A wrinkle in thinking about the Transformational Projects Action Planning approach: Great public buildings aren't just about design, but what they do
Transformational Projects Action Planning is an approach I push for thinking about master planning and the planning of big infrastructure projects, in how plans can be leveraged with anchor projects that push the goals of a plan from vision to implementation, and in big infrastructure projects, how complementary improvements can be driven across the related ecosystem, improving both the success of the project and the infrastructure system within which it is embedded.
I've written about this in terms of Bilbao ("Why can't the "Bilbao Effect" be reproduced? | Bilbao as an example of Transformational Projects Action Planning") and Edmonton ("Downtown Edmonton cultural facilities development as an example of "Transformational Projects Action Planning""), and for infrastructure projects, the Purple Line light rail program in Suburban Maryland ("Codifying the complementary transit network improvements and planning initiatives recommended in the Purple Line writings") and the Silver Line Metrorail in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties in Virginia ("Using the Silver Line as the priming event, what would a transit network improvement program look like for Northern Virginia?").
I was going through back articles of the Toronto Globe & Mail, specifically architecture writer Alex Bozikovic, because the G&M is one of the only papers in North America that still covers the topic in depth, and one of the past articles, "Why won't Toronto strive for great public buildings?" (use printfriendly to read), laments the City of Toronto's low fee rate for architects makes it unlikely to achieve "great architecture" from public buildings.
I wrote to him, that I disagreed somewhat, that the issue more than "great architecture" is "great buildings" and great public buildings result from "great programs" that is, what the organization does within the building.
He wrote back, agreed somewhat and disagreed somewhat, and I realized that his article illustrates the conundrum of TPAS ideas in that many communities are on board with "design competitions" aimed at getting great designs, but not on "program transformation" which is their responsibility.
I always use the example of the IdeaStores in London. The Tower Hamlets borough merged their workforce education and libraries together, and placed them in commercial districts or otherwise active visible places, as opposed to out of the way places.
They were designed by the now internationally acclaimed architect David Adjaye. Who has gone on to design other libraries, including in DC.
The IdeaStores are transformational because of the program, not the design ("Neighborhood libraries as nodes in a neighborhood and city-wide network of cultural assets").
So in DC, Adjaye designed libraries look great but are "just libraries" not IdeaStores.
The Frances J. Gregory Library in DC is beautiful and set in a park AND IS COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED FROM THE PARK IN WHICH IT SITS. You'd think an acclaimed architect could do better.
Buildings ultimately are envelopes or containers for what's really important: what happens on the inside and how they connect to, improve and extend the qualities of place around them.
For example, while not done at the outset, the street in front of the South Park branch in Seattle was repurposed as a vibrant library, extending the library outside, and the vibrance outside to the interior.
I did write about this in "Community facilities: it's not just building them, it's making the program better when you do so" and in other pieces. I wrote that:
TPAPs should be implemented at multiple scales:
(1) neighborhood/district/city/county wide as part of a master plan;
(2) within functional elements of a master plan such as transportation, housing, or economic development; and
(3) within a specific project (e.g., how do we make this particular
library or transit station or park or neighborhood "great"?).
But that needs to be further delineated to distinguish between design and program.
TPAPs should be implemented at multiple scales:
(1) neighborhood/district/city/county wide as part of a master plan;
(2) within functional elements of a master plan such as transportation, housing, or economic development; and
(3) within a specific project (e.g., how do we make this particular
library or transit station or park or neighborhood "great"?); in terms of both
(4) architecture and design; and
(5) program/plan for what the functions within the building accomplish.
Labels: capital improvements planning, civic assets, comprehensive planning/Master Planning, design method, public realm framework, Transformational Projects Action Planning, urban design/placemaking
posted by Richard Layman @ 4:38 PM&Permanent Link
3 Comments:
Interesting article on the creation of Tate Modern.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/jun/21/how-we-made-tate-modern-herzog-de-meuron-nicholas-serota
This is a real interesting point about how public buildings can stimulate revitalization. My only counter is that there is a difference between a big building like the Tate and an "average" civic building. Too often, civic projects don't think this element through and end up not having much of an impact because the connections weren't constructed more deliberately.
Nicholas Serota, Tate director: People thought I was mad when I suggested Bankside. It was an overlooked, rather scruffy part of London. Most people found it difficult to imagine this sooty 1950s power station becoming a gallery of modern art. We looked at a number of sites, but one of the main considerations was to put our gallery in a place where it would have a public presence, in a part of the city where its arrival would make a difference.
