NDP Greener Homes Strategy Misses the Point
By Gregory D. Morrow

The NDP released Part 1 (”Greener Homes Strategy”) of its 5-part Green Agenda for Canada today. I applaud the NDP for making energy efficiency an issue at the Federal level. At this point, they are the only party seriously making noise on environmental issues in Ottawa, although that could change depending on the outcome of the Liberal leadership race. So far, the Conservatives have taken a page out of the Bush administration’s book — i.e. do nothing, and the Bloc Quebecois sold themselves out for a promise that Quebec would be taken care of “later”.

Unfortunately, the NDP plan isn’t very well thought out — and I say that as a progressive architect, urban designer, and urban planner who is very interested in promoting such a “Green Agenda for Canada”. Here is what the NDP proposes:

- Development of an advanced energy efficiency program to help make Canadian homes the most efficient in the world;
- Amendment of the National Building Code to legislate lower energy use in new homes;
- Making mandatory, in order to qualify for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Mortgage Insurance Program, proof of compliance with the new National Building Code’s energy efficiency provisions for new homes AND Establishing or enhancing other programs to assist Canadians in retrofitting older homes so as to meet the new energy standards;
- Requiring that all appliances and lighting sold in Canada meet the Energy Star standards; and
- Re-instatement of the EnerGuide program abolished by the Conservatives.

(more…)

Very sad news today. Jane Jacobs has died at 89, apparently due to a stroke. The world has lost one of its greatest citizens. The American-born activist, writer, and urban expert has lived in Canada (Toronto) since 1968.

Her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) is one of the seminal texts of the twentieth-century.

Edit: Christopher Hume did a nice piece in the Star today.

Globe and Mail
Toronto Star
Wikipedia

Project for Public Places
CBC
CBC Archives
New York Times

Kunstler Interview

Rational Reasons
Treehugger
Metropolis 347

(more to come)

I typically don’t post my academic work here, since scholarly work is not as accessible as op-eds. That being said, this piece might interest some people — it’s about the relationship between politics, ideology and design. Architects should be warned that I take a critical position on current practice.

How Technology Swallowed The Fish:
Gehry’s Bilbao Guggenheim And The Ideology Of Skin-Deep Architecture
By Gregory D. Morrow

You know that Frank Gehry’s Bilbao Guggenheim has entered into the lexicon of pop culture when silver-haired, cigar-smoking, mildly obese old men in central Kansas debate the merits of having a “Bilbao Effect” for their own declining town.[1] Hate it or love it, the Bilbao Guggenheim has been labeled as: a) as Paul Goldberger has suggested, “a metaphor for Basque culture and the relationship it aspires to have with the world: a thing apart, yet entirely willing to make a connection on its own terms,”[2] or b) another example of American cultural imperialism. The position to which you ascribe — masking imperialism or mirroring culture — to some degree depends on the ideological frame through which you see the world. If you ascribe to Clifford Geertz’s theory of ideology, architectural production merely reflects culture, lending support to Goldberger’s thesis.[3] If you ascribe to Karl Marx’s theory, ideology distorts reality, thus architecture would be seen as masking the reality of cultural imperialism.[4] In what follows, I will argue that Bilbao is neither American cultural imperialism, nor a metaphor for Basque nationalism, but rather reflects the current state of urban redevelopment and architectural practices.

(more…)

I’m looking for popular news media stories about politics and design or the politics of design for a seminar that I am doing on Politics, Ideology and Design. Left to my own devices I will use either a recent article about Gehryland, USA (Christopher Hawthorne, Metropolis Magazine, April 2006) or the $195-million scribble and other tales of seduction from our romance with celebrity architects (Mark Kingwell, Toronto Life, June 2004).

I’d welcome any suggestions (i.e. links) that any of you out there have. I need this principally by Monday, but I’m always looking for similar articles.

