reCities

My very own architecture school

2013-01-17T18:00:00.000+01:00

If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. It seems increasingly clear that the architecture profession isn't going to change of its own accord, certainly not at any great speed. This is especially true of the educational establishment, almost exclusively Modernist and reliant on a studio system which is not reflective of the real world. So maybe the only solution is to abandon trying altogether to fix things from the inside and shape our own alternative.

If I had the resources to do so, I think an effective method would be to found my own private school of architecture, offering a complete alternative to existing programs. Obviously not like the AA in London, which exclusively teaches the most ridiculous modernism (and quite frankly not to a high standard in recent years). I'd call it something like the Holistic School of the Built Environment, because it's long overdue to meld the worlds of architecture, urban planning, landscape architecture, and maybe a bit of carpentry too. I see it as essential to integrate these various disciplines and teach them as a whole. I've never liked over-specialization. You can't have a beautiful city without great streets, and you can't have a beautiful city without beautiful buildings. Students need to breathe both to create fully engaging built environments. It all goes hand-in-hand. I'd like to say this is my own radical idea, but it’s not really. If anything it harks back to the way architecture used to be taught, back before the age of iconic buildings and starchitects. You know, when cities and towns were built to be livable and beautiful.

Despite having graduated from an architecture program, I don’t feel significantly more capable of constructing my own building than before I started. Most contemporary architecture programs, in my experience, are very insular, with little regard for preparing students for the real world. Hundreds of years back, I’m sure every young adult was capable of putting up their own cabin, but after completing a specialized architecture degree, it’s pretty inexcusable that I can’t say the same for myself and my fellow students. The studio model, where young students are given imaginary briefs and essentially allowed to exercise their every whim and fancy, it doesn't teach anything. Maybe a little graphic design skill, maybe how best to hoodwink a roomful of critics. It definitely doesn't result in well thought-out buildings which pay due attention to context and user needs, and it results in an atmosphere of one-upmanship. I'd encourage camaraderie between students, faculty, and critics. I wouldn't want my students to experience the ill will and rudeness so common in most architecture schools. The goal would be fostering an environment of enlightenment and understanding, not an autocratic regime.

At my school, I’m not sure I’d let students get anywhere near creating their own briefs until long after I’m convinced they've mastered the basics. Carpentry and masonry would certainly be in the program. We’d start with precedent studies and scale models and then go out and build cabins by hand, starting with small one-room structures and make our way up from there. This way students would have a proper understanding of how buildings are put together before they put pen to paper. While we’re on the subject of scale, I should mention that there’d be a strict six-story limit to designs. Minus the odd church steeple, no building needs to go higher in 99.9% of the world’s cities.

Students would be taught how to effectively navigate the quagmire of politics and planning, and to be socially and culturally engaged. An appreciation of old buildings would be paramount, as would the preservation of them. The program would also encourage an understanding of the business side of building. Perhaps there’d be courses on being a developer/architect, as this is an effective way to bypass the often contradictory aims of developers, for whom quality architecture may not be a priority. Some developers who do care, however, like I'on Group's Vince Graham and Seaside's Robert S. Davis, would be good mentors for this.

I'd be Chairman of my school, of course, but I'd tap someone like Peter Buchanan to help me run the place and to devise a program, which would be regularly evaluated. Books like Jane Jacob’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities would be required reading and I'd hire who I consider to be the most thoughtful people in the professions to teach. Some obvious choices are Andrés Duany, Jan Gehl, Jeff Speck, and Ross Chapin to cover town planning, urban design, and transportation. Richard Florida would be an excellent choice for urban theory and economics. It would also be great to have an architecturally minded creative artist like Patrick Dougherty involved in some capacity. Some of the other choices are tricky, however. Many of the greats who I’d love to be involved, like Christopher Alexander, are all but retired. Obviously I’d need to be put in a lot more effort to find the most appropriate individuals.

The actual architecture department choice would be the most difficult, because I’m not especially fond of most living architects. Therefore this is a department where my own involvement would have to be greatest, but I’d collaborate with architects I respect like Mickey Muennig, James Hubbell and Sim Van der Ryn. Maybe someone from Olson Kundig Architects, Arkin Tilt Architects, or Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, who sometimes get close on certain projects. But boy do I wish someone in the vain of turn of the century architects like Charles and Henry Greene, Bernard Maybeck, Antoni Gaudí, and Frank Lloyd Wright were still around, not to mention those who lived hundreds of years ago like Christopher Wren, or Victorian masters like George Gilbert Scott, Charles Berry, or Samuel and Joseph Newsom. But one shouldn’t dwell too long on the past.

While my school would not be traditional, I certainly think it would be beneficial to have a few traditional architects on board, for their greater understanding of the nuances of what made traditional buildings so attractive. Contenders include Bobby McAlpine, Robert A.M. Stern, and Robert Lamb Hart. All the Roberts are a coincidence, I swear! Another tough category to fill would be history, as legends such as Vincent Scully are retired, and I’m not too familiar with contemporary architectural historians. My choices would be individuals with an innate understanding of pre-WWII architecture. It would probably be useful to have Paul Goldberger or some other architecture critic come in to help the students think critically. Certainly someone with a strong voice and not shy of controversy. James Howard Kunstler might be ideal. He’s definitely someone with a unique voice and strong conviction.

Logistically, I think the best location would be somewhere on the West Coast of the United States. Europe is far too entrenched in modernism, too conservative and bureaucratic, and maybe something similar could be said about the East Coast. The West Coast is different, however. More open and with a strong tradition of running against the pack, California in particular. Sure it’s strongly connected with modernism, but it’s also the heart of progressive thinking. You may be aware of the handmade house movement, which I've recently had the pleasure to read about in the book Handmade Houses by Richard Olsen. This movement had its base in the Bay Area and Big Sur, places which to this day have a more open and daring attitude than perhaps anywhere else in the Western world. I can’t think of a better location for my school. And to be a little objective, I admit it’s also a place which could do with a little priority adjustment, by which I’m referring to California’s infatuation with cars. But the recent push for high-speed rail, and mixed-use development creeping in to Los Angeles, shows that just maybe the car is losing its grip. It could be an excellent opportunity to be involved in that push. Confronting this head-on, and involving students, is an exciting prospect.

