Due to an Amazon-fueled apartment construction boom over the last decade, Seattle has been an epicenter of [a] new school of structural simulacra. But Seattle is not alone. Nearly every city, from Charlotte to Minneapolis, has seen a proliferation of homogenous apartments as construction has increased again in the wake of the financial recession. — Curbed LA
Developer Modern, Plonkitecture, Contemporary Contempt, Blandmarks...
These are just a few of the names offered for the ubiquitous apartment building design that has swept the nation in the last few decades. They differ marginally across the United States, for they all equally strive for the aesthetically unoffensive and the financially advantageous.
“Part of what people are responding to isn’t the building themselves, it’s that there are so many of them going up so quickly, all in the same places in the city,” argued Richard Mohler, an associate professor of architecture at the University of Washington.
According to this Curbed article, the culprits are cost-cutting, code-following and labor-reducing. As unfortunate as it is from a design standpoint, standardization is indeed a solution that developers have little question about. Geoff Palmer's apartment buildings have famously occupied the corners and edges of Downtown Los Angeles with mass-produced mediterranean affectations in an effort to maximize profit. These buildings are so publicly detested, in fact, that one of them was the subject of an arson trial.
Because, as the article suggests, "the constraints creating the conditions for this generic apartment architecture show little sign of abating," it is unclear how the trend can be turned around. But whatever the future may hold, it will undoubtedly require an active public to demand more from apartment building design, before the American city is further inundated by the "Metropolitan Generic" style, as critic Paul Goldberger playfully described it.
27 Comments
This story is much less about design than it is development.
Economics rule, design and construction only serve the profit function.
Economics have always ruled. The difference from today and before WW2 is architects prized beauty and the art of design, but wood buildings of 100 years ago burn just as well as the wood buildings of today. What most people object to is the banality of these designs.
A correction. When wood buildings burn today, they leave a toxic mess. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/us/california-fire-chemicals.html
Shape grammars and fast casual are mean drugs...
See also this: https://www.citylab.com/design/2017/10/the-problem-with-fast-casual-architecture/542934/
a) The lenders who finance this stuff are deeply uncomfortable with anything outside of the prevailing formula, i.e. the crap shown in the above article.
b) The realistic design of developer-driven multi family housing is not taught in USA architecture schools.
Design as understood for thousands of years isn't either. Until schools take developers and clients seriously, they will continue to teach nothing that helps a typical graduate when they enter the market. Developers are not going away.
To be fair, schools don't even teach how to design good modernist buildings either. So much is comupter wizardry that while nice as sculpture, can never be translated into humane buildings.
Two interesting, and possibly conflicting points
1- This is development and not design. Despite it's homogeneity, I would argue that it is design an that it is the basis for evaluation and critique that is being questioned.
2- This is not taught in USA architecture schools- suggesting that it should be considered as architecture. Arguably, the methodology has been taught in architecture schools in tall building studios. The need to make floor plates consistent as possible to drive down costs and the reliance on panel systems to construct the facade, among other traits... Those are all tall building lessons passed down.
This is design...simply bad design. To split the two is the problem.
First of all, we need to distinguish between boring (to the media) and good.
It's hard for designers to communicate criticism of these developments because of this notion that development and design are two different ends of the spectrum. That is an exaggeration but it has some truth. Bureaucrats and developers DO design, but they offer a completely different set of criteria.
Developer values: square feet, profit, quantity, marketing
Design values: economy, craft, experience, longevity
The core of the problem is that every above average development was likely pushed further by a designer (or enlightened developer) to consider an option B or C. If you look at any assumption--whether its a zoning code or building detail--its usually ripe for challenge. It's just a lazy and corrupt pop culture and the trinity of city, state and corporate organizations that only accept option A (based on the developer values). I don't like writing off an entire era of development, but it does seem like the majority here are energy sucking, shoddy buildings that won't last long and have no community.
The idea that this isn't taught in school is a farce. Unless you go to USC, Harvard, or Columbia (ironically the loudest schools in the media). Architects know how to build better, more economically. If pop media didn't abandon design criticism to lick the bureaucratic boots they should be challenging, we would see that good design and economy are one and the same--and mostly happening in between the headlines.
Also can't assume that economy is the same thing as cheap -- we think these developments are ugly because they are more the latter than the former.
Agreed. Good design and economy are (usually) one and the same, assuming you've practiced coordinating all the requirements of a project.
There are great designers out there who build well and economically. They don't work in either the high design scene or the low-end cheapo developer area. They seem to exist in most places between the margins in great numbers.