Plantizen — the planning & development network — made a list of its top 10 planning issues for 2005. Here’s what I think about them:

1. Kelo v. New London and Eminent Domain
Terrible, as I noted previously. Eminent Domain hurts the little guy 9 times out of 10. Its purpose is to facilitate land assembly for large-scale developers (non- and for-profit). The premise is that wholesale change is better than smaller, incremental change. The history of mega-development — even in the name of the public good — has been dreadful.

2. Hurricane Katrina
An important planning issue that has everyone in planning scrambling to get down to New Orleans to help. Perhaps I am cynical but where the hell were the social justice advocates before the hurricane? That it took a massive crisis to mobilize the planning profession seems to me to run counter to what planning is. Isn’t planning supposed to pro-active, not reactive? It should serve as a reminder to everyone of the importance of planning — that is, thinking into the future to head off potential disasters. Unfortunately, given the scale of disaster, those groups with a ready-made toolkit just waiting to be implemented will be the winners. And make no mistake — it is the New Urbanists who came to New Orleans ready to deploy. Somehow that troubles me…

3. America’s Failing Infrastructure
Nothing new here. As local budgets get squeezed further and further, the regular investments necessary to maintain infrastructure are not made — everything from bridges, roads, hospitals, schools, you name it. That’s one of the things government is supposed to do — figure out ways to make regular investments in critical public assets (either by direct support or user-pay). Donors don’t give money to fix potholes, so the problem usually isn’t with new ribbon-cutting initiatives, but rather with the everyday maintainence.

4. The McMansion Backlash
Well, there’s a backlash in certain circles, but to your average hard-working family, it is a symbol of pride and achievement to finally move into one of those hideously designed mega-houses in the suburbs. Certainly, it’s not my goal. But, until we find a way to even out land values across a metropolitan region, people will always be trading off location for space. It’s a values question — how much space do you really need? To me, I find it difficult to imagine a family of four requiring more than about 2,000 square feet + garage. Do the math: living room (250 s.f.), dining room (200 s.f.), kitchen (200 s.f.), den/family room (250 s.f.), master bedroom (200 s.f.), master bath (120 s.f.), walk-in-closet (60 s.f.), bedroom 2 (180 s.f.), bedroom 3 (180 s.f.), bath 2 (120 s.f.), laundry (60 s.f.), entry/powder (80 s.f. ), circulation (100 s.f.) = 2,000 s.f.

5. “Condofication”
Here, we are referring to the conversion of rental units into condos, often forcing people to relocate. To me, converting to condo ownership from rental isn’t the problem. The problem is when there aren’t enough condos on the market and prices are therefore exorbitant. We need to find a way to facilitate the construction of more housing units, rental and condo, period. Affordability problems are typically a problem of cities blocking what the market would otherwise be happy to provide. This is a morals question — current zoning prioritizes R1 (single family) above all else. Too much city land is zoned R1 and not multi-family. More multi-family housing (rental or condo) and the overall cost goes down.

6. Google Democratizes Mapping
I must say I love Google maps and Google Earth. The applications are vast. The Toronto Star, for example, uses Google to map the locations of homocides in the city, with pop-ups about each of the victims and, if known, the circumstances of their death. This is a powerful tool, and an honorable way of recognizing, in this case, the lives lost. Environmental groups can also use it to plot the location of the most polluting sites. There are thousands of applications - Google should be applauded for making this tool available to the public.

7. Wi-Fi Networks and Economic Development
This one bugs me. Sure, I would like to have wi-fi everywhere I go. But, it’s hardly a public good. Of all the basic things that governments still aren’t going well — like providing good schools, encouraging affordable housing, providing public security, etc — they feel it is important to spend millions on setting up a wireless network across the city (or downtown core). What a waste of taxpayer money. There are plenty of private companies that are all too willing to provide such a service for those of use lucky enough to have wireless devices. The fact is, this benefits only a small segment of the population. Government action should be to provide services that benefit the most number of people — things that are neither practical nor affordable if done privately. When we’ve created a more just society, then we can start worrying about making our toys work better.

