Research & Methodology

     Architectural Precedents   rev. 04.22.2001

r.2.1

Bibliography

Precedents

Site

Programme

It is difficult to study contemporary suburbia without coming across the work of the New Urbanists. At the heart of their arguments is the belief that the answer to the ills of suburbia lies in the planning principles of the traditional American small town. With many architects weary of the neotraditional styling of most New Urbanism much of this discourse has occurred in the field of urban planning.

Through his writing and his practice Peter Calthorpe has been one of the strongest proponents of New Urbanism. The images below from his book The Next American Metropolis exemplify the clarity with which he advocates New Urbanist principles at various scales. In this first image he suggests four layouts that could reduce the impact of the garage.

Relying on the precedent of the traditional American town Calthorpe proposes recessing the garage at least behind the front entrance, and at best to the rear of the site accessed by an alley. The place of the garage is critical in suburban design as it seems to set the tone for a general approach to the place of the automobile in the neighbourhood. It is particularly challenging in our climate where one must take snow removal into consideration. The scheme with a long driveway for example would prove to be unfeasible in Montreal, not to mention the percentage of the site that is paved over. In suburban Montreal the temporary car shelter (Tempo) is common even in homes with small driveways. Residents clearly express a desire to protect their cars, and a dislike of shoveling. Alleys are also questionable both for snow removal, and because they seem to try to diminish the impact of the automobile by effectively adding more streets.

In the following image Calthorpe presents his scheme for a transit-oriented community. It demonstrates the range of scales that Architects must consider when dealing with suburbia. It is also remarkably pertinent to the site chosen for this project.

Calthorpe has also worked extensively with the renewal of existing suburban sites. The example below is interesting with regards to this thesis. Calthorpe creates neighbourhood streets by filling an existing shopping mall parking lot with a mix of commercial and residential uses. Vegetation is used extensively to add character and human scale to the streets and multi-level parking is implemented to suit the parking needs.

It is impossible to speak of New Urbanism without citing the village of Seaside. This new small town embodies all the planning as well as architectural elements of the New Urbanist doctrine. It is often considered the seminal work of New Urbanism. Although Seaside is essentially a high income resort community it nonetheless demonstrates the beauty and feasibility of the concept put forth by its creators, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Andres Duaney. The images below convey the charm and beauty of the village.

The plan of Seaside closely resembles the plan proposed by Calthorpe, although it is clearly not a transit-oriented community.

A key aspect of the plan is the hierarchy of roads that define the different uses of the village and add the variety that is required in a New Urbanist plan.

One of the most important aspects of Seaside is its stringent architectural codes and regulations. The codes are crucial to insure that the intentions of the designers are carried through. It is important when considering suburban renewal to understand the pivotal role played by municipal planners. The implementation of New Urbanist principles on suburban environments requires serious changes to existing planning codes. This holds true at the scale of town planning (street widths and layouts, setbacks, height restrictions etc.) and at the scale of the individual building. However, municipal authorities are often reluctant to change the codes given the legal implications. This explains in part why New Urbanism has been seen primarily in new developments.

Changes to suburbia can be made by smaller and more subtle interventions. Sierra Architecture Company, a contemporary firm operating out of Seattle, bases much of their work on the virtues of mixed use environments. They attempt to fuse the contemporary commercial buildings with housing to increase the density and diversity of  the suburbs. They have done a number of projects where they 'piggy back' housing (apartments, or condominiums) on suburban big-box stores or parking lots. They seek to create an environment that merges urban qualities with suburban amenities. Below we see apartments placed atop a typical suburban grocery store.

Sierra convinces big box stores to sell the air rights above their buildings. They argue that the added costs for the structure and HVAC are easily compensated by the revenue from the sale of air rights (or rent) and the benefit of having an in-house clientele.

The above condominiums designed by Sierra Architecture Company are constructed atop a large parking lot. A row of units along the street preserves the streetscape and conceals the parking lot.

The following project was a competition entry for the October 1992 issue of Progressive Architecture magazine. Architect Angela Brooks began with the assertion that there exists a discrepancy between the contemporary suburban landscape and the reality of modern living patterns and family structures. She noted that (in 1992) only 13 percent of all households fit the model on which suburbia was based (working father, stay-at-home mom and two children) and that only 8 percent of potential home buyers can afford a detached, single-family house. Her solution requires a change to zoning regulations allowing for attached houses, rental units, apartments, and "inverted blocks" where residents can dedicate part of their back yards as common space.

The architect suggests that the greater flexibility allows small businesses to occupy some properties, and enlivens the neighbourhood with a heightened sense of community.

page 1 , 2              

author: Thiago Valente   rev. 04.22.2001

r.2.1