Comments on: T is for Transit-Oriented Development

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:48:35 +0000

Hate to break it to you, but the towers in a park did work. Think Co-op City and Stuyvesant Town. Subsidized, poorly built, towers in the park that bulldozed fragile neighboorhoods and all the jobs in them were the real enemy. I don't think poor people could afford to live in a Steven Holl Tower. The retail is in the base of the building and the transit would be a short walk away. It would work, but yes - you would have to sacrifice the well-defined public space of the street. Sipping coffee watching people go by isn't an activity for everyone, strange as it may seem.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:50:30 +0000

I just came across this debate. As an architect, I continue to be amazed by the ability of my profession to keep coming up with new fads ....remember Brutalism? Post-modernism?... Someone wrote that Frank Gehry said that "he doesn't do context". Well, he and a few others started this new fad of formalistic, anti-human places that is sweeping the world. Even in Vietnam, according to today's Times. By the time these projects are built and shown to be inherently dysfunctional, the profession will be onto something else "new", god help us all. Call me sentimental, but just give a nice coffee shop on the corner with a view of a busy street. Steve

By: sonny

sonny — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:12:09 +0000

Interesting comments from all of you...my opinion is that we lost knowledge of how to design people places and fully understand what good urban design is about. Modernist experimentation in last 80 years brought valuable ideas, but generally, we failed to build beautiful cities for people. I blame vastly Academia for brainwashing unsuspected youngsters with their disconnected-from-reality ideologies. There are timeless principles how to make good urban design, no matter if it is expressed in classic, neo-traditional or contemporary design language. The problem is that majority of planners and architects today do not understand fundamental principles of it. Everybody is searching for latest weirdest form to distinct themselves from the rest of the crowd. It's fine to have landmark, iconic archiutecture, but that one represents less than 10% of any city. What about 90% of average stuff happening? Young guys are doing their flashy photoshoped imagery without substance behind it. Steven Holl is one of myriad of "starchitects" supported by fashionable magazines. He brings interesting ideas in architecture, but if you really know his opus, you would notice that most of his urban buildings are "autistic", do not communicate at all with surrounding environment, they are self-indulgent, immersed in their own world of symbols and abstraction and do not contribute to the whole (city).
This project is not an exception - just another ego-trip of the developer and his architect.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:40:12 +0000

It occurs to me that this conversation and critique could be constructively directed at Atlantic Yardâ€™s "concept-drive", "towers-in-the-park" design masquerading as TOD, and that this, now very well developed critique, may actually be one of the most effective ways to counter it at this juncture.

Some of these same critiques are being made, but are getting lost for AY by the same weak defenses. In both cases, despite what the counter arguments seem to be defensive of, we are not focusing criticism on issues with towers, density, creativity, â€œgood designâ€ or new development.

AY has not been sufficiently accused of being towers-in-the-park, because they do appear to meet the street and offer neighborhood oriented space in many of the renderings, but if you look at the footprints and compare it to the Gowanus housing project (as MAS has) they are not very different.

If someone can think of a positive example of towers-in-the-park, what are they?

Whether it is nice to live in, or even nice to look at, is not the issue.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:50:09 +0000

Also, I think that "thinking carefully about context and culture" is exactly what we've been doing in criticizing this development. As far as who is "qualified" to dislike and critique an urban development, this is a obnoxious argument that architects fall back on when they have nothing else to counter with. I'm sure there are plenty of locals, if not most, who will not like this development and feel the way we many of us on the blog do. Claiming some kind of cultural legitimacy for the project based on whatever developer or government official initiated it seems disingenuous to me. I wouldn't be surprised if Holl spent a lot of time in Chelsea working out an elaborate, abstract theory of how these buildings will relate to and reflect Swedish culture (and he's happy to spend three hours trying to explain it), but I'm willing to bet the average Swede is going to see the same towers in the park that we do.

By: Alec Appelbaum

Alec Appelbaum — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:44:24 +0000

I am taking my own advice and listening to you all. I don't think it's fair to condemn this project and I think its looks are inevitably a subjective matter, but I'm grateful for the debate about the difference between architecture and planning. And for the passion you bring to it. That passion, whatever plan it propels, makes cities durable.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:36:40 +0000

Alec, I would argue that we can't "give each honest effort a chance." For a number of reasons. The first one is that we've been doing this for 60 years and it's been an unmitigated disaster for our built environment. Second, it's hard to look at this or others like it as an "honest effort" when architects are so unwilling to learn from past mistakes, in pursuit of other agendas entirely. Mistakes that are now so glaringly evident. The quibbles you have with LoDo are pretty minor issues, window placement and so forth, not fundamental flaws in the design philosophy. Overall, it's a successful urban space that people have responded to enthusiastically. We have precious few of these nowadays. And if it does look like a movie set now (a point I'm not sure I'm willing to concede) it probably won't in 15 years, and it definitely won't in 30.

