America, the Bland (New York Times)

[Kngkyle]

As opposed to the diverse architectural mecca that is the American suburb? These arguments make no sense.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by niwell

There are certainly positives to 5 over 1 style buildings, and they’re better from an urban perspective than a lot of previous styles. But I’m surprised there isn’t consensus that they tend to look like shit. Never been a fan of the large footprint which doesn’t lend itself to a particularly pleasant urban experience.

Fire concerns are considerably overstated, but the risk is high during the construction phase. Once everything is sealed up and fire suppression systems are in place it’s no more dangerous than other styles. What I would be concerned about is noise - the style of construction doesn’t really lend itself to sound dampening.

Oddly enough we don’t see many in Canada outside of a suburban context. It’s not really a style common in central cities (I suspect land values and zoning come into play).

My understanding is code differences make them infeasible in Canada. That and stricter zoning regs which make getting sites large enough for them at a cheap enough price to make them work challenging.

Developers have definitely tried to replicate 5 over 1s in Canada but they have had pretty limited success.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

My understanding is code differences make them infeasible in Canada. That and stricter zoning regs which make getting sites large enough for them at a cheap enough price to make them work challenging.

Developers have definitely tried to replicate 5 over 1s in Canada but they have had pretty limited success.

The Ontario Building Code definitely allows them in theory - maybe energy efficiency aspects are hard to meet. I helped work on the 6 storey wood approval and we didn’t really have 5 over 1s in mind. So that plus land assembly costs may explain it.

[kool maudit]

If the same materials and styles were used for buildings that were tall and narrow, it would be fine. Cities need tall and narrow. Seven storeys up, three vertically oriented windows across. Clad it however and put a shop at the bottom. This is all so easy.

[strongbad635]

The sameness isn't why people don't respond well to these buildings, it's the bad placemaking. Most of the problem people have with modern/postmodern architecture in an actual urban environment (as opposed to a rendering or a photo from a distance) is that modernism took the relationship between buildings and places and severed it. The movement decided that a building shouldn't have to create a place, it can just exist as an object sitting in the landscape with no context. When postmodernists came along and wanted to (on rare occasions) repair this relationship, they had difficulty doing so without the fundamentals of good placemaking, which had largely been forgotten or dismissed as oppressive traditional flim-flam.

Buildings create a good place when they mimic the patterns, syntaxes, and language of natural spaces where humans evolved to feel safety and comfort. These tended to be wooded areas and enclosed spaces where early humans could control their environment and defend against attacks from predators (and occasionally other humans). Some of these patterns included:

-Properly enclosed spaces with a defined center and defined edges
-Proportions that demonstrate a base, a middle, and a top, like a tree
-A lack of large blank spaces, which nature tends not to create and which can foster a mental state of stress because people feel exposed
-Materials that reflect a color scheme found in natural settings
-Patterns that express enough depth to give life to a surface, but not so much depth that it feels like a disruption in the spacial definition

Some basic standards that could go a long way toward making these large buildings better placemakers include:

Short setbacks are better than wide setbacks
Larger number of small buildings are better than one huge building
Simpler massing is better than complex massing (it's also cheaper, hello?)
Narrow to the frontage is better than wider to the frontage
2-5 stories is better than more than 6 stories
Vertical proportions feel better than horizontal proportions
Less articulation feels more comfortable than more articulation (also cheaper)
A differentiated ground floor is better than a continuous ground floor
Masked parking is ALWAYS better than visible parking
Materials and shapes that express tectonics are more comfortable than tectonics being ignored
Thicker wall depths are better than paper thin walls (worth spending a bit more on)
Punched windows feel MUCH better than sheet windows or glass walls (and can be cheaper to build)
Natural (or natural-feel) materials are better than composite materials
Fewer materials are better than a complex mix of many materials (and again, that's less expensive)
Bearing materials feel more comfortable than cladding materials (and don't have to cost more)
Clear glass is better than dark or mirrored glass (and cheaper)

These basic standards could go a long way toward creating streetscapes that comfort the human mind instead of inducing low levels of mental stress, as some recent studies have shown they do.

Of the two buildings below, guess which one cost more per-unit to build?

*hint: not the traditional one*

[Busy Bee]

Good post

[Crawford]

Those examples are both pretty horrible. The second is less offensive, though. It just looks like the typical Disney neo-urbanist crap for suburbanites who won't go to cities. The first looks like the developer was actively trying to piss off the neighbors, and asked the architect to design a cartoon.

I don't think the examples cited in the NYT article are bad. They're bland, but appropriate and of their time.

[mhays]

I agree with many of your points Strongbad635, but full-block seven-story buildings can be great urbanism too. Paris does it. I like most of my city's examples.

I actually like most 5+1s, including the faux historic one above and nearly everything in my area. Not that they're perfect. Some of this might be many years of thinking of these buildings as invigorating and urbanizing their neighborhoods. Of course this assumes no visible parking or blank podium, and Dallas Doughnuts get less credit too.