If you creat the program, you are the designer. Developers are the designers of the built environment, not architects. Architects are just specialists who facilitate them. Where is that vid of the client telling the cadmonkey where to place the toilet?
The problems that lead us to this bland design are multitude.
1 we do not have the masons or other trades like we did in the past, lack of skilled trades people is a limiting factor and to have those finely crafted brick stone and wood details you have to sacrifice a lot of time and money to incorporate them into the project. Most developers will only do them if required.
2 Land acquisition cost in most cities eats up the budget for design features and material upgrades, add to that cost the long and arduous permitting process and the expensive battles against NIMBYs and you get even less money for design features and better exterior materials.
3 Time, even if we opened up the borders and took in every south American mason carpenter plasterer or other crafts persons we still have a lot of pressure to complete and bring to market units as fast as possible, mostly for reason #2 but also because of the potential volatility of the markets. The architectural details people often want to see in new buildings is simply not possible with the current labor shortages and time constraints.
4 Maintenance, masonry buildings (the kind built today) require periodic and expensive maintenance, and that expense is getting higher as there are fewer skilled masons to do the work.
5. NIMBY, the people opposed to any new development that is not exactly like their existing home will fight anything that is "Too Contemporary" or "Doesn't Fit the character of the Neighborhood" neighbors and the politicians beholden to their loudest constituents are not comfortable with change, or height or new types of housing.
I do however reject the notion that the codes IBC FHA ADA have anything to do with the bad design, a skilled designer can create very nice architecture wile meeting these necessary code requirements. Codes are not the reason for bad design bad designers who can't deal with these legitimate constraints are to blame.
This is not an easy problem to solve but it is important and should be given serous attention in the architecture schools. No one should graduate without designing a multi family building in their studios as this is going to be a huge and important part of our work for years to come.
Over and OUT
Peter N
The problems are economic.
1. There are plenty of skilled tradesmen, they just don't get paid enough to do a quality job because of persistent downward pressure on construction costs (to maximize profit, not affordability).
2. Land acquisition costs determines the relative "quality" of development and the amount to be spent on design and construction.
3. There is no shortage of housing units. There is a vast shortage of affordable units. The "architectural details" people want to see in buildings are amenities, not architecture, and most don't know the difference.
4. Masonry buildings typically require far less maintenance than other kinds of construction and provide a raft of benefits from fire resistance to durability.
5. NIMBYs tend to reject development because of its demonstrated negative consequences - overcrowding and consequent social effects, traffic, increased property taxes, etc.
These problems are impossible to solve without a complete overhaul of the value system. The problem is not "bland" design, it is design to maximize profit, which is wholly unsuited for responsible living.
The cost of tuck-pointing, is in many markets, much higher than painting or residing a house. The metal panel and fiberboard clad buildings require less maintenance than traditional masonry and are much less expensive to repair or replace if theses systems fail or reach their intended lifespan. Tuck pointing in northern climates where you get lots of rain and freeze thaw cycles could be required on a 10-15 year cycle. This is a very labor intensive skill specific work, and thus is very expensive.
In Chicago the increased property taxes that follow new development are often the result of a sharp increase in the value of property adjacent to the development resulting in higher assessment not higher tax rate. This windfall for property owners as they ride the coattails of new developments to higher property values and a likely higher selling price for their property can and often is a benefit. This rise in property values is however bad for renters who will not reap much economic reward for newly added property value resulting from new development apart from the public goods of city services schools and policing which benefit from new tax revenue from the new development and the rising property values.
A 10-15 year requirement for repointing is the result of faulty work or seriously deficient design. Typical brick construction should not require repointing for 50 years or more.
Assuming that increased property values and tax assessments are a benefit to owners is myopic and ignores the economic reality of fixed incomes, people forced to sell because of increased taxes, and so on. This is the kind of idiotic neoliberal "economic value" thinking that is the cause of pretty much every problem we have.
TLDR; Has apartment design EVER really been good design? If you only consider the last 70 years or so, during a time of major urbanization, I would say NO. Since the driving forces underpinning multi-family developments have always been strictly economic, isn't pleasing, stimulating, quality design a moot point?
My building is pretty awesome, just needs to have the hallways refurbished, but supposedly no money to do that...
++ Rapid Urbanization.
This is what happens when you think a rake is the solution to global climate change.
a useful analogy would be the health profession. Nobody argues about the value or expertise a doctor brings, but the structure is completely flawed — high price of education leading to high costs, big pharma, industry knowledge hoarding, etc. Which is why all of the new hospitals have the best architecture (it’s all connected!).
So saying design has nothing to do with developments is avoiding the issue — design is like good health.
gentrification vernacular
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.