More important even than the people involved, however, will be the mission. Beauty, beauty, and beauty. Just because it annoys me how taboo the word is, I'll say it again: beauty. It’ll be essential to instill students with a sense of beauty, and it’d be at the core of the curriculum. The purpose being to fill the world with architects who can design great everyday buildings, the glue that holds cities and streets together. Their expertise would not necessarily be eye-catching monuments or the iconoclastic or bombastic stuff that grabs headlines, but the environments we interact with on a daily basis. The little nooks and moments that make people fall in love with a city. Students with a “I want to do something crazy just for the sake of craziness” mindset would be strictly discouraged. Good architecture isn't about innovation of form. Unless as a species we undergo some tremendous biological evolution in the near future, what’s the point of innovating in our built environment? On the contrary, if anything we've innovated way too much in the past several decades and should rewind the clock. Adapting floor plans to better suit modern lifestyles, yes, but not this constant quest for the next iconic building.

Maybe there needs to be some innovation in the architectural business model, to make architects relevant again, but innovation doesn't yield beauty. The ultimate beauty, nature, hardly innovates at all. Evolution is so slow it’s barely perceptible. One of my favorite architecture styles, Victorian, did evolve, but over the course of decades, and certainly not on a project-by-project timeframe. The general public already has a hard time identifying with architects, who they hold responsible for all the junk we've built over the past several decades. My students would be taught to make beautiful buildings that the public can love again. Now where did I stash those millions I’ll need to make my school a reality...

The new normal not so normal

2013-01-10T22:09:00.000+01:00

I was intrigued to see a book called Nature Wars by Jim Sterba on the latest Planetizen.com top book list, and read a review of it on the Wall Street Journal website. It got me thinking...

Perhaps it’s cliche to ask what an alien would think if they visited our planet, but I don’t think we need to cross over into fiction. Someone from a few hundred years back would be equally shocked at some of the things they’d discover, and the prognosis might not be so good. Once they got over the technological awe, I think they’d be severely disappointed, because there are a lot of bizarre things about us, and a lot that’s perverse. The way I see it, perversity has become a depressingly regular feature of modern life, so much so that we can't even recognize it or readily accept it. We lead lives which we've come to accept as normal but they're anything but. Just look at our relationship with nature, which has gotten about as far from symbiosis as imaginable. Some people happily admit they have an aversion to or avoid the "outdoors." That's alarming. When humans have thousands of car collisions with deer every day, do we ever consider that maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with ubiquitous car use, that driving along in these huge metal boxes at high speeds is an unnatural activity for our species, contrary to our biology? Do we feel remorse for killing these beautiful, innocent living creatures? Do we ever reconsider our stance on eliminating deers' natural predators? No, we automatically choose the lazy route: create even more destruction and kill the deer. That or we build giant ugly barriers, further isolating ourselves from nature. Solutions like these only try to solve the problem at the effect, but do nothing to address the cause. In this case the cause is the fundamental perversity of relying on cars so regularly on a daily basis.

Another example: does the fact that birds pose a threat to airplanes ever suggest to anyone that perhaps mechanical flying is an inherently freakish thing to do? No, we just kill the birds. Killing living creatures seems to be our go-to action anytime our comfort and convenience is threatened. Every life is invaluable, yet we systematically engage in activities which put our own and our fellow creatures’ lives in danger. Is there anything in our biological evolution to suggest that flying is a normal thing to do for humans? No. We've also allowed ourselves to be boxed in to sedentary lifestyles, sitting on chairs in an office all day, and then go to gym and workout intensively for an hour. We've come to accept this as normal, but it’s not. Our lives should be designed around regular exercise, but instead it’s been relegated to an optional extra. I don’t think I need to state obvious perversity like war. The fact that it’s so accepted in this day and age is crazy.

That humans believe themselves so superior and almost godlike in their domination of Earth is perhaps inevitable but neither helpful or healthy for the future of our relationship with the nature that we share our planet with. Deep down I don't think anyone can feel comfortable with these feelings of superiority, but many let themselves get blindsided. It's utterly anti-nature, and thus anti-human. Modernism may have tried hard to separate us from nature, but we belong to it just as much as any other creature. We’re not from outer space. This planet is, always has been, and always will be our natural habitat. There’s no getting around this fundamental truth. Let us never forget that we too are creatures of the Earth, and as the dominate (and supposedly intelligent and compassionate) species, only we can feel responsible for all others. We need to do everything possible, as quickly as possible, to reconnect with nature and stop feeling like strangers on our own planet.

Main Street, Springfield, MA 1908

We exhibit similarly contradictory actions in our designs of cities. We've let ourselves design our lives around giant moving machines, cars. Many of us have almost completely abandoned the most basic human actions like walking. In many American cities one doesn't even have a choice anymore: it’s drive or give up the option to shop, socialize, and go to school. Generally in these cities one cannot lead a “normal” life without a car. You could argue they could move to one of the handful of pockets where this isn't the case, but that’s not always so easy. Not everyone belongs to the mobile creative class, can find a job wherever they like, or has the financial resources to move. Many people don’t want to pull their kids out of a school, or leave behind their friends and family. Walkable cities are the only effective way to encourage people out of their secluded homes and foster a sense of community again. But if we want walkable cities to be available to all, there’s no choice except to localize walkability, to offer the option in every town in the country. As I say so often, it’s really no different than returning to the development patterns that existed before the car, back when we still designed primarily for pedestrians. That means downtowns, main streets, and inner-city shopping and workplaces. Crazy? No, the only sane thing to do. Our lives should be designed around what’s best for us as humans, not what’s best for corporate interests or because “that’s just the way it is.” Nothing that is, came about by accident. Everything is a reflection of manmade choices. And only manmade choices can forge a new path towards a newer, healthier new normal.

reCities' 2 year anniversary

2012-12-18T13:00:00.000+01:00

I can't believe it's already been two years since I started reCities. In honor of this milestone, I'd like to showcase a few posts, a "best of" if you will.

Thanks to the Sustainable Cities Collective and retweets, my two most recent posts have been my fastest viewed ever. If you haven't read them yet, here are the links.
Starchitects don't know best
A worthy goal for humanity? Beauty

My longest posts were originally assignments at university. They're a few years old, but are still fairly accurate representations of my ideas. If you have time, I recommend taking a look.
Readjusting the American City
Worlds Collide: A critique of the contemporary
You can see more of my personal writing here.

