HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 5:55 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 52,200
From McMansion to McMain Street

From McMansion to McMain Street


MAR. 12, 2019

By MICHAEL HUSTON

Read More: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/201...et-main-street

Quote:
Drive through any middle-class suburban neighborhood built in the last 25 years and you will encounter the “McMansion,” the aspirational mega-house with its overly complex roof form, dumbed-down architectural details and grandiose double-height foyer. The term McMansion is embedded in the American cultural landscape and the target of frequent derision by planners and urban designers. But there is another building type that has proliferated in more urban sites, which in many ways reflects the same questionable goal attempting to create complexity at the architectural scale in absence of complexity or context at the urban scale. We can call this building/development type, the “McMain Street.”

- Like the McMansion that attempts to mimic the complex roof massing of an entire French village in a single building, the McMain Street attempts to mimic the fine-grained, vertically proportioned facades of the traditional American Main Streetall in a single building. And, more often than not, like the McMansion, the end result appears contrived and inauthentic. The facades lack the variety in design and detail that occurs naturally over time when multiple architects and builders develop a streetscape, one building at a time. With the McMain Street, we are left with a cartoon version of the traditional Main Street. — The phenomenon of the McMain Street is not limited to traditional architecture alone. Many modern buildings, especially multi-family buildings, go out of their way to add artificial complexity to the façade by pushing and pulling planes (in all directions), and arbitrarily changing materials. No doubt that we urban planners (who write design codes) have brought some of this on ourselves with our well-intentioned goal of maintaining the fine-grained character of the traditional street, but in most cases, architects are not up to the task or are pushed too far. It would be better to focus design and construction budgets on better quality detailing and less on the number of façade modules that can incorporated into one blockface.

- McMain Street buildings pose other problems with cost and constructability. The projecting and receding planes, and multiple changes in materials needlessly add to the construction cost. Further, they compromise the integrity of the building envelope by both increasing the number of joints between facade materials and by overly complicating the roof flashing details which are prone to leaks. — This is not to say that there aren’t times when it is desirable to create the illusion of multiple buildings within a single structure. Many new mixed-use developments today are populated with buildings that occupy the entire block, or even multiple blocks. Therefore, some variation in the façade treatments may be desired. When I asked Andres Duany about his approach, he replied that the most important design tool for breaking up a long façade is to alter the height of the roof eave or parapet instead of projecting in and out with the vertical wall plane. — Now, if you really want to create a more fine-grained blockface, plat the lots in smaller increments. This will allow small businesses and developers to buy and develop smaller buildings, while other lots may be re-consolidated for hotels, banks and office buildings.

- Much of Manhattan was developed on 20- 25-foot wide lots[1], many of which were joined together in successional development as the city grew. But the fine-grained complexity is still evident in many New York streets. The primary obstacle to creating smaller urban lots is the accommodation of parking. This is yet another reason that the parking supply should be de-coupled from the building/lot use and treated as part of the shared infrastructure (if provided at all). — In some cases, where it may not be feasible to plat small lots, buildings can be successfully designed as single compositions. New York, Paris, and London are full of handsome buildings that extend the full length of the block. Often, it is the storefronts at the sidewalk level that provide the variety and visual interest while the elevation above is more static and composed. So, don’t let your Main Street or any street turn in to a cartoon version of Main Street! Planners and designers that want to preserve or create the character of the traditional Main Street should be more attentive as to the way this goal is achieved.

Consider these tips:

• Whenever possible, develop with smaller lot increments (consider de-coupling parking to assist in this).

• If small increments are not possible, show restraint in the number of breaks and the way they are articulated (more up and down, and less in and out).

• Let hotels, banks, and other larger building types be expressed as single buildings with thoughtfully composed facades that more honestly reflect the true nature of the building type.

• Keep in mind that facade designs that are viewed only in 2-dimensional elevation form can be deceptively complex when viewed in 3-dimensions from the angle of the street and sidewalk.

.....



A McMain Street example, left, compares to a real Main Street.






Example of a McMain Street, at left: A hotel in Seattle attempts to mimic the small-scale module of the traditional Main Street. The hotel at right, of similar scale to the one in Seattle, makes no attempt to disguise itself as anything other than a hotel. Photos by Michael Huston.






