by Mark Seibold, AIA
There is an important lesson I learned when I moved from private practice to become a city planner. What I once considered to be fixed objectives—zoning ordinances and municipal development standards—are not obstacles put in the way of single-building design, but tools for bringing good design to the community as a whole. And, to meet the changing needs of the community, they can—sometimes they must—be changed.
Architects understand the value of a well-designed environment better than any other profession. What is needed is not a new skill set but a broadening of the context in which our skills are applied. We as architects must organize locally to translate disparate ideas and values about the built environment into ordinances that enhance both individual buildings and their context.
I believe single-building worship has gone too far and, along with chain-store design, is a direct cause for a rapidly deteriorating sense of regional character in our towns and cities. Unless we work together with our neighbors to adapt design to the community, we have lost the quality of place. Without more dialogue among architects and between architects and the public, the architect will remain a consultant to the design process. The greater value in this instance is not to play by the rules, but to change the rules to more accurately reflect the needs, desires, and values of our clients and our communities.
What do you think?
Comments (4)
I agree that our sense of community is constantly under attack by singular building planning concepts. This was heightened in my mind when the World Trade Center plans were first made available and the "look at me" parade of buildings were trotted out. Only the scheme by the port authority's in house group showed any sensetivity at all to establishing or honoring the neighborhood. In my mind it's not just about "big box" retail vs the town but the broader issue of not looking beyond the property line.
Posted by Rex L. Carpenter | January 12, 2007 3:18 PM
Posted on January 12, 2007 15:18
In his article, "Single-Building Worship Has Gone Too Far, " Mr. Seibold would do well to be a good bit more specific. The statement that "[I] believe single-building worship has gone too far and, along with chain-store design, is a direct cause for a rapidly deteriorating sense of regional character in our towns and cities" says absolutely nothing useful to readers. Is this just another social engineering ploy perhaps?
Posted by Michael Adams | January 12, 2007 3:58 PM
Posted on January 12, 2007 15:58
I feel it is a broad statement to say "Single-Building Worship has gone too far." Having worked on many worship facilities, the Building Committees have one main goal: meet the need in or under budget and make it as useful and "connected" as possible for the worship attendees. To that end most worship facilities are one huge single building, no matter how many phases of construction/buildings there are. Entering and exiting a building for different functions of worship can be a hardship on certain worship attendees and we as architects/designers should make the facility as usefull and convenient as possible for the worshipers. This means, most of the time, one "single" building. We can consider the community and respect the surrounding facilities, but our first and foremost service is to our client.
Posted by L. Anne Powell | January 15, 2007 2:31 PM
Posted on January 15, 2007 14:31
I think the problem that a lot of communities need to address isn't just "single-building worship" but instead "automotive worship". Too often "neighborhoods" have been subjugated to parking lots and thoroughfares in the business districts and garages as primary entrances to the homes. Land uses are typically segregated, further propelling the need for longer travel. These characteristics create a non-descript, any-town U.S.A. that consumes far too much in land and resources. Communities would be far more sustainable if they were designed to be more compact, varied in use and function, and human in scale. While I agree that cohesiveness can really go far in creating a better built environment, livability is certainly the crucial first step. Just because it all looks and acts similar, that doesn't mean that it looks good or works well.
Posted by Curt | January 30, 2007 12:19 PM
Posted on January 30, 2007 12:19