8. The New Suburbanism and Creative Class Debates
This one boils down to the age-old battle of downtown vs. suburbs. But the debate is actually quite dumb. Richard Florida’s Creative Class is provocative and there is something to the idea that young professionals want to live in funky places. Likewise, one cannot debate the importance of suburbs in urban politics, as Joel Kotkin suggests. But, this isn’t a polar argument. The fact is, suburbs by necessity will be more dense (starting from the inner ring out). Urban areas will also by necessity become more dense. The issue isn’t suburbs vs. downtown, it’s the conflicts in both places over the need for higher density environments.

9. “Peak Oil” and Planning For Alternative Energy
This is also a debate for the ages. There’s no doubt that the cost of oil has entered into a new era — the days of $25/barrel are over for the foreseeable future. However, the forecasts that I have seen show the price of oil dropping over the coming years — still above $50, but not rising. At these price levels, areas like Alberta’s oil sands become feasible to develop. Which, in turn, will likely cause the price of oil to drop. So, yes, sustainability is vital — and we should be working towards that goal regardless, but until the Saudis issue a press release saying, “sorry we’re empty”, it is very likely that oil will continue to dominate. Cities (nations, even) would be smart, however, to think of the big picture, though. More sustainable environments is not just about a potential oil crisis. It’s about pollution and smog. It’s about wasted productivity (to this point, we’ve been lucky to have land to expand so that commute times remain the same, but the scarcity of land is quickly becoming a problem). It’s about the destruction of local food supply. It’s about parents not being home for their kids. It’s about kids playing video games and getting fat. It’s about a lot of things. We shouldn’t be fooled to think that the only reason why we should be more sustainable cities is because of oil.

10. The High Cost of Free Parking
Don Shoup is bang-on. Los Angeles is the worst offender. In Boston, parking is so scarce, it becomes very expensive. So, if given the choice between driving downtown and taking the T (subway), you take the T. A couple hours parking in downtown Boston can cost you $15-20. The equivalent in L.A. costs $2-5. Most places give two hours of free parking. Hell, even valet parking — something reserved for the uber-wealthy in Boston — is only a couple bucks more in Los Angeles. So, of course people drive in Los Angeles. The fact is, we have been subsidizing car use for decades. It is time that parking and those that drive pay its true cost. That means more expensive parking and freeway tools. You use it, you pay for it.

Big story in the Star today about the progress of the Don West Lands revival. Be sure to check out the full plan on the Waterfront Revitalization Corp’s website. It is a huge PDF (19mb), but it’s worth the wait. I can’t speak to whether the public process was good or not, but Joe Berridge of Urban Strategies and his team deserve a big round of applause for their work.

Being an urban designer myself, I can tell you that it is not easy to build into a plan the level of complexity and diversity that exists in real cities. On that count, the plan is a welcome precedent for other urban designers. Instead of treating the 79-acre site as a single monolithic neighbourhood, they recognized that real neighbourhoods are much smaller. The plan identifies 4 such neighbourhoods.

Also a welcome addition is the density. So often ‘density’ is a bad word in public planning meetings, with people equating density with highrise. The fact is, more often than not, you achieve higher density with mid-rise perimeter blocks than tall towers set back from the street.

With an expected 11,000 people to call the 4 neighbourhoods home, the area will have a density of 139 people/acre (and with 2 people per unit on average, that equates to 70 units/acre, which is about right for an urban neighbourhood).

Importantly, there is a recognition that it will take 15 years to build it out. All too often people want instant change — usually a recipe for disaster. The area is designated to have 25% affordable housing, although it remains to be seen how they actually achieve that. Parking is dealt with in the interior of blocks, and using parking structures. The streets are too wide, which usually happens these days. There is provision for a trolley along Cherry St. And there’s a big park that doubles as a flood plain for the Don River Delta.

The challenge, as always, will be to allow the area to grow with diversity and yet within some basic design guidelines. All too often zoning has the effect of killing diversity, as do too many guidelines. It will be interesting to see it unfold. But as a starting point, the plan is encouraging.

