Bad suburban and urban design

[jbr12]

tamais6, et al-

Alex summed it up rather well.... here's my thoughts and an example.

Value Engineering.... it sucks.

What happens is the Architect or designer designs this sweet building, sometimes without regard to the budget of the project, sells the design to the client, then the contractor comes back and says its x.xx million over budget. At this time, the client is sold on the 'design' or timing is tight or whatever else and instead of redesigning the building, the contractor attempts to 'dumb down' materials, cut out costly features (glass walls) and do whatever they can to get the building into budget. This results in cheap materials and as much repetition as possible.

A major problem is that some contractors put too much leeway into their preliminary construction budget. A great example I can think of is one project, the contractor told us the building was something like 3mil over budget (its all our fault... expensive design elements, blah blah blah) so we dumbed down the building, got it to fit their budget, then when all was said and done, the building was constructed for 3.5mil UNDER budget... meaning we could've had all of those cool features we had in the building and were forced to remove PLUS still been under budget...

[tamias6]

jbr12,

From what you say, it seems that "Value Engineering" is just a political correct term tacked on to a long standing battle between the Architect's vision and the Contractor's Practicality. The Architect wants each and every one of his designs to be outstanding to satisfy his need to artistically express himself and provide his clients a beautiful building. But the Contractor who has not real artistic vision and only concerned about numbers and getting the job done at out the door whittles down the design until one gets suburban blah as usual to make the building easy and cost effective to build.

I can then empathize with the architects as I see this battle fought all the time in graphic design, animation, web design and all avenues of art and design. Only instead of contractors, we artists are having to deal with clients. We want to provide our clients with a killer looking product that makes the client look good while satisfing our artistic visions. But the penny pitching client who has no artistic vision or any understanding of what it takes to make good art and design does not want to fork over the dollars needed to get the good looking product and ends up with mediocrity and status quo like every one else.

Going by that, then yes I would be incline to agree that Value Engineering "Sucks" as you so kindly put it. In my world there is no bigger killer of creativity than a dumb penny pinching client. Apparently in the Architect's world there is no bigger killer of creativity than the contractor with no vision.

[jbr12]

in the Architect's world there is no bigger killer of creativity than the contractor or client with no vision.

[GRDadof3]

When I worked in automotive manufacturing in a previous life, VA/VE (Value Added/Value Engineering) studies were quite the norm. You'd look at each and every part and every assembly and find ways to trim cost out, while still making sure the parts met NTSB safety standards and fit/function. I'm sure it was frustrating for automotive designers to watch their cutting edge designs become the Pontiac Aztecs coming off the assembly line.

I think it's pretty prevalent throughout all industries. I also think that when contractors bid on projects, they either lowball to get the job, or they are hammered down if they make the short list to get in line with what the client's cost estimates are. The contractor just pushes the cost "shavings" down the line to their subs, which most likely includes the architect (?)

[WOT]

jbr12,

From what you say, it seems that "Value Engineering" is just a political correct term tacked on to a long standing battle between the Architect's vision and the Contractor's Practicality. The Architect wants each and every one of his designs to be outstanding to satisfy his need to artistically express himself and provide his clients a beautiful building. But the Contractor who has not real artistic vision and only concerned about numbers and getting the job done at out the door whittles down the design until one gets suburban blah as usual to make the building easy and cost effective to build.

I can then empathize with the architects as I see this battle fought all the time in graphic design, animation, web design and all avenues of art and design. Only instead of contractors, we artists are having to deal with clients. We want to provide our clients with a killer looking product that makes the client look good while satisfing our artistic visions. But the penny pitching client who has no artistic vision or any understanding of what it takes to make good art and design does not want to fork over the dollars needed to get the good looking product and ends up with mediocrity and status quo like every one else.

Going by that, then yes I would be incline to agree that Value Engineering "Sucks" as you so kindly put it. In my world there is no bigger killer of creativity than a dumb penny pinching client. Apparently in the Architect's world there is no bigger killer of creativity than the contractor with no vision.

