John King throws down with a “manifesto…or at least a checklist” of design priorities for new developments.
True, not every project can claim an extravagant budget or a big-name architect. But there’s no reason new buildings in suburban downtowns or big-city neighborhoods can’t be modest triumphs of quality and care. The problem is when developers have formulas, communities have demands, architects have rent to pay and the actual building becomes an afterthought.
A summary of King’s manifesto: 1. Make the ground floor shine; 2. Be realistic; 3. Don’t be fussy; 4. Amp up the colors; 5. Make a few smart moves; 6. Keep paying attention.
A number of points are preaching to the readers’ choir (especially don’t be fussy: “when a design is pulled apart and second-guessed at each step of the review process, because everyone has their own idea as to what architecture should be, the scenic quality can be diluted past the point of no return”).
And of course, we invite you to add (or subtract) to the manifesto as well. And yes, the developers (and perhaps even a few planners) are “plugging in”…
∙ Want to build something? Fine. But please read this first. [SFGate]
Amen, brother.
Well, I guess. But the Mission Creek Senior Center he holds up as an example is ugly and looks like so many other faux Tuscan village cookie cutter developments. I’ve stopped reading his column–for an architecture critic he’s not very interesting (but I guess that comes with being based in SF).
I agree with making the ground floor shine, or at least not detract from the rest of the building. It looks like an after thought in many new developments.
Just to clarify, John King is the Comical’s urban design critic, not it’s architecture critic, so it’s not his strong suit.
Everyone thinks they are an “architect” now. Developers, Homeowners, housewives, realtors, and yes even John King. I can’t even finish two sentences before I am told what good design is, and have to listen as clients lecture me on architectural history, theory, construction and design. John King is especially frustrating for me and is one of the reasons I only get the NYTimes. If John King comes out with an architectural theory book I will have to move to New Zealand.
I often think that John King is too harsh of a critic in general, saying things like the transbay towers are too tall, the building isn’t up to world-class standards, etc. However, this article seems like he’s more in touch than in the past.
If you dissect Mission Bay structures on a stand-alone basis, they aren’t generally that bad, with the exception of very bland ones (such as Avalon II). The issue is that they’re all pretty much the same in design/style/height, with a few subtle differences in color. I think that if 240 Berry goes up as the bold Arcquitectonica design, that it was intended to originally, it’ll break up the monotony. In addition, I hope the structures on the other side of Mission Creek, when complete, show more variety. Mission Bay is becoming a better neighborhood with more amenities, but I just hope that their buildings follow suit. By comparison, the buildings being constructed around Rincon Hill seem to be much more interesting and dynamic looking.
I would add balconies to his list. He shows several variants in the article’s photos, but doesn’t make this point explicitly: private outdoor space accessed directly from a home — even a tiny bit of standing space — ends up providing a substantial quality of life benefit. To be able to step out into the air is refreshing, liberating, and healthy. And, as Jane Jacobs would probably agree, when residents hang out on their balconies, it has the added benefit of putting “eyes on the street.” Instead, too often, San Francisco’s unimaginative developers would pack us into inhumane boxes, optimized for imagined lives of flat-screen TV viewing, designer furniture purchases, and elaborate meal preparation, while denying us even a minor connection to the perfect natural environment we reside in. Give us balconies! Give us outdoor space!
I generally like John King, and think he’s gotten better over the years. Perhaps it’s because I’m a planner and not an architect. I see King in the school of Robert Campbell of the Boston Globe. Not nearly as good, but with a lot of the same influences/concerns: urbanity, scale, context, pedestrians, environment, etc…
And, to be honest, I often can’t stand reading the big architecture critics (Muschamp et al) because they insist on treating buildings primarily as a sculptural object, and not as an element of a greater whole. AND the big architectural critics often have an overbearing love of one current architectural style or another (while trashing all others)….so reading their critique of a building is more about who is intellectually hot in the design world, and not what’s working on the ground.
Not saying it’s not valid to review buildings in this way. I’m just not generally very interested.
only my two cents