I just returned from a lecture at UCLA by Toshiko Mori, architect and head of the Harvard Design School. The lecture covered a lot of ground, but let me break it down into three parts. The first part outlined some of her house projects in New England and Florida. It was commendable to see someone highlight the lack of innovation in housing New England prototypes – whether this is a problem with overly zealous protectionist NIMBYism or simply because people in the northeast have traditional tastes, I don’t know (probably a bit of both). I’m not sure her designs advanced a particularly genus loci for the northeast, but they were nice examples of crisp modernism (in the L.A. tradition!), which is never a bad thing.

Personally, I think that Brian Mackay-Lyons’ work in Atlantic Canada is far more interesting in this regard. Lyons’ work carries on Modern traditions (is it possible for there to be traditions in Modernism?), yet his construction methods and finely-tuned understanding of climate and landscape seem to achieve what Mori was talking about, only with a more deeply-rooted connection to place. It seems to me that Mori’s work is more materially-driven – in all her houses, she was concerned more with experimenting with different glass treatments than with developing a formal response to the northeast geography, climate, or culture. Good architecture need not be those things, but in the context of how Mori framed her explorations, the resultant buildings, which beautiful, speak more to her comfort zone of material exploration.

The second piece of the lecture is where it started to get interesting – here, she talked about her students’ work with fabrics, which is all the rage these days in architecture schools. These material explorations – and I’m thinking also of the work that Jeannie Yoon does at MIT – can be seen as either opening up new and interesting avenues or, conversely, an entirely esoteric naval-gazing exercise. For those unfamiliar with such materially-driven design, they are essentially trying to use different methods (weaving, knitting, etc) to achieve new uses of materials and new resultant forms that are lighter and more malleable. There are many useful applications – think Kevlar or fiberglass. Such exercises need not be purely self-referential to architecture practice, but too often they way architects talks about it (i.e. as art), it comes across that way. Let me return to this is a moment…

The third piece of the lecture talked about a project that she is doing for the Chinese government – it was a strange international competition where names were drawn out of a hat (so to speak) and Mori randomly ended up with a project to design a newsstand. Mori talked about how her design was controversial since the tradition in China is for newspaper to be pasted on a wall and passersby read it (since they can’t afford to buy their own). State propaganda is also broadcast via speakers at such newsstands. Mori’s project essentially replicated this paste-up tradition — expand this to non-state news from around the world – clearly the Chinese government, as of now, is not yet ready for 1.3 billion free speech advocates! The design was highly orchestrated procession through a ramp (architects always assume that people will behave predictably; more often they do not). In the course of the presentation, she attempted to broader the scope of architecture by calling for architects to do small projects that speak to larger social or political issues (like her little newsstand and free speech in China). I agree that architects should engage more often in this kind of discourse – and such a narrative need not be made through the mega-statements (think of Rem Koolhaas’s library in Seattle, for example).

Yet, following her discussion of the fabric/material explorations, it reminded me of something that I’ve long thought: that architects – despite all the creativity in the world and being so well positioned to innovate for the benefit of all – tend to focus on the nitty-gritty without seeing the bigger picture. If, for example, Mori (and others engaged in testing the limits of materiality) framed their work not as a new and decidedly groovy ‘plaything’ of architects, but rather talk about how the application of this new techniques can contribute to genuine socially progressive goals, then the a wider audience could see what all the fuss is about. For example, it is not too much of a stretch to make a case for using new materials (or old materials in new ways) on the grounds of its potential environmental impact.

At present, structural systems (at least in the eyes of most engineers) are an exercise in the ‘bigger is better’ world view; that is, to transmit larger forces, one needs a bigger beam, column, etc. The material explorations that Mori and others are promoting seek instead to using lightweight and small pieces and distribute forces across surfaces instead of through structural members. The benefits are many — buildings can quite literally touch the earth lightly, smaller pieces can be used, and such structural surfaces can also be permeable, allowing light and air to pass through them. This, in turn, creates opportunities for natural ventilation, which reduces the heating and cooling demand (and thus reduces energy consumption). These are just a few arguments, but the point here is that architects need to stop talking only to themselves about the coolness of their craft, but rather engage in, as Mori suggested, broader social and political endeavors. While Mori’s newsstand did so in only the most superficial way, her material explorations has the potential to have genuine societal benefits. The world needs more architects, but architects who turn their naval-gazing playthings into the social progress for everyone else.