By: Alec Appelbaum

Alec Appelbaum — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:43:55 +0000

Thanks. I'm advocating thinking carefully about context and culture before we start tossing around terms like "crap" and declaring ourselves more qualified to commission projects than clients who live and govern there.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:35:40 +0000

Sure, Alec, let's give three-legged pants an honest chance.

Even though we can be pretty certain that they will not be functional for human bodies walking around in the world, three-legged pants would be an exciting theoretical leap, a break from the confining strictures of tradition, and an aesthetic breakthrough. Alec: What, specifically, are you advocating?

I've read your article and your entire line of defensive comments (I really don't think anyone is attacking you personally here -- they are challenging your idea that this development looks good), and I genuinely don't understand what you are pushing for here. Can you explain it clearly and concisely?

By: Alec Appelbaum

Alec Appelbaum — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:08:43 +0000

Greg: My bad, and thanks for the chance to clarify. You're right that "troublesome" is a weasely word, and the connection between a canned ped-mall and a true urban fabric is flimsy. But imposing a 19th-Century aesthetic doesn't always equate to delivering a vibrant or varied public realm. Consider the LoDo section of Denver, a grid of converted factories with lofts upstairs and boutiques and bars below. You've got a ballpark at the basin and ample sidewalks, but the buildings squat on corners and fail to provide windows or plazas that would take in the sweeping Rocky Mountain views. It feels like a movie set. This may be an area where the landscape and cultural traditions lend themselves to lower density and longer ramblings- and where progressives should seek fuel-efficient cars or exciting public transit rather than advocating for tight sidewalk grids. Vincent Scully, the architectural historian who influenced 20th Century ideas about urbanism, loved the New England town but equally loved the Anasazi villages. He wouldn't have said their broad boulevards or temples mimicking the nearby mountains were "anti-people," and neither would we. There are as many keys to unlocking public comity as there are forms of public community. All I ask is that we give each honest effort a chance.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:41:37 +0000

No one is advocated for pedestrian-only malls, and to conflate that with classic urbanism is mistaken.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:35:28 +0000

Great discussion. I'll try to applify what has been said by highlighting a point: it often seems that many architects don't understand that the fundamental unit of urban landscapes is the human body. Streetsblog is predicated on this understanding, after all. We experience space in relation to our persons. And if it seems like non-architects are unwilling to experiment with urban forms, I'd agree that is true, but with good reason - the human form is more or less static. We've gotten comfortable in urban environments over the course of thousands of years. The things that worked evolved naturally over a long period of time. When doing urban planning, many architects seem pre-programmed to try to reinvent the wheel perpetually, because they approach their profession as if it was a fine art and not a craft.Jane Jacobs did not "propose a model" so much as she masterfully articulated something that people had long sensed intuitively, despite years of modernists and other "experts" and "professionals" telling them not to trust their own instincts.People are hestitant to try new "models," and with good reason. We've been burned so many times. Especially at this late point in time, the onus is on the architect to explain how this project will overcome what we know are the severe drawbacks of the "tower in the park" model. Variety in the colors and shapes of the buildings is entirely beside the point, as so many posters have pointed out with acuity.I'd like to see an example of where "insisting on traditional gridded cityscapes where they don't organically exist" has been "troublesome."

By: Wren

Wren — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:52:07 +0000

Instant slums

By: serial catowner

serial catowner — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:16:16 +0000

From the concept sketches it appears the commercial street is underground, creating a greensward roofing. Arguably, all roofing should be green in the future.Talking about the streetfront of shopstalls is great, but when you look down on such a street, you see roofs and streets. Not too inspiring.The wide-open spaces of the parkland maybe should be judged in terms of people who use bicycles and walk more than we do. A campus that is simply too large for a pedestrian can be just the right size for a bicyclist.And, of course, there is the possibility that transit will make accessable features such as traditional streets not actually found at the site.