There are of course the case studies, which now number five.
Baltimore
Boston
San Francisco
Toronto
Washington, D.C.
The historical photos posts are always very popular, too. In fact, Historic Boston is my most viewed post ever.

Also, remember you can follow me on Twitter: @RobertKwolek
I hope you enjoy the blog. Thanks for reading.

A worthy goal for humanity? Beauty

2012-12-12T20:21:00.000+01:00

There has to be more to the human story than just perpetual population growth and incremental technological progress. It’s been my experience that we as a people never ask ourselves what the goal for humanity is. Certainly we have personal goals, or even national goals, but our entire species? I've met very few people who even consider such a concept, but I think it’s critical if we’re to avoid future hardship, to avoid simply drifting from birth to death. Our focus needs to go beyond self-preservation like the environmental movement. This merely prevents a future catastrophe, but doesn't answer any questions about the path of humanity. It’s not enough to focus on single issues. If we did consider our path and goals, how would we grade our progress? Especially in recent years, politics seems to be more concerned with partisanship, pseudo-issues, and preventing collapse than with making any “progress”, so we won’t find these answers in DC, Brussels, or the UN. Would most of us agree that the goal is for everyone to be happy and fulfilled, and if so, would we agree that on average we’re more happy and fulfilled now than ever? All these advances in technology and economic globalism, do we consider how they’re relevant in achieving this, if they've made us more or less happy? Is it all to eliminate global poverty and disease? Some probably think so, though that certainly isn't the goal of those in power and those with money, otherwise that would have ceased being an issue decades ago. And even still, those aren't really end points, because even if we did eliminate poverty and disease, what then? There has to be a penultimate end goal far more encompassing. A goal that transcends all others and shines a clear path for thousands of years.

Image Source

A worthy goal, in my opinion? Beauty. Absolute beauty in all corners of the earth. Not the “beauty is a matter of taste” kind of beauty, or the “modern vs traditional” kind of beauty. I mean a beauty of such unequivocal peace and harmony that you feel it more than see it. The kind you find sitting on the beach at sunset. The kind you feel when shafts of light filter through the trees on a hike through the woods. It’s the kind which immediately puts to rest worldly concerns and lets you live in the moment, at peace and unconcerned with chores, careers, or the opinions of others. But you only find it when you know with absolute certainty that everything is as it should be, balanced and unaltered by dishonorable motives. On rare occasions you might even find it in a manmade environment, such as glimpses in a historical village, the gardens of an English palace perhaps, or maybe walking some of the streets featured here on reCities. You’ll never find it in a place which actively destroys nature, however, because whether consciously or not you’ll know that it’s not how it should be. I do believe every person has it within themselves to feel and identify beauty, but unfortunately many of us suppress it, usually unintentionally. Sometimes we’ll show support for some plain or ugly modernist building so as to appear progressive (peer pressure: the horror of being labelled conservative). Education also plays a part. I lost count of the number of times I saw modernist ideology being pounded in at architecture school. It’s a strong-willed young man or woman who comes out at the other end not a diehard modernist. A faceless building constructed of industrial materials with no human character can never be beautiful, as a Classical or Victorian building is. A building which recalls a World War II concrete bunker can never be beautiful. Which is not to say a modern building cannot be beautiful, but the examples can be counted on one hand. Among interiors there are a few more examples, but exteriors are on the whole tragic. It’s generally a universal trait of modernism to focus on the built form at the expense of the streetscape and context, to the detriment of city dwellers.

A focus on beauty in all aspects of society would see large industrial farms disappear, to be replaced by far more beautiful small farms, thus guaranteeing local employment, fresh local produce, and a connection with the land and an understanding of where our food comes from. This in turn would stop land erosion and reduce or eliminate pesticide use. Global health would increase dramatically. Highways and other large scale infrastructure projects would go the way of dinosaurs, because they too are not beautiful. This in turn would encourage far more space-efficient public transport, and quite honestly I think trains have a charm and romance which cars have never been able to match. Suburban sprawl would disappear, because the relentless engulfing of nature would no longer be tolerated. Likewise we wouldn't tolerate wars or hunting. Ultimate beauty is the unrestrained balance of nature, so we would encourage the recovery of species such as wolves and bears which control the deer population. This in turn would dictate compact, walkable towns and cities, and a more socially connected society because we wouldn't feel as comfortable out in the boonies. But that is as it should be, because it is not beautiful to believe that humans have the right to dominate nature as they see fit. Beauty is not uncaring, selfish, or greedy. Our streets and sidewalks would once again be a joy to walk along, safe and unhindered from the roar and speed of automobiles, and paved in bricks or cobbles, not asphalt. Even mundane things like ugly clothes would not exist, further enhancing the experience of being outdoors among fellow walkers. Seeking beauty has a knock-on effect which filters through and has a profound influence on all aspects of humanity.

If we could focus our efforts on achieving beauty, we could stop the constant race for technological and economic gains because they would be meaningless. They're completely independent from and irrelevant to the goal of beauty and happiness and likely actually hinder them. As gatekeepers to our built environment, architects play a crucial role in this, a group whose goal should always have been beauty. That for many architects it isn't is lamentable and for me a point of great sorrow. Many modernist architects frown upon traditionalists and New Urbanists, and while I sometimes agree their work can for various reasons be disappointing, on the whole they should be commended for upholding beauty as one of their core tenets and aims. How many modernist architects can honestly say they strive for beauty? The word beauty is all but taboo in modernist circles. It’s crazy. Visit a traditional architect’s website, and you’ll often see the word beauty, or descriptions of designing from the soul or seeking a sense of spirituality. Which modernist architect can make such a claim? You cannot achieve beauty by suppressing your human nature to seek it out.

If we want a better world, we as architects, urbanists, planners, and citizens must start with ourselves. We have to be bold and confident, and trust our inner nature. If we don’t aim for beauty, we betray the public which has placed its trust in us as professionals, and worst of all we betray our humanity and continue to desecrate this planet we call our home. We have chosen a noble profession with great responsibilities. Let’s live up to it and build a world so beautiful that we cannot possibly feel any shame or guilt. As a species we've seen many millennia, so we should always live as if we were just a blip in the long reign of humanity, and construct beautiful buildings and cities which we would be proud to still serve our ancestors many hundreds of years hence.