We made the trek out to Pasadena this past weekend. It’s a nice place and quite un-L.A. – 19th century urban fabric, walk-able, lots of shops & restaurants and highly urban. As you walk down the main drag, Colorado Blvd, just past two fairly un-urban highrises (set back from the street, on plinths with no ground-level retail), you come across Paseo Colorado, a 3-block, 15-acre, mega-development that, on first-glance, appears to imitate the urban character of the rest of Colorado Blvd.

In some respects, it is reasonably successful, with shops along Colorado Blvd and incorporating a 19th century building into the complex. One big positive is the incorporation of 400 units of housing into the western end of the complex. Another positive is the re-creation of the axial relationship with Pasadena’s Civic Center, just north of the site. Unfortunately, the central space that re-creates that axis is pretty dreadful (this axis – the “Garfield Promenade” – was originally slated to be just 58 feet, but the City required the developer to make it 78 feet to reflect the original Garfield Street).

Given the hype surrounding it, I had high expectations for Paseo Colorado. Unforunately, on balance, I was disappointed. Unlike The Grove, which has some pretensions of being a real public place, Paseo Colorado – which is billed as an “open-air urban village” – feels much more like a standard mall, with anchor stores on the ends, two levels of shops complete with bridges from one side to the other. The only difference is that it is outdoors – not so much new as it is retro, emulating some of the first malls ever built (except it is two levels). Its outdoor spaces are not well-designed and the whole complex uses more-or-less the same materials. It is not well scaled to human proportions, thus it feels bigger and more commercial than necessary. There is no enough variation in the materials, which also have a cheap feel to them. So, nobody will be fooled into thinking it is anything but one large mall complex.

Despite claiming to replicate the traditional fabric of the surrounding area, it still brings people off the street into a large mall-like central spine, and the impact for on-street retail is obvious – I saw few people along Colorado Blvd, despite the presence of shops. Urban design is sometimes a subtle thing – and the urban design-challenged typically heap praise upon the project. By most economic accounts, it is successful, being 96% leased, fetching $400/s.f. rents and generating a modest amount of additional tax revenue for the city. But I can’t help but think that its financial success owes more to its location next to ‘Old Pasadena’ than to its banal design.

While perusing the latest architectural journals at Santa Monica’s Mecca o’ Architecture, otherwise known as Hennessey & Ingalls bookstore (where I was fortunate enough to see the fabulous Halle Berry a few months ago!), I was reminded of the troubling dearth of urban housing projects in the architectural spotlight. This is unfortunate, since we so desperately need modern urban housing. I can think of several reasons for this absence:

1) Most professional programs emphasize architecture’s narrative qualities. Constrained by both context (often with building abutting on both sides) and program (a house typically works, well, like a house), urban housing is typically not seen as a medium in which to express the individuality of the designer, not the transcendental response that we believe architecture to have. In particular, such architecture is more conducive to sculpture – an object – than fitting into an urban fabric, which urban housing necessarily must do. The primacy of the object and the desire to push the envelope – using the latest design and production tools – leads to increasingly unique buildings. Young architects don’t want to operate within the constraints an urban pattern, so sites on the ‘edge’, where other object buildings dot the landscape, are most often preferred.

2) Students of architecture are taught that the pen-ultimate commission (after the transcendental work, which rarely pays the bills) is a major institutional project – a museum, library, concert hall, etc. Only through a significant and distinct commission can one gain the all-star reputation that is so valued within the architecture community. Don’t believe me? Name me a contemporary brand-name architect who made his or her name through housing. Piano? Foster? Gehry? Koolhaas? All made their names through institutional work.

