Bad suburban and urban design

[GRDadof3]

quote name='FilmMaker' date='Dec 19 2007, 11:03 AM' post='907582']

Some of the conflict in land use (and perhaps in this thread) comes from one formula or another being misapplied. We have urbanists arguing for the core as the only true answer - and we have others who are all too willing to compromise sustainability for the sake of "neo" convenience. I think the answer (and perhaps the only truly achievable short term?)

In other threads, we've celebrated the features and success of some of our outlying villages: Rockford, Ada, Lowell, etc. The real problem is that too many retail developers are trying to fill in all the spaces in between these villages and the urban core. If we can promote the self-contained health of these outlying villages as we focus the core on what makes it thrive - and simultaneously pursue sustainable transit solutions to connect these villages to the core - - then we have something meaningful for all of us to get behind.

I agree 100%.

How does the office building on the beltline fit into this scenario? Even with a better design or preserved trees?

I believe conceptually this is what you are talking about...courtesy of DPZ:

[

[Mark Miller]

One last thing on this...I promise

Below is an image of a "new rural" home in Canada from the recent issue of Dwell Magazine. I doubt that anyone on this thread would contest that this is not rural. Interestingly enough, they did not put a berm to hide it from the road, to give the feel of no development, or softened development. The front yard setback is not 35' to give it a more rural feel - it is sitting right there on the road. And yet it is pleasant and it is no doubt rural. Additionally the house is not trying to mimic something old, with new materials. No synthetic columns or double height entries. No lick and stick field stone, not even mutiple roof types all merged together. It even appears to have a garage, yet amazingly it is not the dominant feature of the mass.

There is nothing really exceptional here. That is what is really exceptional. And that is the point. The designer reserved himself and paid attention to the context in which he was desiging. Also note that this house does not appear to be an overtly expensive home. I think it is a great example of what can be done

These are context images of the surroundings...

[d8alterego]

My bigger concern is that all this effort on making more fuel efficient cars is wasted because in the future cars won't be practical for most no matter how efficient they are. Hybrid cars and the like are just a vain attempt to keep extend the life of suburbia.

[tamias6]

One thing I'd like to throw in is how people that live in the 'burbs feel the need for shopping and other amenities to come to them but not in their backyard. For example, let's say a new suburb pops up somewhere between Plainfield and Rockford. New sub divisions full of McMansions are built and inhabited by the droves. The area explodes. Being that developers of retail spaces and big box stores are constantly sniffing for new markets to tap into, one of them proposes a shopping center that will satisfy the new suburb's need for convenient shopping. Yet residents scream that the new shopping center will cause traffic problems, bring crime, lower property values, and destroy the environment. They tell the developer of the new shopping center to take a hike. So, residents of the new suburb want nearby shopping but they don't want it because its too close. Sounds like a catch 22. Doesn't it?

[Eridony]

One thing I'd like to throw in is how people that live in the 'burbs feel the need for shopping and other amenities to come to them but not in their backyard. For example, let's say a new suburb pops up somewhere between Plainfield and Rockford. New sub divisions full of McMansions are built and inhabited by the droves. The area explodes. Being that developers of retail spaces and big box stores are constantly sniffing for new markets to tap into, one of them proposes a shopping center that will satisfy the new suburb's need for convenient shopping. Yet residents scream that the new shopping center will cause traffic problems, bring crime, lower property values, and destroy the environment. They tell the developer of the new shopping center to take a hike. So, residents of the new suburb want nearby shopping but they don't want it because its too close. Sounds like a catch 22. Doesn't it?

[FilmMaker]

How does the office building on the beltline fit into this scenario? Even with a better design or preserved trees?

I believe conceptually this is what you are talking about...courtesy of DPZ:

[

[FilmMaker]

One thing I'd like to throw in is how people that live in the 'burbs feel the need for shopping and other amenities to come to them but not in their backyard. For example, let's say a new suburb pops up somewhere between Plainfield and Rockford. New sub divisions full of McMansions are built and inhabited by the droves. The area explodes. Being that developers of retail spaces and big box stores are constantly sniffing for new markets to tap into, one of them proposes a shopping center that will satisfy the new suburb's need for convenient shopping. Yet residents scream that the new shopping center will cause traffic problems, bring crime, lower property values, and destroy the environment. They tell the developer of the new shopping center to take a hike. So, residents of the new suburb want nearby shopping but they don't want it because its too close. Sounds like a catch 22. Doesn't it?

