I don't disagree with you that buildings could/should be better and that developer's wouldn't starve to death. You may not believe it, but I care passionately about the built environment and really wish that we were building better designs than we currently are. I don't necessarily believe that a disappointing design is better than nothing, but I also don't know how you stop a disappointing design from being built.
I offer a lot of opinions and I try to back them up with sound logic; I’m not always successful. I also stay away from ad hominem attacks. I can go after people’s opinions pretty aggressively sometimes. However, I refute opinions, not people’s character. I’m glad to hear that you care passionately about the built environment and I don’t think you’d be here (urbanmsp) if you didn’t.
I still think “the urbanists” (maybe you count yourselves among these), need to look beyond JUST the street and think about what a building looks like from, say, a 1/2 block away, an upper level across the street, a tall building, a blimp or the highway. The possibility exists that I need to move AWAY from caring about these things and more towards the street. These are philosophical arguments so I don’t know that we are going to find “the right answer.”
My questions are these:
What is the vehicle by which the city would demand better designs?
Neighborhood Meetings, Zoning, Planning Commission, Z & P committee and City Council (in that order)
This sounds trite but let me expand. The “vehicle” is sound but it needs an overhaul (more on that in a minute).
Assuming that a building can be built as-of-right, how does the city tell them that they need nicer materials or "better design" in a given location? And who gets to make that decision? Who determines if the design is good or not?
Recently there was an exchange between Tom Fisher (Dean of the College of Design at the U of M) and the city regarding the city’s “design guidelines.” Disclaimer: Tom was on my thesis panel and I GREATLY respect him. However, imho, Tom was misguided in his comments. The fact is that the very rules that he was decrying as contributing to the blandness, etc of multi-family housing were not guiding ANY of the recent housing boom - not one project built at the time of the writing had applied the rules that he was criticizing.
I am not rote on the “old” design guidelines or the “new” ones that Tom was criticizing but I’ve worked on a lot of projects that are under construction or recently built in Minneapolis so I understand the metrics.
Materials:
Much of the common criticisms about the state of recent design relate to use of cement fiberboard (in addition to “too many materials”). If the consensus is that cement fiberboard is an ugly material then it is simple enough for the city to put tighter governance on percentages, locations, etc.
Recently, cement fiberboard manufacturers have changed their recommendations/requirements for their products which have made it more expensive to apply and still be warrantied. This is a reason why there is an uptick in stucco. To put it shortly, stucco is at/near parity with cement fiberboard. Generally, stucco is considered a “quality material” by municipalities and governed differently (more favorably) than cement fiberboard (panels).
Like I said, I’m not rote on Mpls code but metal panel is usually viewed/governed somewhere between cement fiberboard and stucco and this, in my opinion, is ludicrous/stupid/misguided/out-of-date.
I’ve mentioned it in other threads but The Brunsfield (which appears to be universally beloved) uses a metal panel that is in the $24+ per sf (installed) price range. $24/sf is in the price range of a good brick. We are WELL beyond 24 gauge, corrugated, beige, pole barn metal panels. As I said, I’m not rote on the “new” guidelines. Perhaps my frustrations have been addressed since I worked at a big multi-family firm but in my experience the city staff needed to be educated on materials and zoning needed to be updated to address the current state of technology.
I can’t believe I’m about to defend Clark Gassen (the developer on the very recent Linden Hills/Famous Dave’s site) but he made an interesting point in the recent Linden Hills neighborhood meeting when he said, “These are expensive materials.” The form/massing of his recent proposal is one matter but his comment illustrates that *some* consideration needs to be made for the quality/cost of materials. Look at Edgewater (another Clark Gassen project) - that stone is REALLY nice. Look across the street and you see “cultured stone” (i.e. concrete made to “look like” stone) a material that is half the cost and looks half as good. The city can control such things with zoning by mandating percentages, locations, etc. For example, St. Louis Park has an easy to understand list of materials that are considered “Class I” (best), “Class II” (good), “Class III” (mundane) and percentages allowed. They need to update what material goes on what list (metal panel per above) but it’s simple and more objective.
“As-of-right”:
Obviously the massing/height/setbacks are governed by the district and the short answer is that we should be looking at “form based code.” I believe Lisa Bender and others are already exploring form based code.
A longer answer is that the neighborhood meeting process is broken - a few loud voices are being heard and the city has zero presence in neighborhood meetings (another opinion I’ve posted all over these boards).