Starchitects don't know best

2012-12-02T19:12:00.000+01:00

It isn’t uncommon among the architectural and general media to solicit opinions from starchitects regarding their opinions about the globalization of architecture, the homogenization of design across borders, or what they have to say to critics of these practices. The mistake, of course, is that while starchitects may still do design work, they long ago ceased being solely architects. Today, the vast majority of their working lives are spent as businessmen, taking care of the ins and outs of being business owners, appeasing business partners, and their own professional/financial goals. Anyone who has run a business knows what challenges these can be, but make no mistake, they are counterintuitive to the singular title “architect”, which is the practice of building spaces for people and enhancing the built environment. I don’t know if global architects like Gehry, Koolhaas, Foster, Rogers et al. ever consider on a personal level whether or not they should be designing buildings in not only their home countries but also in the Middle East, China, and US, because the fact remains that it is their professional prerogative to create successful businesses and expand their operations. Which of course means designing as many buildings per year, in as many countries as possible, context be damned.

As a species we should not be proud of this. Source

So why do we care what starchitects have to say about globalization and the homogeneity of architecture? You wouldn't expect Bill Gates to say anything contrary to the monetary success of Microsoft, so why would Rem Koolhaas, Zaha Hadid, or Bjarke Ingels ever speak ill of borderless architecture? Of course they never do, because that could derail their business. Instead they’re steadfast and vocal proponents of their own brand of ideology, which for all we know could be an entirely fabricated marketing facade. Koolhaas in particular masquerades as an intellectual bar none, but I would argue his books, lectures, and philosophies are nothing more than the most sophisticated marketing campaign in architecture. And it's very effective, despite the unparalleled lack of humanity in his work. Like his public persona, his built work is cold, distant, and dismissive. One might venture that the job description of a starchitect is to reflect and equal the ego and megalomania of their clients, to disastrous effects.

Homogeneity might be acceptable in the fast-changing consumer electronics industry, or arguably even in music, but in architecture, the built environment which surrounds us every waking minute of our lives, and which is such an important aspect of our identifiable culture, well, it's simply not acceptable. Not unless we want to entirely lose our culture, identity, and traditions, or if we want the entire world to look exactly the same. I certainly don't. The most disappointing has to be when starchitects take on urban design duties. The results are unsurprisingly just as inhuman, if not more so, than their buildings. If you’re still saying to yourself fine, good for them, they have every right to promote their business just as any other corporation... very well, but at the least let’s stop seeing them as some kind of oracles of wisdom, better qualified to speak on architecture than anyone else. Large developers may build the majority of junk architecture, but at least they don’t pretend to be something they're not.

I'm worried how apathetic many people have become about this. I don't just mean architects, who are among the greatest perpetrators of this global tragedy, but the general population has likewise been led to believe that place specific architecture is pastiche, old-fashioned, or not part of the zeitgeist. There's that German word again, the bane of beauty. It means the spirit of the age, but why glass, steel, and concrete represent the spirit of our age is a mystery to me. People may not be religious nowadays, but they sure do follow some of these guidelines as fervently as any religion. If anything, to me those industrially produced materials are the antithesis of the zeitgeist I live in, in which climate change is a serious concern and polluting industries should be shunned, not embraced. And for the sake of my mental well being, I want to live in an environment which promotes joy, beauty, and respect of nature. To continue to manufacture industrial materials in large quantities, conscious of the environmental consequences, and to promote them as part of the zeitgeist, that has to be some kind of perversion.

So I propose we stop promoting the BIG’s of the world (referring to both Bjarke Ingels Group and Koolhaas’ “Bigness” theories), and return architectural discourse to something of a grassroots level. We need to stop asking architect/businessmen what they foresee for the built environment, and instead start empathizing with our fellow citizens, and ask them how they would like to see their towns and cities develop. From studies we already know it veers more toward traditional walkable neighborhoods, not a megalopolis. And why not, when traditional city designs are the result of thousands of years of evolution and adapted to human needs. We want beautiful, walkable, place-specific neighborhoods, but we won't get that if we continue to hire a select group of architects to design all over the world. When mayors, planning officials, and developers turn to starchitects to develop buildings and master plans for their cities, it’s nothing more than totalitarianism which ignores the dreams of the people. Left to many architects, we’d still be in the throes of urban renewal and building towers in the park à la Le Corbusier.

The dialogue needs to stop focusing on individual buildings and focus on the streetscape, the simple layout of streets and sidewalks, storefronts, public parks, and public transit. Only then should individual buildings come into the equation and be judged by how well they integrate and enhance the whole. A massively overscaled disjointed building like the CCTV tower? No thank you. A museum or big box store surrounded by acres of parking? I'll pass. And for the sake of all mankind, a moratorium on razing any building built pre-WWII. We need to preserve examples built at a time when human scale still mattered, when beauty mattered, and before cars dictated our cities. As for those starchitects? Well, I think your neighbor can probably identify beauty more effectively than they can.

Case Study 5.5: Conclusion

2012-11-28T00:01:00.000+01:00

Today I conclude my look at Washington, D.C. I think we've seen the very best of the city in my posts, a city which is full of history, beauty, and fantastic residential architecture. It's just a shame the commercial and business districts don't quite match up, because these areas, popular with tourists, are what many people see. I'm sure DC would be at the top of many architecture lists if the residential areas were more well known. As the wealthiest metro area in the nation, per capita, it should come as no surprise that the city supports such a large number of exceptional neighborhoods.

In this concluding post I'm featuring a few neighborhoods which have a limited number of nice streetscapes, but still worth showing. They may be perfectly nice, but are perhaps not historical enough, not large enough, or don't have enough nice streets to warrant an entire case study.

This is Kalorama, which is just west of Dupont Circle. The eastern border is essentially an extension of Dupont Circle and indistinguishable, but go inwards a block and it starts to look very suburban. Sometimes it's split into Kalorama Triangle and Sheridan-Kalorama, according to Wikipedia, but Google Maps and some real estate sites also call parts Kalorama Heights. All a bit confusing, so I'm not distinguishing between them in my images. There are still several embassies but mostly it's large homes, some historical townhomes, and some McMansions. In general a pretty conservative neighborhood, but also the city's most affluent, due to the concentration of large single-family homes.

Next is Adams Morgan, northeast of Kalorama, and significantly less upscale. It's an area popular with young professionals, dominated mostly by apartment buildings and townhomes subdivided into apartments. It's widely considered as the city's best nightlife destination, hence the popularity among the aforementioned young professionals.