A more contemporary version of a McMain Street in the form of a multi-family building. Here the large building is “disguised” as a mash of about five different buildings. Yet no one would mistake this building for a true Main Street that evolved over time. Photo by Michael Huston.






In this example of a McMain Street, at left, nearly every room is treated as a separate building! Photo courtesty of Jay Narayana, Livable Plans & Codes. The Storrs Center, in Mansfield CT, at right, developed by LeylandAlliance, does a better job of creating the illusion of multiple buildings. The design shows restraint in the number of façade divisions. Source: LeylandAlliance, courtesy of CNU.






At left, a streetscape in lower Manhatten which exemplifies a variety of lot and building sizes. In a complex and vibrant urban environment there is no need for artificial complexity. In a more recent example, right, the Main Street at Rosemary Beach, by DPZ CoDesign, works because the lot lines were platted in small increments and developed by different owners. Such character would have been virtually impossible to create by the hand of one architect. Photos by Michael Huston.






3D diagram of a 300ft McMain Street block face, at left. The facade uses “innies and outies” to create complexity – too much complexity in this author’s opinion. Architects and city planners should keep in mind that urban buildings are typically viewed at an acute angle which foreshortens the façade and amplifies the vertical lines and complexity. 3D diagram of a 300ft block face where the vertical divisions of the façade are simplified, at right. The height of the top story is varied using mezzanines (which typically do not count as an additional floor), terraces, stepbacks and changes to the cornice height. The height of the storefront cornice can also be manipulated to subtly emphasize the building divisions. This approach seems more convincing. Images by Michael Huston.

__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 6:04 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
This is an interesting read. I agree with the recommendations, especially on the topic of smaller lots. Smaller lots forces architects to be more creative in their use of space. DC comes to mind, a city developing right.

That’s contrasted by some of the newer developments in Atlanta, fully meets the McMain Street critique to a tee.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 8:02 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
I don’t think it’s fair to compare this McMain street thing with the horrible exurban McMansion.

To me it’s just an ordinary multiuse apartment buildings, which are a nice thing for cities.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 8:12 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
I don’t think it’s fair to compare this McMain street thing with the horrible exurban McMansion.

To me it’s just an ordinary multiuse apartment buildings, which are a nice thing for cities.
Agreed. See no problem with these.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 8:47 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
These fake facades can be done tastefully. It's not so much a problem with the concept but with the execution...
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 10:46 PM
Double L's Avatar
Double L Double L is offline
Houston:Considered Good
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,846
It looks like “McMain street” is just another word for “modern urban development”. If people like living there, what is wrong with that? And smaller lots mean smaller housing or smaller business units. Not a good thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 11:09 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
It's a relatively minor issue to discuss, but I think they make some valid observations.

Some examples from the Toronto area.

I suppose this would be an example of a "fake Main Street" from the suburb of Markham. When the yellow brick they use on each "building" is the same kind of yellow brick, and the red brick is the same kind of red brick, and the kaki green pain is the same kaki green paint, it doesn't take too much observation to recognize that this was all built by one developer. It still looks pretty nice though.


However, this building in Port Credit looks just as nice imo and it doesn't even bother pretending to be multiple buildings. There's still different paint colours (and other small differences) used to distinguish between the different units, but they still form a cohesive whole.


This building in a 1940s-1950s vintage neighbourhood in Oakville looks fine too. The bones of the building are a minimalist mid-century modern design with zero variation from one end of the building to the other, however, the individual business owners were still given considerable leeway in customizing their storefronts which makes all the difference.


For taller buildings, the individual customizations of storefronts by business owners is more likely to be overpowered by the rest of the floors. In 2-3 storey buildings the ground floor is 33%-50% of the building frontage, but on midrises and highrises it's 20% or less.

I think in those cases, you can just have architectural details that break up the mass of the building while still forming a cohesive whole. In this building from downtown Toronto, there's a recessed section of the building that divides the building into a right and left portion. Normally this would be a good place for a residential/office/hotel entrance, or maybe a restaurant/cafe patio. The building is further broken up horizontally by the alternating brick and window wall.


I think this building does a pretty good job at breaking up the massing too.