By: Bruno B

Bruno B — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:35:54 +0000

Josh, you're confusing "towers-in-the-park" with just plain towers. Highrises are great, they just need to meet the street. Highrises bordering an official city park usually work as well, because the city has ownership over the management of the park- the rules of behavior are clear. Setting a highrise in an open, green space creates a no man's land. And you're right, there have been a lot of failures designing TOD. The organization I work for, Reconnecting America, has done a lot of research into those failures and has a lot of recommendations for better TOD. I think we're going to see more and better TOD in the years to come.

By: josh

josh — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:31:55 +0000

Fantastic debate. I often think that people dismiss 'towers in the park' because they think of public housing projects instead of luxury apartment buildings in places like Lincoln Park, Chicago.

There are, in fact, people who do enjoy living the high-rise
lifestyle. Judging all 'towers in the park' by examining only the failures is
a bit like judging all 'pedestrian oriented' neighborhoods by studying only
slums. There are places where high-design towers are popular and pleasant to
live in -- one should not dismiss this project because of its type.

In the same vein, simply because a development is transit
oriented doesn't mean it will be beautiful or successful in terms of quality of
life -- many are enormous failures. See Pyongyang: http://www.orientalarchitecture.com/pyongyang/pyongyangstreetsindex.htm

I'm inclined to agree with the comments suspicious of this
project, but not quite so scathingly. Iâ€™m not opposed to the construction of
more â€˜towers in the park,â€™ but the most successful high-rise housing developments
are at the edges of parks, not in their center. Iâ€™m curious to see how the
designs evolve.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:12:35 +0000

I have actually experienced the "context" of this development several weeks ago in Ã˜restad. Unfortunately, the context is essentially an architecture park, where all of the designs not only ignore context, but deliberately avoid creating any context. Granted the master plan for this new section looks a little more cohesive than the above images, the area is still more about the buildings, designs and private interior spaces than the street, public gathering spaces and people. Most of the new buildings going up in Copenhagen , and around the world for that matter, make many of these mistakes. Frank Gehry has been quoted saying "I do not do context", and disappointingly, that is the sentiment guiding most of these self-proclaimed "concept-driven" designers. Coincidentally, they all seem to be the designers with buildings featured in car commercials. To me there is a continuum from "concept-driven" to context driven (or in case of new development "context creating") with "solution-driven" and "context-sensitive" in-between. Most progressive planning is still falling in these middle areas. PPS is currently working all over the world facilitating developers, architects and communities to start with a vision for the public spaces and the community context. There was actually an article in Urban Land Magazine (ULI's mag) this month about our unique approach.

By: Boogiedown

Boogiedown — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:33:18 +0000

Just checked your links to check the context, #43, and yeah: this is better than Brasilia. And it is better than sprawly American suburbia. It still seems, however, sterile and banal and car dominated. Check the "shopping" tag: there is one location for the entire development (ditto the "restaurant/cafe")...and it seems to be a mall. Lovely. So glad I don't have to live like this. You offer this as an alternative to sprawly American suburbia. Why not compare it to another Danish city? Have you ever been to Copenhagen? It is a wonderfull pedestrian-friendly place. Why not design something that is new that compares well to that? Sorry. A discussion of this development does not belong on Streetsblog. No "streets renaissance" here.

By: Anonymous CPH

Anonymous CPH — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:59:58 +0000

Please look into the context of this project before making preconcived assumptions.It's situated in a new development area called Ã˜restad South. The project exsist in between upcoming perimiter blocks, to the north and south (therby stands in contrast to these), and bridges between a town square to the east and vast fields of nature on the west. The project is also to be developed in phases, the images shown is the first phase before the rest is built up. For further reading on the context of this project visit, "http://www.orestad.dk/index/uk_frontpage.htm")(in english), "www.t-husene.dk" and "http://www.orestad.dk/index/privat/nyhedsbrev/orestad_syd_karreplaner.htm" (in danish). Thanks.

By: Alec Appelbaum

Alec Appelbaum — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:11:17 +0000

Thanks to Bruno ...for a nuanced, patient and
whatever-the-opposite-of-ad-hominem-is critique. I'd love to learn about cases where planners and architects unified with clients and neighbors to produce something urban. I think Paris Plage counts, but I'd love to learn more about conditions that make such harmony elusive. Does anybody want to stop the sniping and discuss a model development? Thanks, guys.