Lanier Heights, a small pocket of a neighborhood north of Adams Morgan, is just a few streets.

Mount Pleasant, north of Lanier Heights, is a large neighborhood with some 10,000 people. Mostly developed between 1900-1925, it was the city's first streetcar suburb. Like much of the city, it experienced white flight in the 60's and didn't being to recover until the late 80's. While never an affluent area, it has been home to Senators in the past, and there are still some large homes, especially along Park Road. Certainly compared to more centrally located neighborhoods, one can buy a significantly larger home with a larger yard for much less money, while still being just minutes away from urban amenities.

And finally, Foggy Bottom, which is just about the most centrally located of any neighborhood in DC. There are really only a few residential streets, the others taken up by George Washington University and institutions like the World Bank, IMF, Red Cross, Watergate, and the list goes on. There are also quite a few apartment buildings along the river, many with multimillion dollar units.

I hope you've enjoyed my DC case study. Away from downtown and the political circus, it's a wonderful city which offers a great quality of life to its residents and plenty to do. I've heard the social scene is a bit staid, but that's to be expected from a city with a rather singular business: politics. All in all, DC is a capital the country can be proud of. I'm sure more than a few foreign dignitaries are impressed upon their arrival and immersion into daily life.

Which is not to say that there isn't a lot which could be improved, with public transit a particular priority. The Metro is admirable, but it serves just a few corridors, with much of the city serviced only by buses. The city shot itself in the foot when they dismantled the streetcar system and will now have to spend many millions to reinstate just a fraction of it. Whether there's the will or the funds to completely rebuild the original system is debatable.

Another challenge is how the city will fare with its relationship to the its suburbs and other growing urban areas like Tysons Corner, Virginia. The city itself may have several walkable communities like the ones featured here, but let's not forget that the vast majority of workers in the city commute, sometimes vast distances, from the sprawl enveloped around the city. Any improvements within the District's limits are a drop in the ocean compared to the challenge of improving the suburbs. And it has be said, it's disappointing to see so many of DC's political elite holed up in gated communities in McLean, VA, representative of the worst possible class divide and social problems the country is facing. How can we expect the average American to give up their car and hour long commute, and live in harmony with each other, when not even our elected leaders strive to do so? Political leaders first and foremost should embrace a lifestyle inclusive of their fellow citizens, not hide behind walls. I think it violates the spirit of public service to live in a private community. But maybe that's just me.

The bottom line is that Washington, D.C. has unparalleled quality urban neighborhoods with a finely balanced character developed over hundreds of years. Recently there's been a lot of talk about raising the city's building height limits, but I'm strongly opposed to this. I think such a move would risk ruining the very qualities which make DC so special, and so unique among American cities. I had a discussion with a friend about this, and I think a lot of the complaints should actually be focused on the street level, not the sky. Many of the downtown area streets are not boring or constrained because of a lack of tall buildings, but rather from a dearth of street life culture. There's definitely a lack of cafe's, and far too many institutional buildings with blank facades, which just kills street life. Cities should never prioritize their skyline over street levels, and residents shouldn't let themselves be pulled in to this common cop out Alarmingly, DC has also put up hundreds of barriers and other obstacles for the sake of security, but this has had the effect of further constraining street culture. To read more about this, see Kaid Benfield's post here. Recently he has also posted a very convincing argument for the building height limits, which I highly recommend reading.

Although not in DC itself, the nearby city of Alexandria, VA is also worth taking a look at, especially the Old Town neighborhood. Here's a photo link.

If you missed any of the individual case studies, be sure to visit the introductory post for links to each. There are also links to my previous posts on the navigation bar on the right, under BROWSE, including my prior case studies like San Francisco and Boston.

Thanks for reading. I'm uncertain what my next case study will be. I'm considering Charleston or Savannah, depending on the quality of Street View or Streetside images I find. I've also considered Seattle or Portland, depending on the quality and quantity of urban neighborhoods. I'll look into it, but suggestions are welcome.

Case Study 5.4: Georgetown

2012-11-23T18:58:00.002+01:00

Welcome to the final Washington, D.C. case study, Georgetown. This is the oldest neighborhood in the city. In fact, Georgetown dates to 1751, some 40 years before the federal capital was moved there. It remained a separate town until they merged in 1871. It is therefore no surprise that Georgetown doesn't follow the L'Enfant street grid, nor contain any of his wide boulevards. The town has survived relatively unscathed through the decades, suffering neither from white flight or urban renewal nearly as much as other areas. It has been allowed to age organically, with many old buildings and a mix of scales. It is not unusual to see a small 18th century cottage adjacent to large 19th century rowhomes. This is partially due to preservation efforts dating back as far as the 1920's.

The neighborhood's organic character also contributes to a range of housing types. While one can easily live in an urban rowhome, several streets have an almost suburban character and in fact some large mansions indeed on very large lots are a common sight on the north side. In general, the area east of Wisconsin Avenue (sometimes called East Village) is the more desirable, being closer to downtown, while the west, abutting Georgetown University, is slightly less so. Regardless, both rank among the upper echelons of DC real estate markets.

Though largely residential, Wisconsin Avenue and M Street are popular commercial corridors, with a wide selection of shops, bars, restaurants, and services. A few popular cupcake empires had their start in Georgetown. There are even a few embassies, though not nearly as many as in Dupont Circle. Notable residents have included and include Franis Scott Key, JFK, Bob Woodward, and John Kerry. As an exclusive area, larger single-family homes often sell for over $2 million, sometimes much more. The historic Evermay mansion, dating to 1801, was recently purchased by a Japanese couple for $22 million, although that's much less than the original $49 million asking price.

To read more about Georgetown, I have provided a few links at the bottom of the post. On with the images.