[tamias6]

But alas: economics, the housing crisis and a dwindling population make the advent of a whole new suburb very unlikely for several years to come. Furthermore, I can assure you that the township's master plan and ordinances strongly discourage new suburbs north of the Grand River.

[jas49503]

So where in the city of Grand Rapids or Sparta or Hudsonville would you suggest 500,000 square feet of office space could be built? Or 500,000 square feet of industrial space? I'm not disagreeing with you in principle, but the economics of suburban areas (cheaper land, cheaper taxes, more population growth) create a situation where you'd be hoisted off the Board of Directors for suggesting building in a city or village boundaries. That's why buildings are being built on the Beltline: exposure, low costs, population growth, prestige, available land, etc..

So how does this change?

[NorthCoast]

Also if people are choosing these suburban developments with care and great attention to detail with careful consideration to thier needs and how they intergrate with the community then you have your answer about why there is so much bad subruban design. It is what people want and it's as simple as that. Of course you could still make the argument that people don't what they really want and are just a bunch of mindless sheep seduced by some developer's razzle dazzle

[GRDadof3]

if you need office space why not try and use some of the existing office space. while I don't know the exact numbers, I doubt either downtown, or suburban office occupancy rates approach 100%. along the same lines, there is plenty of room for population growth within the city. Grand Rapids, and it's immediate neighbors are not densely populated by any means. there are plenty of opportunities for infill development or at the very least occupying currently vacant properties rather than building some suburban building.

Also if people are choosing these suburban developments with care and great attention to detail with careful consideration to thier needs and how they intergrate with the community then you have your answer about why there is so much bad subruban design. It is what people want and it's as simple as that. Of course you could still make the argument that people don't what they really want and are just a bunch of mindless sheep seduced by some developer's razzle dazzle

[tamias6]

^In the case of Grand Rapids, it is possible to fix the school system and lower crime while lowering city taxes if we had enough determination to to make those things happen. But we can't fix tight lots unless we want to demo the entire core and turn it into a suburb. So we need to not only work on the school system and lowering crime. We need to work on a mass transit system rivaling the pre WWII network of streetcars that once ran through the city for folks to get around without driving a car. To deal with small lots, we need more city parks as a trade off of the swing set in the back yard. We also need to attract retail back into the core and within walking distance of any given urban home and include entertainment and social amenities that will entice people to spend most of their waking hours out of their homes. This way, people won't have the need for a huge McMansion as the city will effectively become there home.

[joeDowntown]

One problem with this thought Tamias is that when you have kids, you have more work to do, so going to the park isn't as easy (which makes places for the kids to play / get out of your hair even more important). It's a viscious circle and that is what makes the suburbs easier for parents. It seems like the first step should be luring College Students, Single Professionals, Dinks and Empty nesters. Make the city interesting for them and then worry about the families in the burbs. Otherwise, I think it is an BIG uphill struggle.

Joe

^In the case of Grand Rapids, it is possible to fix the school system and lower crime while lowering city taxes if we had enough determination to to make those things happen. But we can't fix tight lots unless we want to demo the entire core and turn it into a suburb. So we need to not only work on the school system and lowering crime. We need to work on a mass transit system rivaling the pre WWII network of streetcars that once ran through the city for folks to get around without driving a car. To deal with small lots, we need more city parks as a trade off of the swing set in the back yard. We also need to attract retail back into the core and within walking distance of any given urban home and include entertainment and social amenities that will entice people to spend most of their waking hours out of their homes. This way, people won't have the need for a huge McMansion as the city will effectively become there home.

[tnd_landscape_architect]

Get rid of Euclidian zoning and encourage planning jurisdictions to consider the Form Based Code principles:

http://www.formbasedcodes.org/

http://www.smartcodecentral.com/

[Veloise]

Get rid of Euclidian zoning and encourage planning jurisdictions to consider the Form Based Code principles:

http://www.formbasedcodes.org/

http://www.smartcodecentral.com/

[tnd_landscape_architect]

Thats great for city of GR (but probably still not Form Based)...only 3 primary development patterns? for all of GR?....can you say "Seaside"...more important that outlying townships consider it as well....as a way to manage form of development...its an untested science away from town cores but may be a way to infuse environmental and landscape managment issues into the social development fabric. Since one of the major rubs in this thread really are social, enviromental, and form based...

