One portion of a pedestrian friendly city is designing streets to be safer for cyclists as well as pedestrians. There is a reason for this. Quick, safe and easy movement around a city on a Cycle of some sort (I don't want to rule out a unicycle or tricycle) results in more pedestrian level traffic and 'window browsing' instead of the vehicular based destination traffic pattern (parking lot to store to parking lot) and also allows for quick and easy adjustments to plans to accommodate spontaneous events (So and so is over at the coffee shop? I can just roll/walk right on over and not worry about the added parking cost or increased walk distance back to my car!). This all results in more activated streets (safer!) and possible consumers for street level businesses. Think about it only as a business plan if you have to. More customers = more money.
As the weather warms up (eventually) and those of us who don't trust our bikes on icy pavement roll out our rides and begin the seasonal tune up motions, clean the leaves out of the helmet and sprockets and immediately become agitated thinking about how horribly dangerous it is to ride around our city.
In an effort to increase Bicycle safety Portland, Oregon has implemented (and started enforcing) a bike box at some test intersections. These "bike boxes" are marked areas in which motorized vehicles are not allowed to rest at during red lights. They are only for cyclists to allow them to safely initiate their riding when the light changes to green. These bike boxes are at intersections where you are not supposed to turn right on red and where complaints against cyclists by motorists and vice versa have been made. This is only in its testing phases right now and Portland Police Bureau’s Traffic Division has started the rigorous procedure of informing and enforcing of the new traffic legislation.
I know I have ranted about it before. How if given the location to safely and securely store my bike I would love to risk riding it to work (as I can always toss it on the rack in front of a bus if I get a flat). If there were some sort of designated bike traffic pattern or even enforcement of automotive operation that would cause me to think cycling would be a safe alternative that could even tip the scale.
We need to stop worrying about our cars and start thinking about how we are going to get people onto the streets to keep an eye out for each other. I believe that investing in pedestrian based traffic infrastructure plays a key role in increasing the density of urban areas which in turn would bring people back to the 'downtown' areas of their community and eventually to our major downtown. The city of Cleveland itself.
Resources:
Ohio City Bicycle Co-op has a new website!
And don't just toss us a bone, make sure that bicycle infrastructure makes SENSE!
Dumbest Bike Lane in America
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Neighborhood Public Art Workshop
Neighborhood Public Art Workshop
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Wooltex Gallery at the Tower Press
1901 Superior Avenue Free parking
Cleveland, OH
11am - 3pm
To help community development organizations and staff navigate the possibilities of working with artists, the Cleveland Neighborhood Development Coalition and Cleveland Public Art are hosting this workshop. Learn the various ways in which public art can be used as a tool to promote community and economic development agendas, as well as for marketing and branding neighborhoods. Topics include:
* successful neighborhood public art projects;
* where to find funding sources;
* how to engage with artists;
* case study: Public Art in Neighborhood Parks. Joy Johnson, Sherita Williams, and Jeff Sugalski from Burten Bell Carr Development, with artist Melissa Daubert;
* case study: Public Art on Neighborhood Streetscapes. Steve Lorenz from Kamm's Corners Development with artist Gauri Torgalkar.
For information, call 216-621-5330.
$10.00 registration fee.
Lunch will be provided.
Now this is late because you should have registered before March 25th but perhaps if you call and are VERY POLITE you may still be able to go.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Wooltex Gallery at the Tower Press
1901 Superior Avenue Free parking
Cleveland, OH
11am - 3pm
To help community development organizations and staff navigate the possibilities of working with artists, the Cleveland Neighborhood Development Coalition and Cleveland Public Art are hosting this workshop. Learn the various ways in which public art can be used as a tool to promote community and economic development agendas, as well as for marketing and branding neighborhoods. Topics include:
* successful neighborhood public art projects;
* where to find funding sources;
* how to engage with artists;
* case study: Public Art in Neighborhood Parks. Joy Johnson, Sherita Williams, and Jeff Sugalski from Burten Bell Carr Development, with artist Melissa Daubert;
* case study: Public Art on Neighborhood Streetscapes. Steve Lorenz from Kamm's Corners Development with artist Gauri Torgalkar.
For information, call 216-621-5330.
$10.00 registration fee.
Lunch will be provided.
Now this is late because you should have registered before March 25th but perhaps if you call and are VERY POLITE you may still be able to go.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Back of the Envelope Design Contest for the G.W. Bush Library - the vote is in your hands
The Chronicle Review has posted some of the 120 submissions to the George W. Bush Back-of-the-Envelope Design Contest. They are asking readers to vote on their favorite of the submissions.
If you are a disenfranchised voter, don't fret. You do not have to claim a political affiliation nor should you be worried whether your electorate will be seated at the next convention. This is a one time, winner take all vote and the winner receives an iPod Touch for all their diligent and no doubt patriotic work.