Old Stone House, from 1765, on M Street, the oldest unchanged building in DC

Shops on M Street

PNC Bank on corner of Wisconsin Avenue and M Street

Apple Store on Wisconsin

Wisconsin is the more high end of the two shopping streets, with brands like Ralph Lauren

Small rowhomes on 26th St

I like the little podiums each rowhome stands on

27th St

Large home on 28th St among lush greenery

As in many of the best neighborhoods on reCities, we can be thankful for brick sidewalk paving

Color is a regular sight in Georgetown, especially on rowhomes

There's a delightful mix of home types, colors, sizes, as here on 29th St

A nice example of Second Empire Victorian on 30th St. The left half sold for $4.15 million last year

Avon Place

31st St

This is among one of the most upscale streets, with large lots and plenty of greenery. This home sold last year for $4.5 million

On a large corner lot, this home sold for $4.6 million in May. It's since been painted white

Built in 1803, this house has a country feel to it. On the market for $4.3 million

How much more plain would this sidewalk be without the bushes bordering the road

Although modest here in the front, this home stretches far back, totaling nearly 4400 sq ft on a quarter acre lot

Love this corner. Charming architecture, vibrant greenery, and all human scale

32nd St

Caton Place is a narrow off the grid road

Potomac St

Olive St

These homeowners definitely had an aim to select complimentary paint colors

N Street

If only most modern cars weren't so ugly

A very nice 1850's Greek Revival home, it sold for $4.6 million earlier this year

From the side this home gives a hunchback impression

While the windows may be a bit low for comfort, the overall impression is very elegant

The vine covered home center-right, built in 1868, is on the market for almost $6 million, one of few to have a pool

Georgetown is another of those neighborhoods which must be a delight to just take a walk in

Wonderfully decorated bay windows and in perfect harmony with the trees and greenery of the site

Dumbarton St

Henry Foxhall House, built around 1819

O St

The home seems almost as one with the brick sidewalk

Naturally derived materials like brick compliment very well with nature

Just that small strip of planting between the home and sidewalk is enough to lend an almost pastoral quality

Christopher Alexander would probably consider the small steps as a reasonable entrance transition, given limitations

Delightful trio, and again that small strip of greenery doing wonders for the streetscape

It's usual in Georgetown for trees to be surrounded by further planting, and its a great solution

A strong crown can really transform a modest building, something the rowhomes above lack

P St. See the little house tucked back behind the tree?

Climbing those stairs, through the greenery, is a bit like passing through a different world to prepare for the serene environment of home

Same here. Once you climb those stairs to the elevated level, you forget the public realm and enter the private

This is one of the grandest homes in Georgetown. Built in 1875, it was recently listed for $9.8 million before being delisted

This townhome is on the opposite corner, on the market for $2.6 million. It's very nice on the inside, too, on photos

Q St

Magnificent Victorian duplex, semi-detached, two-family dwelling, whatever you want to call it

There's a group of three of these semi-detached homes in a row, all in a different style

Once the home of DC mayor Henry Cooke, the 1868 8500 sq ft home on the left is on the market for $5 million

Another good image showcasing the lush streetside planting

Cambridge Place, another of the off-the-grid roads

R St, the northernmost street of Georgetown proper

This is as suburban as Georgetown gets, but the saving grace is that these homes are still within easy walking distance of shops, etc.

Up until this point all the images were of the East Village. Now we'll be looking at the western half

This is 33rd St, west of Wisconsin Avenue

In general the west side is not as old, with more modest homes

There are still many large, expensive homes here, too, with the same high standard of landscaping, brick sidewalks, and history

34th St

Charming, and you'll never see me complain about a white picket fence

The little rowhome just left of the tree, built in 1938, is available for $1.125 million

JFK lived here around 1950. It sold for $4.2 million in 2008

It's unusual to see a home deviate from neighboring setbacks

35th St. The picket home is smaller than it looks, around 800 sq ft. It recently sold for $700k

The mix of styles of this terrace gives a pleasing effect. The turreted home sold last year for $2.25 million

Built in 1894, the tan home center-right recently sold for around $3 million

A grand home with wonderful regency detailing

Whether with siding or a stucco finish, the Victorian detailing shines through and completes the design

Great little group of rowhomes, with appropriately scaled front lawns. 850 sq ft, they go for around $500k

36th St, just a block from the Georgetown University campus

On the left, 1851 building of Holy Trinity Church, on a very pleasant street

Group of homes on 37th St, which directly face Georgetown University

Reservoir Rd

Georgetown residents should really be commended for their dedication to landscaping. Sometimes it seems every possible nook has greenery

Dent Pl

Notice the string of pots in front of this home, the planting over the driveway, and the vine-covered wall of the far-right townhome

Q St. In moderation, that blue might just pass

The red rowhome center-left, 940 sq ft, recently sold for $735k

Volta Pl

I really like the understated simplicity of these homes, and again the brick matching the sidewalk

P St, and this is the first time we see cobbled streets. I had hoped to see much more cobbles

A sophisticated pair on O St

How great are those cobbles. Normally I avoid getting too much asphalt in an image, but the cobbles actually enhance the composition

N St

Built between 1870-80, the left half recently sold for $1.725 million, while the right half is currently on the market for $2.2 million

Historic Cox's Row, built around 1805 by Colonel John Cox. The townhome to the right of the white one is available for $7.9 million

The yellow townhome, built in 1816, is available for $4.6 million

Prospect St

While my Capitol Hill post was the longest to date, this one is even larger, with over 180 images. I think Georgetown is well deserving. I've made no secret of the fact that it's my favorite DC neighborhood, with an unparalleled collection of historical homes on pleasant streets and perhaps the nicest sidewalk planting I've seen.

I think the true success of Georgetown lies in the balance it strikes between walkable inner city urbanism and the pastoral qualities of the country. There's no lack of shops and services in easy walking distance of pretty much any residence. Many residents have commented they can go about their daily errands entirely without a car. Best of all, the neighborhood achieves this without resorting to the tiny backyards that are common in Dupont Circle, for example. Land is still precious, so no, most homes don't have the palatial yards of the suburbs, but they're entirely sufficient for a BBQ, outdoor dining, a small vegetable garden, or for children to run around.

Public transit is one area which could use improvement, however. As you may have seen in a few of the images, there used to be a streetcar before it was removed in 1962. With its congested streets, buses are not a good solution, and the Metro does not serve Georgetown. Bringing back the streetcars seems like a no-brainer, and in fact the city is working towards that purpose. Furthermore, many roads are far too wide, especially M St and Wisconsin Avenue, leaving just a few feet for sidewalks. M St especially has 6 lanes, crazy for the noble residential area it is. It would be nice to see Georgetown released from the scourge of the automobile. With America's ongoing urban renaissance, I'm sure we'll see that happen sooner than later. And oh yeah, I wish there were more cobbled streets, but that's a minor niggle.

Here are a few links:
flickriver
UrbanTurf
Business Improvement District
Wikipedia
Wikitravel
Living in...