[jbr12]

There are actually plenty of 'Architects/Designers' that operate without clients... They are called 'Paper Architects' and make a living doing things like competitions or designs for other firms.. Look at Zaha Hadid, many would argue one of the top designers in the world, but she has only had a handful of buildings actually built. This type of Architecture is where the crazy concepts and the creativity is most dominant.

WOT- I think you mis-understood what I was going for and I was definitely not talking down about developers... my point was more to the contractor. The Architect is working under the client's direction, so their design should meet their needs and fit within their program. Its when the contractor gets involved and makes decisions on whats important and whats not important without the proper input from the Architect that makes things frustrating.

[Kayak1]

Typically when I am involved with any "Value Engineering", I develop a shoping list of things that the owner/developer can accept or decline to make the project fit in the budget. If you can cut money by using vinyl siding instead of brick or use some cheaper carpet and the owner chooses the vinyl siding, it was the owner/developer that made that decision not the contractor.

I agree that it should be called "cut and slash" not "value engineering".

[GRDadof3]

On the subject of design, here are a couple of developments put up recently and I wondered what people thought of them.

A) New Family Dollar on Grandville Ave in Roosevelt Park

It seems to have a lot of the principles of good urban design (pushed out to the street, apartments (?) above). But is this another version of "one man's trash is another man's...."

B) New office building as part of the Celadon New Town development on Knapp near Celebration Village

Again, very little setback, parking off to the side and back, soon to be "village" setting.

C) New retail on Fuller near Leonard

Was this the development where someone was complaining about the grass out in front between the sidewalk and street?

[tamias6]

On the subject of design, here are a couple of developments put up recently and I wondered what people thought of them.

A) New Family Dollar on Grandville Ave in Roosevelt Park

It seems to have a lot of the principles of good urban design (pushed out to the street, apartments (?) above). But is this another version of "one man's trash is another man's...."

....

[Grandrapidsne]

On the subject of design, here are a couple of developments put up recently and I wondered what people thought of them.

A) New Family Dollar on Grandville Ave in Roosevelt Park

It seems to have a lot of the principles of good urban design (pushed out to the street, apartments (?) above). But is this another version of "one man's trash is another man's...."

B) New office building as part of the Celadon New Town development on Knapp near Celebration Village

Again, very little setback, parking off to the side and back, soon to be "village" setting.

C) New retail on Fuller near Leonard

The new development at Leonard fuller imho looks just fine for what little space they had to work with they did a good job id say.

[GRDadof3]

If it were not for the adjacent surface lot and that weird arch on the front corner of the building it would be.....ehhh....Sorry! Its not working for me. At least there is a decorative wall screening the surface lot a bit.

[jbr12]

Compare this project with Uptown Village...

[GRDadof3]

Is that really possible?!?! That would be like comparing a Mercedes to a Kia... Uptown Village is very well done from the materials to the design. My only problem is the lack of parking for the residents, but I haven't been around that area in some time, so I'm not sure how thats shaping up. This building is very awkward and appears cheaply constructed. I'm not even sure if I agree about it being a step ahead of Super-Mercrapo... they are on the same level in my opinion

[AlexPKeaton]

As others have said and I agree, the Family Dollar is hideous, but at least it faces the street and is mixed-use. Would you rather have an ugly building that at least respects some urban design principles or a nice-looking strip-mall with a faux-historical looking facade and a huge parking lot in front? I'll take the former.

[jbr12]

The other one I should put on here is the new Subway development at Michigan and Fuller.

[therustymitten]

Yeah, it's like a mixed-use version of Supermercado on Leonard. It's about 60% of the way there, but just doesn't cross the finish the line. And you're right, what IS that sail on the upper corner of the building?

Compare this project with Uptown Village...

[GRDadof3]

I believe the sail is an attempt at screening the roof top units.

[GR8scott]

I think that explains its "function", but it doesn't explain its use.

