Preservationists have long debated whether modern architecture has a place in designated historic districts. Some historic neighborhoods welcome good modern design for the contrast and vitality it can bring; others would prefer to bar the door and throw up a Do Not Disturb sign.
Here in Riverside Avondale, where many of our historic structures are themselves symbols of architectural innovation and radical (for its day) design, the question isn’t really whether a contemporary infill building is “allowed,” but rather whether it can be designed to complement the neighborhood’s human-scale and historical context.*
Here at RAP, we’ve been talking with the developers and listening to our neighbors. Many of you welcome the project. Others want more information about how issues like parking and public space will be addressed before they form an opinion. And some of you have already placed your orders at Giglio’s for that big Do Not Disturb sign.
We’ve stated our position here. What’s yours?
7 comments:
Much effort went into the development and legal adoption of the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay which is the ruling document relating to the proposed development.
Whlie I love John Insetta's restaurants; that doesn't give him a pass on the law; I'm referring to setbacks, parking, and greenscape which are important issues to our neighborhood.
RAP's suggestions on how to compromise on this project seem reasonable to me.
RAP has laid out the merits and detriments of this proposed design in a fair and thoughtful way, citing the zoning overlay but not insisting on it blindly. No overlay or legislation can accurately describe all possible project circumstances and must therefore be understood as only a guideline to be weighed in context of actual site conditions.
I agree that the massing is somewhat inflated and that the sidewalk width needs to be respected. That said, some leeway seems approporiate as the corner lot is a more prominent siting and a slightly higher building can punctuate the block nicely.
Additionaly, if the intent of the corner entry guideline is to promote a building that does not neglect one street or another, the developer can easily insure that the OAK Street facade gets equal treatment in terms of materials and mass variation without forcing corner entry onto what is actually one of the nicest spaces along the facade. Perhaps an Oak Street entry can accomplish this as well.
Rob, very thoughtful post. Nice job.
Parking? Where? I don't mind a walk or bike ride but I don't see the parking solution. The mayor said once that people should just get used to walking, but from where?
Good comments by RAP though a narrow statement like - canopy tree per three parking spaces - is a bit out of date. Though trees are wonderful - technology has allowed us to bring back what I call 'Volumetric Green' to the Urban Core in many different, cost-effective, community acceptable and eco-friendly ways!
Rather than limiting the project to trees - suggest an average percent aerial coverage in green. There are green roofs, living walls, modular wetlands and so many more options for providing shade, cleaning stormwater, creating habitat and a sense of place - even using trees!.
The development and engineering community are solution driven. Telling them you must do this - this way - may not always be the most effective means of reaching all goals. Providing an end-result and allowing the genius of human creativity to develop the means to that end can be productive!
We need to address stormwater, heat island effect and the loss of volumetric green in the Urban Core.
There are many ways to do so.
Trees may just be one of the avenues.
Kevin
www.kevinsonger.blogspot.com
Very interesting ideas, Kevin. Thanks for sharing them.
Post a Comment