As we increasingly urbanize, relearning the craft of creating human-scaled places, I often — too often — hear that “if we just get the ground floor right” then all will be fine. While obviously a good start, and one that addresses the most immediate of pedestrian interests, I find that this line of thinking ultimately allows, even incentivizes, buildings poorly designed above the first floor, thereby marginalizing the complete urban experience.
The crescendo of urbanism? Nope, there is more to it!
Nice enough… (Photo credit: Urbdezine.com)
But after a while… a little monotonous. (Photo credit: Urbdezine.com)
Case-in-point: San Diego architect Ted Smith is attempting to change downtown San Diego’s regulatory requirement for zero foot setbacks on all property lines, even those interior to the block. Our narrow 200’ x 300’, sans-alley blocks were originally laid out to produce the greatest number of higher-renting corner lots possible throughout downtown. The downtown Community Plan, updated in 2005, emphasized zero foot setbacks along the streetwall in order to “get the street right.” However, as our city continues to incrementally fill up with mid-rise buildings that maximize the zero-setback on all sides of the building envelope, the upper floors are not being built with the basic need for proper light and air access, something necessary to ‘humanize’ the block.
In focussing on getting the street right, we’ve lost sight of the 3-dimensional ramifications of building 6-story, 85-foot tall, Type III construction buildings on 10 – 15,000 sq. ft. lots with large, expensive, tightly stacked units. The maximization of profit potential within our legal building envelopes is causing the latest neighbor-to-neighbor conflicts over proper light, air and the need for private space within the block itself.
Maxing out the block in San Diego.
Making it impossible to cross-ventilate, let alone enjoy. (Photo credit: Ted Smith)
The interior of the block is not throw-away space. It’s another vital realm where urbanism occurs and, traditionally, has contained spaces where people live, play, work and relax. While we may never achieve a New Orleans’ mid-block courtyard pattern, our regulations should foster a greater diversity of building types — not just towers and full-block buildings, but also the more organic perimeter or liner block buildings with courts and stepbacks interior to the block.
Livable, functional space, at both the public and private level.
Perimeter block buildings, creating livable interior space.
Another important design element, beyond getting the ground floor right, is designing the upper floors to be connected with the block, street and other buildings. A few very good San Diego’ architects are beginning to experiment with the opportunity to connect people and deftly share common spaces and views. See my previous posts on the Next Urbanism here and here regarding this urban design condition.
Exploring connectivity beyond street level. A perimeter block building in San Diego’s East Village.
Over time, we can increasingly consider light, air, and connectivity at all levels, creating a more civilized and humane urbanism.
Connectivity, beyond the ground floor, is important to building the City 2.0. Our cities are not simply a connection of ground floor streetscapes, but a series of complex connections filled with people, places, and fun. Healthy cities need to balance the ground, upper and lower floors to avoid conflicts and create places that people enjoy. Ultimately, moving beyond the ground floor is about how we’re able to physically connect with others that will ensure our ability to not only endure but thrive in the 21st century.
Civilized blocks add up to… you guessed it: civilization. (Photo credit: Steve Mouzon)
–Howard Blackson
If PlaceShakers is our soapbox, our Facebook page is where we step down, grab a drink and enjoy a little conversation. Looking for a heads-up on the latest community-building news and perspective from around the web? Click through and “Like” us and we’ll keep you in the loop.
The thing is, there are different basic settings for interior side lot line and rear lot line setbacks. If you’re in a downtown (T6) location, it’s reasonable to assume that people will build to the lot line, and that lots will have courtyards for light and air. Of course, this is one reason that two means of egress becomes a problem. In Paris, you can wrap side and back wings around a courtyard without having to wrap a corridor around as well. You just need one stair for every two stacks of apartments, or for a certain amount of office space.
Howard – nicely said. I’d love for you to expand on this more. And, I’ll share with you a fun example from China where the mid-block area is used for agriculture.
BTW – love that Barcelona grid…
KK
First of all… a true honour to be mentioned in a post by one of my favourite urbanists (‘new’ or otherwise). Its true, I am critical of many contemporary full-block midrise buildings in LA and San Diego. With our desire to find a form of development that meets our desire for a urbane mid-rise density, too often cities pay attention to type and not the details of design. Howard is spot-on that urbanists must pay attention to the horizontal, the vertical, and the interior – and the full range of dynamics in-between all three. Too many mid-rise buildings fill the block, isolate a token ‘open space’ inside, and, when not carefully designed along its horizontal streetwall can be as damaging to the urban environment as a poorly designed tower.
One great solution is exactly what is detailed here: break up the block. Enable movement through the site (San Diego has exemplary precedents of this).. At the very least, keep the laneway public (and urbane itself). I don’t claim that the point-and-podium tower form of development well-known in central Vancouver is necessarily more visually alluring (that would be unfair to so many great mid-rise buildings up and down the west coast) but what I think is underrated in the tower vs. midrise debate is that the Vancouver tower is typically small in footprint and Vancouver almost always retains that the lane remain public. Indeed, that is one of the elements that drove the evolution of the point-and-podium… a small footprint dictated by open lanes and parcel patterns. And the benefit of allowing some height enables the kinds of density typically dictated by the economics of high-value central city sites (and the need for a more sustainable urbanism) to be sculpted better (plus the kinds of design review often triggered by a taller building, but thats an argument for another day).
In other words, bravo Howard… great post!