My next post will wrap up the DC case study.

Case Study 5.3: Dupont Circle

2012-10-26T23:20:00.001+02:00

From Capitol Hill we head northwest to Dupont Circle, which borders previous case study Logan Circle. This is a neighborhood altogether far more urban than those, and much more densely populated due to the popularity of high-rise apartment blocks, most of which are not very attractive. Especially to the south, Dupont Circle blurs with the downtown business district, with very few single family homes. The nicest streets are in the northwest of the neighborhood, closest to suburban and ritzy Kalorama. There's also a lot more commercial activity than we've seen before, with shops, hotels, and offices on several streets, not to mention the multitude of embassies scattered throughout the area.

Like much of the city, the area was largely unpopulated until after Civil War. It's been a popular and affluent residential area since the 1870's. Many of the original late 19th century mansions build along Massachusetts Avenue still stand, though largely converted into embassies years ago. It'a a recurring theme that like many urban neighborhoods throughout the country, white flight was common after the 1968 riots, and Dupont Circle has never fully recovered its exclusive character, but luckily the low period didn't last long. Starting from the 1970's, it was popular among the LGBT community but today is more mainstream.

Unsurprisingly, the central location alone explains home prices in the area. A townhome can easily cost $1-2 million, though the most expensive currently on the market is a 1911 12,000 sq. ft home for $10.9 million.

16th Street, which divides Dupont Circle and Logan Circle

17th Street, a busy commercial corridor with just a few residential pockets like these townhomes

Embassy of Montenegro on 18th Street

The northern half of 18th starts to have a more residential character

19th Street is one of my favorites in Dupont Circle

The overhanging roofs lend an almost human like quality to these homes

The overgrown nature of these front lawns turns the walk to the front door into an enjoyable journey

One of the diagonal streets, New Hampshire Avenue mostly consists of embassies and institutions, though often housed in old homes

Just brilliant how this corner is cut, revealing the intersecting street beyond

This 1883 Victorian, all 10,000+ sq. ft, is currently on the market for $6 million

21st Street is one of the more upscale streets, being as it is quite close to Kalorama

These townhomes were built around 1900

As seen from 22nd Street, the Miller House, built in 1901, is one of the most spectacular buildings in the city, today split into apartments

This 1906 corner building recently sold for $2.15 million

Massachusetts Avenue is a good place to see what lavish properties governments spend money on. Here the Indonesian embassy, the 50-room Walsh-McLean House, built in 1903, sold to Indonesia in 1951 for far less than the original construction cost

This home was originally built in 1901, by architects Carrere and Hastings, today the exclusive Cosmos Club

Not necessarily a great streetscape, but the regal architecture somewhat overcomes that

A small but welcome bit of greenery improving home fronts on Willard Street

T Street

These townhomes were built in 1905 and I really like the processional quality lent by the dual level of stairs

Among the monumental Victorians, these rowhomes are refreshing and quaint

Swann is a tree-lined street with modest rowhomes

This looks to be a modern conversion, with a pleasant looking roof terrace

An unusual stoneclad building on S Street

The 1890 home on the right, once listed for $1.9 million, is fantastic, as are the charming rowhomes on the left

Some more examples of well done front lawns

Riggs Place

R Street

These homes are exceptional, with highly complimentary lawns. The one on the right was built in 1887

Corcoran Street

Streets like Corcoran, which don't follow the normal grid, are more narrow than average

No two homes on Corcoran are alike

Hillyer Place. Looking at a scene like this, it's important to note the borders between the homes and sidewalk and road, the width of these, the proportions of scale, and amount of greenery. All these play a very important part in a successful streetscape

Looking at an image like this, I take in the main home, but also the rhythm of the other homes, the stairs, sidewalk, etc.

Grand home on Q Street, today used as offices

Amazing what a difference the choice of cladding material makes

A very vibrant streetscape

These bay windows are very unique, like a storybook

Church Street

P Street

N Street

These are widely considered to be among the best examples of Second Empire architecture in the city

And finally, some nice rowhomes on Jefferson Street

This concludes our look at Dupont Circle. I tried to avoid it, but you could occasionally see the large office or apartment blocks creeping into the images, as in the image above. Dupont Circle is a far busier, and generally less residential neighborhood than many others in the city. As you can imagine, there are a host of services which cater to the diplomatic crowd, with dozens and dozens of embassies and missions crowded into a relatively small area. That's probably a large part of the appeal of the neighborhood, but it doesn't always guarantee the most beautiful streetscapes and has unfortunately resulted in many demolitions throughout the years. Around the neighborhood's namesake in particular, the large traffic roundabout Dupont Circle, there has been a lot of destruction. Once the location of the most grand mansions, just one now remains, currently home to yet another of the city's exclusive clubs. All others are long gone to make way for bland office buildings.

Dupont Circle's central location is a mixed blessing, responsible for over development but also to some of DC's best nightlife. Connecticut Avenue in particular has a host of restaurants, bars, and clubs. Residents throughout the city patronize these establishments, thus enhancing the vibrancy of street life.

Dupont Circle is much more expensive than Logan Circle or Capitol Hill, though it doesn't necessarily have nicer or larger homes, or more pleasant streets. Here it's a case of location, location, location, in addition to the area's history as a favorite among the wealthy. Still, it would have been nice to see the reputation justified more consistently. I hadn't expected to see so much mediocre high-rise construction, which greatly detracts on some streets. Logan Circle and Capitol Hill are blessed in that high-rises have so far been kept at bay. Still, as anywhere else in the city, it is thanks to historical rowhomes that the neighborhood's charm and popularity have remained, and we must be thankful that more were not destroyed. Whether young professionals or old money, Dupont Circle's popularity spans the spectrum, and has resulted in a diverse, vibrant neighborhood that is often called the city's trendiest. I hope you enjoyed this case study.

Some related links:
Urban Turf
Wikitravel
Dupont Circle Conservancy photo gallery

My favorite DC neighborhood, Georgetown, is next in line.

Follow me on Twitter

2012-10-24T13:57:00.000+02:00

You may have noticed that I recently added a Twitter link to my sidebar on the right. If you hadn't, feel free to follow me on Twitter. I often post or retweet about architecture, urbanism, and occasionally unrelated topics.