[joeDowntown]

TND,

Can you explain form-based as opposed to what GR is proposing? We do have some interaction between the City of Grand Rapids and townships along the East Beltline, but it doesn't seem like they are consistent with zoning (though they do seem to be tougher along the Beltline than what we normally see).

Speaking of the East Beltline, has anyone noticed the "wing of GVSU downtown" that they plopped in back of O'Charleys? I'm surprised someone hasn't taken a picture and tried to play a cruel practical joke ("Suburban O'Charley's chain makes moves on GVSU").

Joe

Thats great for city of GR (but probably still not Form Based)...only 3 primary development patterns? for all of GR?....can you say "Seaside"...more important that outlying townships consider it as well....as a way to manage form of development...its an untested science away from town cores but may be a way to infuse environmental and landscape managment issues into the social development fabric. Since one of the major rubs in this thread really are social, enviromental, and form based...

[Veloise]

TND, I see where you are from Raleigh NC, and you're closing in on your first ten posts. What's your interest in GR?

(Inquiring minds want to know!)

[GRDadof3]

TND, I see where you are from Raleigh NC, and you're closing in on your first ten posts. What's your interest in GR?

(Inquiring minds want to know!)

[joeDowntown]

I think whoever built this building must have taken a picture of the pew campus and said "we want that!". Anyone know if Design Plus was the architect? I think the O'Charleys is icing on the cake. It really does look the Pew Campus with an O'Charley's slapped on the property.

Joe, as a matter of fact, I posted a picture of the building earlier in this thread (but without the O'Charley's). I'll try to get a better picture of the two buildings "interacting".

[joeDowntown]

There is a new building in Ada (Norman Dentistry is the main tenant) that I think fits really well with the village feel. To far from the road IMHO but they did a good job with materials, and I love the colors. I'll try to get some pics. Also in Ada, has anyone seen Dan Carlson's sign shop (on Pettis). They did an excellent job renovating this building.

Other than that, the building lately have been gawd awful. I don't think NorthPointe Bank is too bad (though they should be downtown), but the building between it and the old Westdale Realty building is horrid. A shining example of suburban design would be nice right about now.

Joe

Anyone have any other examples of atrocious suburban design? Maybe it'd be easier to list well-designed recently built suburban buildings.

[fiest from the window]

its called "value engineering" and allot of firms use it to stay afloat. unfortunately its catching on. some firms don't want to take the time to design something different because that = less money in their pockets (do to more techinical drawings and time spend on cd's).

the move from spending time designing/detailing is loss to trying to hurry up and get it out the door to make more money and the client and urban environment is the biggest looser. i have worked a few local firms in my day that have fallen into this trap, then they cant get back out, because they become know as crap designers and have nothing to show clients looking for something different.

on the flip side developers are not willing to pay for all the fancy roof's and glass walls so design suffers.

its cheap serving the cheap. notice that all of the major new construction is designed by outside firms (excluding bridgewater 2 /it was pretty much designed back when the orginal building was built)? go figure-

thats why i went out on my own-

[tnd_landscape_architect]

The funny thing about 'Value Engineering' is that it is neither.

[tamias6]

The concept of "Value Engineering" is a little new to me. So would I be correct in defining Value engineering as one or more of the following?

1 A Prefabricated Structure such as the new Plainfield Meijer store

2 A Manufactured or Modular Home

More specifically...

3 Designing a building via a CAD program by cutting and pasting items from a library of pre-designed elements such as roof trusses, stairs, doors, etc.

If so, then I can easily compare it to how allot of TV shows are made in that post production often uses stock video, music, sound effects, graphics, etc to save time and money.

[AlexPKeaton]

The impression of "value engineering" that I get is that it's like the "make it fit" feature in a word processor. The engineers and architects designed a building, but then budget realities kick in and they have to start chopping stuff until it fits.