3) And here’s where it gets particularly depressing: urban architecture today is seen as the domain of second-rate neo-traditional chumps that any self-respecting cool-kid architect wouldn’t be caught dead doing. This is particularly disturbing and is likely the result of a larger trend to “protect” cities from the onslaught of modern architects. Anything that is old is deemed worth protecting and by no means should something that look modern comprise the background of our cities (so it goes in most communities). I am by no means advocating tearing out old neighborhoods, but we’ve entered a bizarre era where we reminisce for tradition so much that we would rather create cheap and badly-detailed simulacra (giving only the most cursory illusion of tradition) than let cities grow as they always have: by using the materials and methods of the day.

4) Architect’s are perhaps the biggest believer in the American dream, as reflected in the single family detached home, either in harmony with nature or conquering it by the imposition of the man-made object. Either way, take a look at Record Houses for the late few years, or the plethora of house picture books out there. With few exceptions, the houses are set in nature, unencumbered by the inconveniences of rotten neighbors (in this case, other buildings, which are often ugly and spoil the picturesque qualities of the perfection of our creation). Despite professing to be progressive (and most architects I know at least are liberal), architects would rather not have to deal with the riff-raff that one encounters in the city (in this case, not people, but other banal structures). No, set within nature, architecture-as-art is much more to our liking.

5) Quite simply: young architects are neither interested, nor know how, to work with or even talk to developers. This is related to #3 above. Young architects don’t understand – and don’t want to understand – urban economics. They see developers as inherently bad. But it is a vicious cycle: good designers abandon working with developers and doing urban housing, so development and urban housing is usually badly-designed. Architects can add value to any development, but we need to understand how to convince developers of this and to sometimes make tradeoffs necessary to get your work built (this ‘value engineering’ happens even in the big institutional projects, believe me!).

Without question, cities are where the vast amount of work will be done over the next few decades. This is by necessity. We have, for most cities, devoured almost all of the urban periphery with low-density (and mostly low-quality) development and the only recourse for cities to raise the tax dollars necessary to continue to provide services is to increase density in the core (or near-core). There are also macro trends: increased awareness of environmental degradation, people valuing their time, rising oil prices and potentially even shortages – all of these trends suggest urban housing is an increasingly important market for architects. Unless we all want our cities to look like bad rip-offs of the nineteenth century, it is well time for architects to start engaging the city instead of running to the edge to avoid the hard problems in the core. Cool modern housing in the content of viable city is more than possible – and better yet – when you start building cities this way and create modern cities that work, you get not only get good architecture, you get good cities.

As the L.A. Times tells us, Frank O. Gehry, bless his soul, is set to design a 40-to-50 story highrise in downtown L.A., opposite his Disney Concert Hall. It’s not that Gehry’s work isn’t fun – it is. It’s just that of late his office is in the business of churning out ‘mini Bilbaos’ all over the place as though context doesn’t matter. Gehry is a classic ‘object’ architect – dedicated to creating interesting shapes, not necessarily interesting urban places. The Disney Concert Hall is fantastic – from the front (and the front corners) – but it is essentially anti-urban on the other three sides, set upon a plinth that offers nothing but blanks surfaces and loading docks on three sides. While it has OK (not great) outdoor spaces on the plinth, it is inward-looking and not exactly meant for public consumption. I say give Gehry the tower, but please, please bring a good urban designer on board to ensure the interface with the public realm is decent.

The thing I find the most interesting is that L.A. is actually going to build a ‘central park’ as part of this project. In this age of increasingly private spaces (particularly in L.A.), someone has deemed it necessary to install a genuine public space in the downtown core. That person deserves a medal. Downtown L.A. isn’t there yet, but it is transforming in positive ways and, if done right, this development could yield very positive things. The author (Martin Kaplan), of course, wants something new – because new is always better than old – not just some plain ol’ amenities for the folks living downtown. Instead he wants a 21st century space. So do I, but one that people can use daily. If you have ever listened to Bill Mitchell and I have had him as a guest lecturer in a couple classes I taught at MIT – he will tell you that the most technological place would be where the technology disappears. Wi-fi access in the park is a given – and it is invisible. Yes, we could put plaster some digital displays around the park and call it new, but would it be as amenable to daily use? I am not yet convinced.