Or even this one, just by alternating between regular walls and balconies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 11:39 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double L View Post
It looks like “McMain street” is just another word for “modern urban development”. If people like living there, what is wrong with that? And smaller lots mean smaller housing or smaller business units. Not a good thing.
Why is that a bad thing? Residential units aren't going to require lots wider than 30ft, even if they're very large units. The typical retail business can fit into a 30 ft lot too, with some bigger ones requiring a second floor of maybe a wider lot around 50ft. You can have truly large lots for the few businesses that require them like supermarkets and department stores but that's only a small percentage of businesses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 11:42 PM
Double L's Avatar
Double L Double L is offline
Houston:Considered Good
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,846
Well for example the pictures you showed seemed to be good sized lots and those were considered “mcmain street”. If you can manage to do a good sized lot it can work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2021, 11:51 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
It’s still terrible architecture.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 12:02 AM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
It’s still terrible architecture.
Some of the old main streets are pretty bad. Far worse than some of these 'mc main' examples. They're just old. Cities like New York and London are full of awful pre-war store fronts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 12:28 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Some of the old main streets are pretty bad. Far worse than some of these 'mc main' examples. They're just old. Cities like New York and London are full of awful pre-war store fronts.
Sure, although “pre-war” (which war?) isn’t old over here.

My dividing line is actually between early and later Victorian. The former is much like Georgian architecture, perhaps with a bit more embellishment but similar quality of construction. The latter was a product of the Industrial Revolution and mass production to create housing for an exploding population, and is often much lower quality both in terms of design and construction.

There’s actually a much-needed debate starting over here about how much of that stuff from the end of the 19th century should really be saved. Do we really need literally hundreds of thousands of tiny, cramped rowhouses with thin walls that were originally built for low-income factory workers to be preserved? Or should many of them be Hausmann’d and replaced with much higher density 6-8 story apartment buildings in more central areas?
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 12:34 AM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,049
I guess it depends on where the McMain street is built - if it weaves into an already dense city fabric, I don't think it is too bad. But when a sprawling suburb or exurb decides to build a 'town square' with one or two blocks of McMain, it's tacky.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 3:45 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
I guess it depends on where the McMain street is built - if it weaves into an already dense city fabric, I don't think it is too bad. But when a sprawling suburb or exurb decides to build a 'town square' with one or two blocks of McMain, it's tacky.
So you think stuff like this is tacky?

Mt Pleasant, Brampton
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.67561...7i16384!8i8192

Fairport, Ajax
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.81512...7i16384!8i8192

North Oakville
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.47161...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 4:07 AM
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
Innsertnamehere Innsertnamehere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 11,527

Last edited by Innsertnamehere; Jan 17, 2021 at 4:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 4:11 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double L View Post
Well for example the pictures you showed seemed to be good sized lots and those were considered “mcmain street”. If you can manage to do a good sized lot it can work.
I think they were an example of how larger buildings can still look pretty good. Although the first three still had small retail units on the ground floor.

I still think that small lots are still preferable from an aesthetic perspective.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@32.81274...7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.ca/maps/@30.27893...7i13312!8i6656
Although you still need good architecture, built form and relatively flexible zoning as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 5:46 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCReid View Post
I guess it depends on where the McMain street is built - if it weaves into an already dense city fabric, I don't think it is too bad. But when a sprawling suburb or exurb decides to build a 'town square' with one or two blocks of McMain, it's tacky.
yeah that's a good way of thinking about it. case in point: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0351...7i16384!8i8192
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 6:46 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
My thoughts on each:

Inspire Boulevard, Brampton:
The buildings are kinda basic looking but my main issue is with the street/public realm design.
1) There's a center lane that serves no purpose than to make the street wider? They should at least turn it into a landscaped median or something because it really does feel too wide imo.
2) Why are the benches facing the on-street parking? People like to sit on benches to people watch, not to stare at a Nissan Pathfinder's right side rear passenger door. They should face down the length of the street imo, or if they face across the street they should at leas be on the building side of the sidewalk. This is also because people don't like turning their back to people For some reason landscape architects really struggle to understand this? I have the same issue with some of the benches along a path at the University of Waterloo. Like imagine if you are about to enter an elevator and there's a guy facing the rear wall of the elevator with his back to the door and his face a mere foot from the elevator's rear wall. You'd think he has Antisocial Personality Disorder and wait for the next elevator to arrive... Because it goes against human nature to turn your back to people like this. This the UW example that also has this issue:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4676...7i13312!8i6656
When I visited this spot the wild flowers had grown significantly larger, making it look considerably weirder, since your view across the flower bed to the other path was now obstructed by plants. I'm sure the person who designed this was well intentioned and trying to encourage people to sit and admire the plants, but they can still do that while looking across the path.
Ex this park in Prague: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0820...7i13312!8i6656
The orientation of the benches in Mt Pleasant and Downtown Brampton make much more sense so at least someone in Brampton is competent at this...
3) Okay the on-street parking and bike lane situation is kinda weird... It looks like the demand for on-street parking was higher than anticipated so people starting angled parking onto the sidewalk instead of parallel parking? I see one angled parked minivan overhanging into the bike lane, nice... Now when you're angle parked like that, you're going to have a hard time seeing a bicycle coming towards you when you back out, so cyclists would be likely to have to swerve to avoid the backing out car and potentially get hit by a car preparing to overtake them on their left. This is especially problematic since the bike line is at the side of the road which means they'll be harder to see for drivers backing out than the car traffic that will be closer to the middle of the road, since they'll be more blocked from view by the adjacent parked cars. The roadway is quite wide, so if they need angled parking, I think they can do it properly by taking away that useless median. Then either have a sharrow for bikes or have a narrow bike lane next to the sidewalk or a wide multi-use path instead of the sidewalk.

Preserve Dr., Oakville:
Yeah this is pretty good. I passed through here on a bike ride in November. The path going along the stormwater retention ponds is really nice and has the potential to become an excellent community amenity. Hopefully they can grow the trees along Dundas Road to block the sight and noise of it better. The sections of that path that are like a pedestrian street are really nice too.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4724...7i16384!8i8192
Hopefully they'll extend the path West of George Savage Ave and East of Preserve Dr. (although it kind of looks like they won't?)

Bur Oak Dr., Markham:
The architecture looks kinda cheap and overall looks very residential for what was intended to be a commercial street. I think the setback from the sidewalk is too much too, and the untrimmed shrubs and weeds growing in there add to the vibe of this being a failed commercial street... Looks like about half of the retail units have been converted to residential. Is the road really expected to get so much traffic to justify being 4 lanes wide?

Cathedral High St., Markham:
Hopefully the business owners that are committed to staying here invest in customizing their store fronts over time so that they stand out more. I have to say, it is a pretty big challenge to attract people to pedestrian oriented streets like this in suburbs where you have to compete against strip malls. There's probably less room for error when it comes to place making, architecture, etc than in denser urban neighbourhoods where these kinds of shops have a more captive customer base. It seems like there's fewer vacancies here than on Bur Oak though even though I see no pedestrians. The parked cars are a positive sign (Bur Oak had a lot of unused on-street parking). Hopefully it will help when the neighbourhood is more fully built out. Some of the storefront elements are a bit too residential here too though imo. Like why aren't the store doors fully glass? That's how it usually it with commercial units, whether its in a strip mall or on main street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 7:01 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
yeah that's a good way of thinking about it. case in point: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0351...7i16384!8i8192
Two blocks of development surrounded by highways on 3 sides and a creek on the other side (with car dealerships and an industrial park across the creek). Yeah, I agree it feels pretty contrived.

The examples I posted are a better approach imo, since they're actually integrated into the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Don Mills in Toronto is a bit like that Milwaukee example but better integrated with the surroundings imo. The surrounding arterials are still much less highway-like and most of the arterials will eventually have condos along them. The overall residential component should be quite large too, not just a few hundred units, but several thousands. The public realm is already pretty well used, not sure how that compares to the suburban Milwaukee development.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7345...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2021, 7:04 AM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,036
Here is a South Florida example (Doral). All built at once by a single developer (actually a redevelopment of a former golf course). Its the Miami area so of course some highrise condos get thrown in, even in the burbs:
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8197...7i16384!8i8192
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.