A developer has purchased an existing property adjacent to my home, and has scheduled a "massing" (had to look that up - obviously I'm not an architect) meeting.
What materials and information should I expect the developer to bring?
Hi Tia, check out the AIA website for your region and give a local architect a call. You could also call the local planning department. They may know as well. Good luck.
I'm not looking for something that definitive - I'd just like to know, in general, what a good and reasonable and competent architect with developer in tow would do.
"Massing" refers to general physical size, shape, bulk, site location and surrounding space that results. Not part of massing as generally used: materials, finishes, colors, details.
they probably want to build a building on the lot next to yours. i would expect this meeting is to give you an idea of what they want to build, and how big it will be.
other than that, i'm not sure what you're asking. they might have power point, they might have big pictures printed on 24"x36" foam core. maybe they will have a brochure you can take home. possibly even a pen with their logo on it that you can keep. it doesn't really matter what they bring does it? it's the idea that would be important at this stage.
So I've had the meeting, and the only thing they had were 2 11x17s (not to scale) of before and after horizontal views (which they would not let me keep) w/o any dimensions beyond height. They want to raise the average height from 12' to 40', built to the property line and directly adjacent to my house. Getting even a rough dimension was like pulling teeth. Overall, it struck me as very unprofessional, though I suspect the developer was responsible as the architect is apparently highly regarded (w/ numerous AIA awards and work shown in the WSJ, etc.).
This is in San Francisco, though, so perhaps that is par for the course.
Yeah, that sounds about right. All of the stuff they showed you is speculative at this moment, especially since it sounds like they want a variance (asking the building department to build higher than is allowed & set by zoning). They also probably don't want to give you any hard copies of stuff so that you can look at it and get overly pissed, and even the possibility of you dispersing it and give a negative slant on it. Sounds like they are about to do the old max out the site and even ask for more. How are your views and do you get good natural light at the moment?
And that is funny that it is all on the developer for being "unprofessional". They both want the work and that is the nature of business. This feeling of pushing the blame to the developer is based on the zeitgeist of how the common populous of really the world holds architects in high regards. OP, you can drop that logic for architecture is the quiescence's of modern day slavery for 95% of the profession.
Think of it as "this is just how big money hustles", same as a pimp, pimpin out his gurls...
Except you actually got to talk directly to the pimp himself, he said "hello, this is my block now!, Now GO!", his gurls are hard at work prepping his 11"X17"s without dims.
Thanks DeTwan, and interesting info on the developer/architect. All I know is that architecture is a profession with licensing standards where, it seems to an outsider, skill and creativity are rewarded. A developer is rewarded, largely, for taking risk (the gritty other stuff can be passed off to salaried or contract individuals). In other words, a gambler who likes buildings.
How'd the comparison sheet from now to what they want to do look? Was it hulking compared to what it is now? Sounds like there is an existing structure on site that they want to pop the top on? Do you know what zoning you fall into at all, bc you should perhaps do a little research on what the building limitations are in your zone. Obviously this is residential zoning, but in San Fran you could literally have 20 different residential zoning difference all based on your location and its residential zoning type.
Everything is w/in the zoning envelope. SF does have many, many zones. I'm quite sure Kafka couldn't have done a better job writing up current SF zoning regs and building requirements.
Existing home is 1350 sq feet (1200 on main level, w/ 150 second level room in middle of building. There is a garage on the ground level. Current height to top of second level ~ 33 ft.
Proposed home is 3700 sq feet, 3 complete living levels at 40' with a 12' 1st level extension to rear, all on top of a ground level garage On a street where the median home is ~1350 sq ft, to say this is hulking is a gross understatement.
Plans do not include demolition, mostly because SF Planning doesn't like to approve demos
The developer will blow smoke up your ass to get your approval then do what he wants to get the most money. Imaging any other possibility is delusional.
In my area, it's standard practice to say you'll built twice or more the allowable height while all along knowingly wanting only a few extra levels. It's easier to gain public approval after the developer knocks off 10 fake levels of the 15 they "wanted".
The issue that arises from that logic Non Sequiter is that then all your "massing" models of the structure take a phallic form... although I suspect that in San Francisco this might be desirable. Are you from around, or near the area Non Sequiter?
Non, exactly. Standard negotiating strategy. Take what you really want, double or triple it, then begrudgingly make small concessions in a good faith effort to find compromise.
BTW this has happened in NYC before - developer had to remove 10 floors (90's or 80's in Manhattan).....or in another case developer had to stop building at 31 floors when the community realized how tall the building was getting even though they were within as-of-right.
...and another reason I stay away from residential and condo developments. I don't get these issues with private commercial and office projects. DeTwan, I am not, unfortunately, in the San-Fran region. I've been there twice now in the last 18 months and still have not seen enough but it's rather hard (Ha, morning pun!) to not make a tower look phallic.
I suggest they replace your house along with building the new (contractors are already on site so its practically free) in exchange for you allowing them to build the sky blocking monstronsity
Feb 12, 15 12:49 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
What to expect at a "Massing" meeting
A developer has purchased an existing property adjacent to my home, and has scheduled a "massing" (had to look that up - obviously I'm not an architect) meeting.