There are some rather good sketches in there so check them out.
If you are a disenfranchised voter, don't fret. You do not have to claim a political affiliation nor should you be worried whether your electorate will be seated at the next convention. This is a one time, winner take all vote and the winner receives an iPod Touch for all their diligent and no doubt patriotic work.
There are some rather good sketches in there so check them out.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Design Review, wherefore art thou?
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada once home to the world's largest mall (now only the largest in North America) has become known for refusing to allow "crap" to be built in the city. Specifically there is a proper ban on "square boxes with minimal features and lame landscaping" which is enforced by a city committee ominously known as the Edmonton Design Committee (EDC).
The civic volunteers have no real sway over granting a project the ability to proceed to the construction phase however no projects were approved by the body in power (the Edmonton development office) that were not supported by the EDC. The EDC has a mandate, they have the power to uphold it and they are flexing their muscle to include surrounding areas to Edmonton proper.
While at times there is still quite a bit of speculation about 'design review boards' and what they are worth I find it interesting that the EDC seems to be a completely volunteer group of individuals brought together out of love of their community. In fact they are described as a "volunteer coalition of experts". I don't know how one really becomes an 'expert'. I would love to see the process behind that title but for now I will move on.
The question of any design review council remains. "Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what is ugly and what isn't?" Granted in some instances bad design is rather telling however in others some really new, exciting ideas may seem too incredibly foreign to be accepted and that is where the power of the design review board scares me.
While I think it is all fine and dandy to hold city projects to a set of 'urban' guidelines and perhaps even zoning I am abhorred by what some real design review does. In Cleveland there are numerous projects that have sprung up that should have had to go through a design review process. One firm's entire portfolio could be considered suspect of utilizing any sort of measure of taste or finesse however prolific they may be yet they continue to infect our city with either a total disregard to a Design Review or worse, with the Design Review's blessing.
While Edmonton is willing to call a 'cow' a 'cow' and better yet call 'crap' projects for what they are I wonder who in the local community is attempting to interject a touch of civic pride into their decisions. I have been to few reviews and I wonder that quite often. For those of you interested in why things are being built in your community I suggest you contact your local building and planning boards to get a schedule of when meetings are taking place and go to a few of them. For the most part they are boring humdrum lectures of misplaced historical context (casement window's aren't historically correct since everyone has double hung, what?) you would be surprised at what slips through when people are watching the clock. Next time you wonder how that 'mixed use urban development' sprung up on your block you can attribute it to our design review peers asleep at the wheel.
Resources:
Canada looks better all the time
Cleveland Planning Commission
The civic volunteers have no real sway over granting a project the ability to proceed to the construction phase however no projects were approved by the body in power (the Edmonton development office) that were not supported by the EDC. The EDC has a mandate, they have the power to uphold it and they are flexing their muscle to include surrounding areas to Edmonton proper.
While at times there is still quite a bit of speculation about 'design review boards' and what they are worth I find it interesting that the EDC seems to be a completely volunteer group of individuals brought together out of love of their community. In fact they are described as a "volunteer coalition of experts". I don't know how one really becomes an 'expert'. I would love to see the process behind that title but for now I will move on.
The question of any design review council remains. "Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what is ugly and what isn't?" Granted in some instances bad design is rather telling however in others some really new, exciting ideas may seem too incredibly foreign to be accepted and that is where the power of the design review board scares me.
While I think it is all fine and dandy to hold city projects to a set of 'urban' guidelines and perhaps even zoning I am abhorred by what some real design review does. In Cleveland there are numerous projects that have sprung up that should have had to go through a design review process. One firm's entire portfolio could be considered suspect of utilizing any sort of measure of taste or finesse however prolific they may be yet they continue to infect our city with either a total disregard to a Design Review or worse, with the Design Review's blessing.
While Edmonton is willing to call a 'cow' a 'cow' and better yet call 'crap' projects for what they are I wonder who in the local community is attempting to interject a touch of civic pride into their decisions. I have been to few reviews and I wonder that quite often. For those of you interested in why things are being built in your community I suggest you contact your local building and planning boards to get a schedule of when meetings are taking place and go to a few of them. For the most part they are boring humdrum lectures of misplaced historical context (casement window's aren't historically correct since everyone has double hung, what?) you would be surprised at what slips through when people are watching the clock. Next time you wonder how that 'mixed use urban development' sprung up on your block you can attribute it to our design review peers asleep at the wheel.
Resources:
Canada looks better all the time
Cleveland Planning Commission
Monday, March 24, 2008
Toronto has a pretty nice streetcar system, I bet ours was pretty nice too.