It's too bad we've gotten to the point where we can only have one or the other: urban design principles with shotty construction materials, or suburban design principles with nicer construction materials (at least using brick).

Just a reminder of the other development by the Martinez family (guessing they are related):

I will admit that the Family Dollar is a slight improvement, but they need to invest in the assistance of an architect, or at least someone with some design skills. It's unfortunate too because Lighthouse Properties' new loft conversion development is just up the street from this (you can actually see it in the background).

[GRDadof3]

While you may not like the appearence of these buildings. These are probably Mexican or some other LA immigrants. This is what a lot of new development looks like there (I have only been to touristy Acapulco and Cozumel). I am also assuming that there are somewhat limited resources. That neighborhood is predominantly Hispanic and many of the building are being made to represent that. Why would they move here and want build a building that looks forign to them? I agree that there are some peiced together buildings with wierd unessesary things like that arch but in another way it gives that area some charater like a "little Mexico"

[GRDadof3]

OK, moving on from Plaza Latina. Here is the GVSU lookalike and O'Charley's on the East Beltline. I actually don't think it's horrible, except for the massive parking lot. And the fact the two look nothing alike yet are almost touching. But far and away a much nicer execution of building materials and finish than Plaza Latina and Supermercado. It's amazing that they think they can rent these retail spaces out so far from the Beltline (you can barely see them from the road).

They're having an open house. Lunch & Learn?

The new Subway and soon to be Biggby's Coffee at Michigan and Fuller:

jbr12, the door is fairly close to Michigan.

[Floyd Z]

I like the new Subway and the other retail further north on Fuller, I only wish they would have added 1-4 floors of condos/offices above them.

[NorthCoast]

I understand the general dislike for the architecture styling of the Family Dollar building but the mere fact that it is up on the street and is topped of with residential units is a huge leap forward. That plaza on Leonard looks really nice too although it lacks anything on top of it. Add another 2 stories and its just about perfect for a suburban setting.

[fotoman311]

I visited Omaha recently. It's the city where I grew up and home of my favorite example of bad suburban design. Well, it's more the result of bad suburban design, bad planning, and no significant public transit. Maybe it belongs in a different thread?

Let me introduce you to "The Monstrosity" as I call it. I've also heard it called the "$100 million mile." Some might call it an off ramp.

Omaha had a congestion problem. So many people now drive WAY out west to their big suburban McMansions and typical suburban home at the beginning and end of their workday that they'd get off the highway at Dodge street, and have to go through a stoplight before the main east-west road in Omaha turns into a limited access highway again. How to solve this problem? Build 6 lanes of elevated highway to connect I-680 with West Dodge "Highway" for $100 million, bypassing the stoplight.

This thing is unfortunately pretty typical of Omaha west of 72nd St (post 1960 or so). I hate it and try to avoid going west of 72nd at all costs whenever I visit (kind of like I try to avoid east 28th St if I can at all avoid it).

[GRDadof3]

I visited Omaha recently. It's the city where I grew up and home of my favorite example of bad suburban design. Well, it's more the result of bad suburban design, bad planning, and no significant public transit. Maybe it belongs in a different thread?

Let me introduce you to "The Monstrosity" as I call it. I've also heard it called the "$100 million mile." Some might call it an off ramp.

Omaha had a congestion problem. So many people now drive WAY out west to their big suburban McMansions and typical suburban home at the beginning and end of their workday that they'd get off the highway at Dodge street, and have to go through a stoplight before the main east-west road in Omaha turns into a limited access highway again. How to solve this problem? Build 6 lanes of elevated highway to connect I-680 with West Dodge "Highway" for $100 million, bypassing the stoplight.

This thing is unfortunately pretty typical of Omaha west of 72nd St (post 1960 or so). I hate it and try to avoid going west of 72nd at all costs whenever I visit (kind of like I try to avoid east 28th St if I can at all avoid it).

[NorthCoast]

No, that's great fotoman! It looks like it would actually be like building an elevated highway over 28th Street, or Alpine (or any number of other major suburban thoroughfares).