any high-rises built here would be by way of a development agreement, which is a singular contract between a municipality and a developer that legally bypasses that municipality's zoning ordinance, and is decided upon by the City Council. In Santa Monica in the case of D.A.s the ARB has almost no real power about major design questions. As the City currently has the process set up, the ARB weighs in without any binding discretion very early on, at a project's conceptual stage. And then the next time it comes before them would be at final design review, which is after the terms of the D.A. have been agreed to by the City, and the project thus already approved. (Final ARB review must be negotiated for by the City like any other terms of a D.A., and developers typically seek to minimize its scope or eliminate it.) So, in effect, with D.A.s the ARB here can dictate very minor adjustments to a design scheme. But, as a board, they have absolutely no power to, as you suggest, stop a "terrible project" if it's a D.A. and the City Council is favorable to it.
posted by bertran at 4:59 AM on September 27, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dfriedman at 4:35 AM on June 23, 2013