Editorial: Faction Fiction

Christopher Triplett
08/01 06:34 PM

Obviously there is no imposition of architectural perfection on new development.

What an idiot.

BK
08/01 06:51 PM

I agree that the article framed things in terms of “mere aesthetics” when in fact the issues raised by Stephenson and Crowder are serious problems of functional design—such as whether a fast-food drive-through has any business in a heavily used pedestrian area that is supposedly the focus of the city’s best urban revitalization.

However, don’t blame Bracken, so much as the leadership at the N&O;.  For years its leadership has taken a hokey, low-brow approach to matters concerning urban development.  There has been a fundamental lack of understanding of urban planning, architecture, growth management, and city form at the paper for a long time. 

For years the paper sat on its hands with hardly any advocacy for “best practices,” better growth policies, or better development.  It is indeed strange that the paper, which one would think would be the primary watchdog for its own city, whose most pressing issues are all around (a) growth, (b) growth, and (c) growth (according to the paper’s own polls)—it is strange that the paper should for so many years running either (1) ignore planning and development stories or (2) when it does report or editorialize on them, take such a “Gaw-aaw-aaw-lee!” approach. 

I’ve watched this for years and my conclusion has been that the leadership simply is ignorant about planning, architecture, and city living.  I used to hope that with a change in personnel, or pressure from the community, the paper might cover these issues better. 

But now that McClatchy is forcing the paper to downsize and cut coverage (mainly to cover its colossal losses in housing-bubble markets like California and Florida), there is little hope that anything better will emerge from the N&O;in its present incarnation.

Ken Metzger
08/01 07:27 PM

I didn’t feel like it was all that negative of an article.  I would love an article to praise great design and this definitely comes nowhere close to that, but the article just tries to express the opinions of the council.  I would like to suggest the problem you have is more with the council, than with the article.  The article balances both sides quite well, I’d say.

Rusty
08/01 08:49 PM

I’m not entirely sure that last part is what I’d call “balanced”.

“And if enough Raleigh voters become convinced that two architects are too many, there’s always the ballot box.”

That’s more than a little bit leading. Bracken doesn’t give a lot specifics on what these “aesthetic concerns” are… And the 3 examples they give (the EIFS on the Marriott, pedestrian access to the McDs on Peace St, and the parking deck on the Powerhouse) were not “focused on and debating about the aesthetics” of the buildings.

EIFS is a material that has durability issues, and is not comparable to the longevity of masonry materials in an urban environment. The McDonald’s issue was not about “the look” but the function of the building proposed for a street that acts as an important pedestrian corridor. As for the Powerhouse, he doesn’t give enough information… but if it was purely an “aesthetic” concern, it would be the only one among his examples.

The City Council has a responsibility to all the citizens of Raleigh to encourage positive development. The notion that two elected officials are somehow “holding up progress” in their concerns about how a handful of projects will integrate into the city’s urban fabric is absurd. (Especially at a time when taxpayers are already paying the bill for millions of dollars in attempts to bring some life back into downtown) If you don’t think it’s in all the taxpayers best interests to actively manage downtown development, perhaps you’ve not noticed the state that downtown Raleigh has been in for the last 10+ years?

Betsy
08/02 01:20 PM

Well said, Rusty.  And again:  Urban form isn’t just a matter of aesthetics, although that’s an important part of it.  It’s about the physical relationship between buildings and the street, which can be calibrated to produce comfortable human environments, or NOT. 

There are known principles of physical arrangement that produce active, lively streets, economic activity, comfort, sociability, and other benefits. 

You will often hear “urban form” and “urban design” confused with “architectural style” or “mere aesthetics.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

The tested principles of good site planning and good urban form produce places that attract people and economic activity.  Ignoring them produces places that are dead and less productive. 

And THAT is the point of the interventions by Councilors Crowder and Stephenson—a point that Bracken’s article entirely misses.

ChiefJoJo
08/02 04:15 PM

I tend to agree with Mark and most of the others that the article was more than a little bit leading towards to notion that Crowder and Stephenson are ‘holding things up’ for developers.  While I have an issue with Crowder being a bit too unwilling to compromise at times, he and Stephenson are a huge asset to the council.  They ‘get it’ and always make the extra effort to explore where this city should to go with respect to urban form, sustainability, etc.

Case in point, almost every time the city has a planning meeting, design-related conference, or nearly any other kind of public forum related to growth, development, planning, etc, these two are there learning, interacting and involved.  (You never see Isley or West at one of these.)  Crowder and Stephenson care about Raleigh’s future, and it shows.

JZ
08/03 05:14 PM

I think the great irony here is that if there were two (or more) lawyers on city council(which there are), nobody would blink.  No one would ever assume a lawyer is foisting some sort of ivory-tower idealism into the decisions they make for the community. If we can entrust a lawyer to steward issues of development and urban design, one would ASSUME having architects present would be even a greater asset.  I think this says alot about a) the N&Os;agenda and b) society’s real understanding of what architects do.

Ceappaisp
07/13 08:46 AM

Medicine Nobelist George 1974 hot news
generic lorazepam
Don’t miss one second in doing so, it will save you a lot of trouble.
<a >cheap ativan</a>

Following are the doses given to certain group of patients: • An initial dose of 2 – 3 mg is the normal prescription given to patients and to be taken twice or three times in a day.
http://www.replicaonnet.com/ - buy ativan

There is, however, one drug which is commonly used by many.