Follow @RobertKwolek

Case Study 5.2: Capitol Hill

2012-10-12T16:07:00.001+02:00

I know I've been away for several months, for which I apologize. I haven't had much free time, but welcome back! This is an extra long case study, covering over 130 images, so hopefully that'll slightly make up for lost time. Plus Capitol Hill is an exceptionally large neighborhood and needs the extra space.

Many of you will know Capitol Hill from the media, because it's a term loosely applied to Washington politics, in particular Congress and the US Capitol building, which sits on a hill at the west edge of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is of course named after the hill and building. There are several large government institutions around the US Capitol but the bulk of the area is residential, the largest historic residential district in the city in fact, with a population around 35,000. There's some dispute about the exact borders, so I've chosen the most popular borders as described on several websites.

The neighborhood began to be developed in the late 18th century, largely around government jobs and a Marine Barracks and US Navy yard, in the south part of the neighborhood. This area is still the most vibrant commercial center, with bars, shops, and restaurants centered on 8th Street and around Eastern Market on 7th Street. Many new homes were built in the 1870's and 1880's, following a post-Civil War boom and expansion of government. The bulk of existing homes date from between 1890 and 1910, as a result of electricity and plumbing advances. Like most inner city neighborhoods, Capitol Hill suffered from white flight after WWII, and in the 1980's was well known for crime and drugs, but has since undergone intense gentrification. Many Congressmen and staffers now call the area home. It's generally a middle to upper-middle class area, with the average home price hovering around $650,000, which is significantly above the DC average. Some townhomes are currently listed at $2 million, however. A general rule of thumb seems to be that the closer you are to the US Capitol, the higher the prices, although East Capitol Street is also an expensive corridor.

On with the show.

East Capitol Street divides the neighborhood in half north to south

The street is one of the few with such large front lawns, no doubt helpful considering the heavy traffic

Already we can see that even on one street the style of architecture is far from monotonous

Northwest corner of Lincoln Park

Grand home across the street from the park, built in 1890

Massachusetts Avenue, one of the diagonal streets

These apartment blocks are particularly imposing yet elegant, and were built in 1900

F Street NE, the northern boundary of Capitol Hill

E Street NE, with townhomes built in 1890

This 1890 townhome was listed for $1.1 million earlier this year

It's refreshing to see such an eclectic mix of building sizes

The blossoming trees add a lot to this home on Constitution Avenue

Bright colors are a common sight

I really like the home on the right, on A Street SE

The whitewashing of the homes on the left lends them an almost minimal modern look

C Street SE, one of the most expensive in the neighborhood with homes often selling for around $2 million

C Street is across the street from the US Copyright Office, which is part of the Library of Congress

D Street SE enveloped in canopy

Beautiful homes with lush lawns. The blue home in the center was built in 1890 and sold for $850,000 last year

As you can probably see on the signpost, this is the corner of North Carolina Avenue and 9th Street

Like the other diagonal streets, North Carolina has longer front lawns than average

Although this looks like a grand mansion, it is in fact a large apartment building which stretches back into the next block

E Street SE

The impressive home on the right is one of the oldest in Capitol Hill, standing since 1782

South Carolina Avenue

While these homes are elegant, they are simple, but complemented immensely by the generous, pleasant front lawns

E Street SE continued

This style of townhome, with square bays and large crowns, are in my experience a housing typology unique to the DC area

One of the greatest strengths of traditional architecture has to be how easy it is to have a pleasant streetscape

Here, for example, are homes of little architectural complication, yet the end result is pleasing to the eye

The funnily named Duddington Place is the most charming street in the neighborhood

Here one of the few streets I can confidentially show across its width thanks to its narrow width and greenery

Built in 1907, these small rowhomes go for about $650,000 and most have just 2 bedrooms

Duddington is known for its strong sense of community

There are few of this type of rowhome in the neighborhood, a style more typical in Baltimore

One of the largest homes, built in 1900, it's almost 5,000 sq ft

Its constantly obvious that Capitol Hill was not a planned area by any means, as the mishmash of home types proves

While not unpleasant, this Italianate home is not typical for the area

These scene has the feeling of a small New England town

Now shifting to streets which run north to south, this is 2nd Street

I've found that homeowner pride is a good gauge of an area's resiliency and beauty, and Capitol Hill has that in spades

These homes on 3rd Street were built in 1911 and the one of the right sold for exactly $1 million two years ago

I don't blame that guy, this does look like a fine place for a walk

It's like living in a forest here

I love the bay windows on these two homes, apparently built in 1880 and 1900, despite the identical style

Like a folly, the oversized crown on the red home has real presence but borders on bonkers in a good way

4th Street

Elegance

The wedding cake trio

I really like this corner with A Street SE: green, lively, and great architecture. This 1890 home sold for $1.13 million in 2010

I've always liked homes among the foliage, where from within you feel as if you live in the trees. These were built in 1908

Seward Square

6th Street

Beautiful homes enhanced by the contrast between red brick and white stucco

A nice little trio of rowhomes on 7th Street

8th Street

The roofs on these homes look like hats, which I think adds an extra layer of detail and interest

There aren't many timber clapboard homes but there are some, here on 9th Street

Though most likely they are brick underneath

10th Street

The small portico is a welcome addition to this home

11th Street

And finally, a group of townhomes on 12th Street

I hope this case study was worth the wait. I don't think Capitol Hill is as universally beautiful as some parts of Logan Circle, but nonetheless it's a very charming neighborhood with a lot of history, many examples of great streetscapes, and fine homes. It's such a large neighborhood that there are plenty of opportunities to find a home or apartment of any size. Best of all, the strong historic protection means its likely to stay this way for the foreseeable future. Unlike Logan Circle, ugly modern apartment buildings are almost nonexistent.

I wouldn't do the neighborhood justice if I didn't find some faults, however. While there is a great deal of homeowner pride visible, there are also many homes which could do with greater care, probably multi-unit apartment buildings, many years ago converted from single family use. The bulk of this is visible on the fringes, generally as you get further east and around I-695. It's a shame, because the river could be a great recreational area for jogging, boating, or just relaxing after work. This not to mention the spike in property values which would undoubtedly accompany the highway removal. The city might want to consider converting I-695 into a surface street à la the Embarcadero in San Francisco. Reclaim your waterways, Washingtonians!

Some good links I found about Capitol Hill, should they interest you:
Capitol Hill History Project
HillRag
Wikitravel

I'm not sure how quickly I can complete the next case study, Dupont Circle, but I'll do my best.