You know, before we sold them ours. Well we didn't sell them the whole system. In fact we only transferred some of our fleet to Toronto in 1952 where they remained in service for 30 years. This of course is after complaints were alleged that the mayor at the time and city council members were gifted new General Motor automobiles in exchange for the city's purchase of a new General Motor's bus fleet (at the time the FBI wasn't able to investigate).
Toronto's streetcar system was a familiar and predictable route for traveling to visitors in a new and strange city and I found the 24 hour a day service rather helpful. I don't want stir the water and start spouting conspiracy theories. That isn't what this post is about.
Instead I wanted to mention that the streetcars of Toronto were a predictable comfort, one that Cleveland is missing and that will hopefully be brought back when the new Euclid Corridor BTR is completed. I think I can finally understand the import of a public transit corridor with such reliable repetition. While our Rapid and bus system do a fine job, the Rapid system does not offer the same street level conveyance and the bus system isn't really predictable nor understandable yet (signage, maps and clocks at/near bus stops would be a great way to alleviate this).
I wholeheartedly look forward to the BTR project along Euclid being completed and would hope that when it proves successful, that other high traffic routes are make the leap to the BTR system (see Detroit Ave. line) comfortably connecting the east and west side to downtown.
Resources (yes, I used the wikipedia!):
Cleveland Railway Company
Toronto Streetcar System
Toronto's streetcar system was a familiar and predictable route for traveling to visitors in a new and strange city and I found the 24 hour a day service rather helpful. I don't want stir the water and start spouting conspiracy theories. That isn't what this post is about.
Instead I wanted to mention that the streetcars of Toronto were a predictable comfort, one that Cleveland is missing and that will hopefully be brought back when the new Euclid Corridor BTR is completed. I think I can finally understand the import of a public transit corridor with such reliable repetition. While our Rapid and bus system do a fine job, the Rapid system does not offer the same street level conveyance and the bus system isn't really predictable nor understandable yet (signage, maps and clocks at/near bus stops would be a great way to alleviate this).
I wholeheartedly look forward to the BTR project along Euclid being completed and would hope that when it proves successful, that other high traffic routes are make the leap to the BTR system (see Detroit Ave. line) comfortably connecting the east and west side to downtown.
Resources (yes, I used the wikipedia!):
Cleveland Railway Company
Toronto Streetcar System
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Reinventing the wheel, Cleveland style; rolling along on a square.
There has been an awful lot of talk regarding the convention center for the medical mart recently. Hoards of ideas have been floated by the Plain Dealer (no I won't link until they get rid of that awful 'reader' survey you have to click through before you get to an article) and on other blurgs such as Cleveland Design City and BFD, etc etc.
Anyway, for those of you wanting to take a step back and look at some of the original plans for the city to perhaps surmise some original intent (best laid plans and all that) you may find the D. H. Ellison Group Plan webpage interesting. Not only for the old diagrams and images but also because of the *gasp* information.
It is almost as if at one time in the way distant past Cleveland was supposed to be a successful city!
Anyway, for those of you wanting to take a step back and look at some of the original plans for the city to perhaps surmise some original intent (best laid plans and all that) you may find the D. H. Ellison Group Plan webpage interesting. Not only for the old diagrams and images but also because of the *gasp* information.
It is almost as if at one time in the way distant past Cleveland was supposed to be a successful city!
The distinction between art and science; architecture as a craft
It was my first night in Brooklyn and Suzi was defending her choice of concentrating on a fine art (sculpture) and stepping out of the study of architecture. She intoned that she actually wanted to build things, to keep the intent pure and found the act of architectural creation mired in the 'magic' of cost projection and marketing archaic, a feeling that I can well understand.
I had traveled to New York City to see Suzi's MFA and to visit another TOIcollaborator whom I had also worked with in Cleveland. We had all met while in the employ of what was considered (and still may be, these things take time to evolve) an 'up and coming' young firm. A firm building a considerable portfolio and hungry to prove their creative merit. There were however the growing pains of a small firm trapped in a local community tentative about flexing design muscle that sent those two to New York while I attempted to find an office closer (physically) to home.
Regardless, the question of architecture as either and art or a science reveals a difficult determination. While 'good' architecture requires a creative flair with the spatial understanding of an artist the act of construction and building itself lends more to the scientific arena of understanding materiality and the phasing of assembly.
So how then would one define architecture or at least its many facets? At one time architects were master builders or craftsmen who would idealize the form and shape the construction to meet the ideal. It was required to depend on the skill and the eye of the builder to help realize the dream as well as the patience and confidence (arrogance?) to convince the patron the path the project was taking was indeed the correct one. Many great projects of old would take unreasonable amounts of time to complete by modern standards. Where great cathedrals would require generations of builders to complete nowadays it is not uncommon to require a project to go from dream to realization in less then 2 years.