The neighborhood feedback process is totally broken and needs to be updated to allow input remotely and the city needs to have a representative in place at in-person meetings to put proposals into context. The city has identified growth goals, density goals etc and there are corridors all over the city where density/height/size is not only reasonable but should be strived for. Architects/developers regularly get DESTROYED in neighborhood meetings by loud opponents of projects that are “by right” or allowed with a CUP or PUD and the city is not there to articulate these facts. Instead, architects/developers go and get abused for being greedy jerks who are out to destroy neighborhoods and there is no one there to rebut the claims - the neighborhood meeting process has become farcical and painful (see “Wedgelive”).
Just because the economy is good and there are lots of building proposals, how does that change the powers of the city to approve or deny projects?
On lots that the city has control over, we just need to demand better. The lot across from the library is a prime example. In 2007-8, I probably would have welcomed ANY of the proposals for that lot because nothing was being built and everyone I knew was struggling to find work. However, it’s 2015 and there is a massive building boom. I think I’m in the minority on this but I’d rather leave a pockmarked surface lot <gasp> and wait for a GREAT project than take a mediocre project on such a prime lot. At the very least, I would have preferred a longer open period for proposals and allowed more lengthy scrutiny instead of rushing just to get SOMETHING. If the proposals weren’t great, then shut it down until something great DOES emerge. The demand in this area is at/near peak and I think it is a mistake to accept the lowest common denominator. I don’t know if the history/economics is the same but look at the “Multifoods Building” - architecturally, this is a god-awful building and a mentality that is driven by tax revenue, business friendliness, and infill gives rise to this kind of awful architecture.
Again, the “urbanists” on this forum seem to have the following metric for assessing projects: “Is it better than a surface parking lot?” I think that using such a low threshold is a mistake and I think this city deserves better.
What if the trade-off for better design is that unaffordable housing becomes even less affordable?
I’m of the opinion that more supply drives down demand and helps to ease affordability across the board but this phenomenon doesn’t completely solve the problem either. The city/county/state need to make affordable housing a priority and legislate to that effect - there is no other way to “fix” the problem of affordability. Mpls is the same as any other good city in this regard. If someone had a silver bullet solution, everyone would use it.
Should architects go on strike until developers shell out more money for better designs?
Why don't developers have a sense of community pride that would be enough to push them to do outstanding design?
I’ve said on several other threads, “No architect has ever said, ‘We should use less glass’ or ‘We should use this cheap material over here’ or ‘We need a less active ground level.’ “ History is littered with artists bemoaning their clients and this period is no different. We could never go on strike because architects all think they are smarter than the next one and there is very little consensus, no union, and someone will ALWAYS do a project for a fee.
Also, the developers have two large hammers: “Zoning” and “Financing.” If the city will *allow* cement fiberboard, why do anything different? Some developers take this to an extreme and push this edge to save a penny <really biting my tongue here>. Financing is another matter.
Typically we hear that “the bank will never finance that.” You can’t really push back on it because you’d be calling the developer a liar. So, it goes unstated that “the bank won’t finance that” = “that is expensive and cutting into my profits.”
On the other hand, I witnessed the following first hand:
Meeting between architect, client and financier…We were showing various renderings/design etc and the client was leaning towards a cheaper material that was covering…60% of the building. Financier looks right at the client and says, “I won’t finance this building if you don’t use the better material.” I thought it was one of the craziest things I’d ever heard in a meeting because the financier had basically just told the client that they could have the loan as long as it was a good deal larger than they probably wanted. I had never seen (and haven’t seen since) a financing party pushing a developer to spend more money.
As to your second question, to put it shortly, developers (in my experience) don’t have a sense of community pride to the point that they will take a financial hit to do an amazing project. “Financial hit” is obviously quite broad. Development is a business and people’s jobs are on the line, I get it but as I’ve said, “None of these developers are driving used cars.”
Last point, there are a LOT of good multi-family projects in this country (an important distinction because architecture is valued in a completely different way across the world). Great projects ARE possible but it takes a great team - developer, city, financiers and architects (including landscape/urban design).
If I understood your previous comments, you called me a fatalist, but I don't think you've really explained how exactly you'd change the game. I'd honestly be excited about real answers to this, but it's not enough to just bitch and moan and blame the city. Zoning and Planning is a blunt tool that isn't intended to fix substandard design.
If I called you a fatalist, I apologize. I’m the one issuing depressing predictions for downtown east so maybe I was projecting. I don’t know that my answers are “real” but I hope that I’ve gone beyond “bitching and moaning” and offered some ways that we can elevate the design in this city. Thanks for engaging.