For those who think they'll fall apart....Seattle's been building tons of these since the 80s in particular, as well as other types in decades before that. Many had water intrusion issues due to EIFS and updated building envelope standards (resulting in rainwater literally getting sucked into buildings by negative air pressure, and a lot of facade rebuilds), but I can't think of any that have been demolished.

Are they expensive? All new housing is, especially if the supplier and construction workers make living wages. But in 20 or 30 years, any building will move a little downmarket, even if it's decently maintained. And certainly in 50 years. Today's affordable housing is often just market-rate stuff from the 70s.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Those examples are both pretty horrible. The second is less offensive, though. It just looks like the typical Disney neo-urbanist crap for suburbanites who won't go to cities. The first looks like the developer was actively trying to piss off the neighbors, and asked the architect to design a cartoon.

I don't think the examples cited in the NYT article are bad. They're bland, but appropriate and of their time.

Thou shall not speak ill of Federal Realty. Bethesda is actually very pleasant and this specific development is quite walkable.

The first building looks like our four year old son put some blocks together while distracted by his cartoons.

[llamaorama]

Why are so many buildings about 6 stories these days? I noticed that in most places almost all downtown infill is either 5-6 stories and if it's taller than that it's a tower (and much less common).

[Busy Bee]

^Because most of these buildings are the "5 over 1" construction archetype. The numbers don't represent the floor count, it means Class 1 construction with Class 5 above. The Class 1 base is usually poured concrete and the Class 5 above is wooden stick/plywood framing. The fact that these usually end up maxing out in the 6 or 7 story range is due to the load limitations of the wooden framing among other things including regulatory.

[202_Cyclist]

I just have to say again that building in the photo above is one of the ugliest pieces of vomit I have seen. Someone at last call at a bar could design a better building.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

If the same materials and styles were used for buildings that were tall and narrow, it would be fine. Cities need tall and narrow. Seven storeys up, three vertically oriented windows across. Clad it however and put a shop at the bottom. This is all so easy.

But the economy man!

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^Because most of these buildings are the "5 over 1" construction archetype. The numbers don't represent the floor count, it means Class 1 construction with Class 5 above. The Class 1 base is usually poured concrete and the Class 5 above is wooden stick/plywood framing. The fact that these usually end up maxing out in the 6 or 7 story range is due to the load limitations of the wooden framing among other things including regulatory.

Not exactly. In structural terms a 12-story building could be concrete below and wood for the upper six levels. The real issue is fire code, which limits the highest wood floor to 75', or about 85' to the highest ceiling. (My limited understanding as a non-technical construction guy)

Mass timber (large pieces of various types) has different and evolving rules because it can handle fire better.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by niwell

But the economy man!

Affordability does matter.

And so does the ability to finance a project and not lose money.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by mhays

The point about land use code is true...it's all about land use code. And economics.

I generally like these buildings BTW. But they could be better.

First, development capacity is too limited in Seattle, with both FAR and height limits. We get flat roofs and no upper adornment because any vertical capacity has to be used for rentable spaces.

It would be nice to include smaller buildings, but those cost more per square foot. If you can find 200' of frontage, damn right you'll build one building.

The City requires varied facades, including modulated depths and multiple aesthetic treatments, so that's what we get.

The vast majority have double-loaded corridors, so all but end units get only one side with windows. That results in mostly all one-bedrooms and studios. It would be really bad to reduce capacity by requiring skinnier buildings, and those one-beds make financial sense to build, but perhaps we could upzone or increase incentives to encourage bigger units.

We're already topping out what woodframe can do. Fire code says you can put habitable floors to 75' above the street (the floor literally, which works out to about 85' including the interiors), and we allow six levels of woodframe up to that height, so we're getting a lot of eight-story woodframes with concrete for the bottom levels. Parking is already in low (or zero) ratios and mostly below-grade.

The good news is you can get really high densities with the current way.

That said, the State will likely upzone to fourplexes and maybe sixplexes this year, and Seattle might follow next year if the State doesn't. Plus we'll do other broad upzones next year. So maybe family units in eight-story buildings won't be as crucial.

Most accurate answer. If you look at a map of the zoning code in the city, there are tons of areas where you can do 55-75’ or more. But…..

It would be great to get variances to do some BC type “skinny towers” in certain areas with only 4-6 units per floor.

[BigDipper 80]

Originally Posted by mhays

Affordability does matter.

And so does the ability to finance a project and not lose money.

TBH, I'd take metal paneling over Baltimore's formstone.

EIFS can go die in a ditch, though.

[chris08876]

Here's the Link at Wesmont Station in Wood-Ridge NJ.

Talk about bland. But its a lot of units, which are needed.

[bigstick]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Here's the Link at Wesmont Station in Wood-Ridge NJ.

Talk about bland. But its a lot of units, which are needed.

Damn, that is horrendous.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by BigDipper 80

TBH, I'd take metal paneling over Baltimore's formstone.

EIFS can go die in a ditch, though.

I have a soft spot for formstone. It bests aluminum siding in the mid-century architectural upgrade category. I keep that little opinion in my drawer of secrets.

Amen to styrofoam stucco. It truly is the double knit polyester of architectural finishes.