=======
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/sep/09/nicholas-serota-who-next-tate-director
"Nicholas Serota: even he was shocked by the success of Tate Modern"
The success of Tate Modern, which he had the ambition and the clout to get housed in the former Bankside Power Station, is down to Serota. So too is the desire to make it one of the world’s great museums. He has made Tate truly international. The popularity of Tate Modern took Serota by surprise. No one expected such numbers. Serota thought he had an art museum; what he got was a major tourist attraction. But he never forgot that Tate must stay serious, as well as providing the public with an experience of art on its own terms. Serota is respected because he also respects art, embracing and fostering the new, and its antithetical demands.
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/strategy/why-a-hospital-ceo-fought-for-a-glass-building.html
Why a hospital CEO fought for a glass building
2/28/24
To survive in a market like that, Silver Cross has to do more than just cut costs. It has to create additional revenue sources and find innovative ways to stand out, according to Mr. Mutterer.
Access is currently the hospital's No. 1 priority as it looks to build and grow within its primary and secondary service markets. It's looking to attract patients who may not originally have thought of Silver Cross for care, or may be inclined to travel into the city and visit an academic medical center.
Visibility influenced the design of Silver Cross' new medical building, currently under construction in Orland Park, Ill. The facility — a partnership with Premier Suburban Medical Group — will be a "very prominent" physical presence in the hospital's secondary service market, where it doesn't hold the top market share, Mr. Mutterer said.
The building will be made primarily of glass, and will have two floors to differentiate from its single-story counterparts on LaGrange Road. The city of Orland Park wanted the building to fit in more with the surrounding landscape, but Silver Cross fought back, Mr. Mutterer said: "We kept pushing, like, 'No, no, we're not going to give up on this.'"
Mr. Mutterer hopes that the building will pique community members' interest in Silver Cross, allowing the independent hospital to remain competitive.
I think the Heatherwick thesis is somewhat fucked. Yes buildings can be boring or exciting on the outside. But how people experience buildings is on the inside and through the program, or the purpose of the building and what people are accomplishing when they are inside.
https://www.wired.com/story/thomas-heatherwick-q-and-a-wired-health/
The Global Danger of Boring Buildings
Unloved buildings turn to ruin, leading to a deluge of construction waste worldwide. Designer Thomas Heatherwick tells WIRED why cities need to prioritize human health and joy in architecture.
3/16/24
If planners keep sanctioning buildings that nobody loves, then we run the risk of creating a glut of structures that in the not-too-distant future will be wastefully torn down, as there will be no one to advocate for them. But create buildings that spark joy, build attachment, and break the mold, and we could create structures that will be maintained for centuries.
Not only that, Heatherwick says people need to better understand the emotional connection they have with the buildings around them. “People know buildings affect them,” he says. But exactly how this can be harnessed to influence design for the good of society still isn’t clear. “We’re still at the very early days of understanding the science of how our feelings and our health relate to the buildings we see.”
There’s a problem all around us. Over the last 70 to 80 years, we’ve had an epidemic of characterlessness in newly built parts of cities. This isn’t about any one individual building; it’s about a prevailing characteristic that has defined itself as being functional.
We need to make the exterior parts of buildings that people focus on more interesting, so that people want to protect rather than replace them.
I spoke with the former chief medical officer of Great Britain, Dame Sally Davies, about hospitals and care homes in the UK. I asked her: Why are the health environments I’ve been in so bad? She said that there’s no one in charge; separate health trusts run the buildings. The only way you’ll make change, she said, is with “patient pull.”
When patients say: “Oh, you’re building a new cancer center, have you seen the one in Dundee? Have you seen the one in Leeds? It’s really good because they put plants in, it’s made from wood,” a half-decent leader will think: We should probably have a look there.
This made me realize there’s no equivalent to patient pull in architecture. So that’s the purpose of the Humanized campaign—to start this public conversation.
On the other side of it, a scientist called Colin Ellard has researched the impact of flat, straight, monotonous, plain, shiny buildings on groups of people. He’s found that levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, rise when we’re next to buildings that are straight, smooth, and serious compared to buildings that have texture, shadow, and difference.
And in my experience, often the places people really love have dirty lines, surprises, and unexpected things.
https://www.heatherwick.com/studio/news/humanise-campaign-launched-to-stop-the-spread-of-boring-soulless-buildings/
Post a Comment
<< Home