What materials and information should I expect the developer to bring?
This is in California.
TIA.
I'm not looking for something that definitive - I'd just like to know, in general, what a good and reasonable and competent architect with developer in tow would do.
"Massing" refers to general physical size, shape, bulk, site location and surrounding space that results. Not part of massing as generally used: materials, finishes, colors, details.
they probably want to build a building on the lot next to yours. i would expect this meeting is to give you an idea of what they want to build, and how big it will be.
other than that, i'm not sure what you're asking. they might have power point, they might have big pictures printed on 24"x36" foam core. maybe they will have a brochure you can take home. possibly even a pen with their logo on it that you can keep. it doesn't really matter what they bring does it? it's the idea that would be important at this stage.
So I've had the meeting, and the only thing they had were 2 11x17s (not to scale) of before and after horizontal views (which they would not let me keep) w/o any dimensions beyond height. They want to raise the average height from 12' to 40', built to the property line and directly adjacent to my house. Getting even a rough dimension was like pulling teeth. Overall, it struck me as very unprofessional, though I suspect the developer was responsible as the architect is apparently highly regarded (w/ numerous AIA awards and work shown in the WSJ, etc.).
This is in San Francisco, though, so perhaps that is par for the course.
Yeah, that sounds about right. All of the stuff they showed you is speculative at this moment, especially since it sounds like they want a variance (asking the building department to build higher than is allowed & set by zoning). They also probably don't want to give you any hard copies of stuff so that you can look at it and get overly pissed, and even the possibility of you dispersing it and give a negative slant on it. Sounds like they are about to do the old max out the site and even ask for more. How are your views and do you get good natural light at the moment?
And that is funny that it is all on the developer for being "unprofessional". They both want the work and that is the nature of business. This feeling of pushing the blame to the developer is based on the zeitgeist of how the common populous of really the world holds architects in high regards. OP, you can drop that logic for architecture is the quiescence's of modern day slavery for 95% of the profession.
Think of it as "this is just how big money hustles", same as a pimp, pimpin out his gurls...
Except you actually got to talk directly to the pimp himself, he said "hello, this is my block now!, Now GO!", his gurls are hard at work prepping his 11"X17"s without dims.
What to expect at a "Massing" meeting
Communion, of course.
Thanks DeTwan, and interesting info on the developer/architect. All I know is that architecture is a profession with licensing standards where, it seems to an outsider, skill and creativity are rewarded. A developer is rewarded, largely, for taking risk (the gritty other stuff can be passed off to salaried or contract individuals). In other words, a gambler who likes buildings.
Miles,
As a Catholic (of some 50+ years), a 3 hour high Mass in latin would have been preferable to this meeting. Can I get an "Amen"?
How'd the comparison sheet from now to what they want to do look? Was it hulking compared to what it is now? Sounds like there is an existing structure on site that they want to pop the top on? Do you know what zoning you fall into at all, bc you should perhaps do a little research on what the building limitations are in your zone. Obviously this is residential zoning, but in San Fran you could literally have 20 different residential zoning difference all based on your location and its residential zoning type.
a good and reasonable and competent architect with developer in tow
Only a couple of problems with this.
First, it should read developer with architect with in tow
Second, delete good and reasonable and competent.
DeTwan,
Miles,
Next you're going to tell me that (architect) < (attorney). Didn't expect such negative sentiments on architects on an architect's message board!
^ we hate ourselves...
Im a former guard of the palace now working for the rebels
^?
True story...
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
an asshole developer with boot-licking architect it tow
Odds are good that developer is also a lawyer.
Miles is our resident curmudgeon.
Thanks Olaf, I'll keep Miles in mind for that block of flats I'm planning
I'm not a curmudgeon, I'm a realist.
The developer will blow smoke up your ass to get your approval then do what he wants to get the most money. Imaging any other possibility is delusional.
The issue that arises from that logic Non Sequiter is that then all your "massing" models of the structure take a phallic form... although I suspect that in San Francisco this might be desirable. Are you from around, or near the area Non Sequiter?
Non, exactly. Standard negotiating strategy. Take what you really want, double or triple it, then begrudgingly make small concessions in a good faith effort to find compromise.
BTW this has happened in NYC before - developer had to remove 10 floors (90's or 80's in Manhattan).....or in another case developer had to stop building at 31 floors when the community realized how tall the building was getting even though they were within as-of-right.
^ Less than as of right? Need a link before I buy that.
To give you an idea Miles - buy a whole bunch of Lots through the block and set back tower....
...and another reason I stay away from residential and condo developments. I don't get these issues with private commercial and office projects. DeTwan, I am not, unfortunately, in the San-Fran region. I've been there twice now in the last 18 months and still have not seen enough but it's rather hard (Ha, morning pun!) to not make a tower look phallic.
Must be a tech douche blowing his or her wad (but honestly it's probably a him) on a house too large for its environs.
40' tall?
I suggest they replace your house along with building the new (contractors are already on site so its practically free) in exchange for you allowing them to build the sky blocking monstronsity
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.