It has become almost too easy to stray from the path of understanding not only what is being built but a more complete understanding of what it is being built with. Where architecture is devolving to little more than a study in form without any sense of grasping the science of construction or the intonation of function or even interactivity which in the end is what is killing the field. While educational programs remove the students from the actual art of building and the schism continues to divide developer and designer the general public (or client pool) only sees edifices to ego being constructed in the most bizarre and unsustainable fashions further mystifying the role of the designer and in the end relegating architects to the role of decorating boxes designed for the lowest common denominator and documented with the intent of being constructed in a vacuum by the lowest bidder.
As I sit here in Toronto, in a house that was built in the 1850's, listening to the few others at the B&B walk around and check in without the telltale creaky floors and squeaky stairs I wonder if in our quest for cheaper construction we are truly cheating ourselves by requiring more materials for shoddily built and overly quickly design product that incur huge maintenance and operating costs later. What ever happened to the love of constructing something that we can be proud of, that we plan to hand down to our children, that we know will stand testament to our existence and our community? How do we expect those with a passion for beauty and grace to continue to want to practice in a field where taking the time to understand how to build things correctly is typically excused from the project's time line as an extraneous cost?
Not that I want to make excuses or that I am blameless from 'the process' that has befallen so many architects in their quest to eventually build things they can be proud of. Part of me wonders why it is so difficult to draw a line in the sand. To state in a non-argumentative manner that good product and good craft is going to cost more and take more time to accomplish. Not that this is an excuse for wasting time or money, just the opposite, that if projects are considered to include the lifespan of the building and it's efficiency and craft then care must be required up front in order to plan and design the proper solution as well as the assemblage for it to last long enough to capitalize on the initial costs. Otherwise similar mistakes will perpetuate. Buildings will leak, walls will lean and everything will look similar enough to dull the eye.
Part of me, a good part of me, is jealous of Suzi for having the strength and the wherewithal so realize her happiness lies in sculpture more than architecture. I can see the allure. Part of me is frustrated with the status quo and am growing eternally bored of the conflict of science and art being bypassed for a buck. Most of me yearns to return to the exploration of craft that attracted me in the first place.
I had traveled to New York City to see Suzi's MFA and to visit another TOIcollaborator whom I had also worked with in Cleveland. We had all met while in the employ of what was considered (and still may be, these things take time to evolve) an 'up and coming' young firm. A firm building a considerable portfolio and hungry to prove their creative merit. There were however the growing pains of a small firm trapped in a local community tentative about flexing design muscle that sent those two to New York while I attempted to find an office closer (physically) to home.
Regardless, the question of architecture as either and art or a science reveals a difficult determination. While 'good' architecture requires a creative flair with the spatial understanding of an artist the act of construction and building itself lends more to the scientific arena of understanding materiality and the phasing of assembly.
So how then would one define architecture or at least its many facets? At one time architects were master builders or craftsmen who would idealize the form and shape the construction to meet the ideal. It was required to depend on the skill and the eye of the builder to help realize the dream as well as the patience and confidence (arrogance?) to convince the patron the path the project was taking was indeed the correct one. Many great projects of old would take unreasonable amounts of time to complete by modern standards. Where great cathedrals would require generations of builders to complete nowadays it is not uncommon to require a project to go from dream to realization in less then 2 years.
It has become almost too easy to stray from the path of understanding not only what is being built but a more complete understanding of what it is being built with. Where architecture is devolving to little more than a study in form without any sense of grasping the science of construction or the intonation of function or even interactivity which in the end is what is killing the field. While educational programs remove the students from the actual art of building and the schism continues to divide developer and designer the general public (or client pool) only sees edifices to ego being constructed in the most bizarre and unsustainable fashions further mystifying the role of the designer and in the end relegating architects to the role of decorating boxes designed for the lowest common denominator and documented with the intent of being constructed in a vacuum by the lowest bidder.
As I sit here in Toronto, in a house that was built in the 1850's, listening to the few others at the B&B walk around and check in without the telltale creaky floors and squeaky stairs I wonder if in our quest for cheaper construction we are truly cheating ourselves by requiring more materials for shoddily built and overly quickly design product that incur huge maintenance and operating costs later. What ever happened to the love of constructing something that we can be proud of, that we plan to hand down to our children, that we know will stand testament to our existence and our community? How do we expect those with a passion for beauty and grace to continue to want to practice in a field where taking the time to understand how to build things correctly is typically excused from the project's time line as an extraneous cost?
Not that I want to make excuses or that I am blameless from 'the process' that has befallen so many architects in their quest to eventually build things they can be proud of. Part of me wonders why it is so difficult to draw a line in the sand. To state in a non-argumentative manner that good product and good craft is going to cost more and take more time to accomplish. Not that this is an excuse for wasting time or money, just the opposite, that if projects are considered to include the lifespan of the building and it's efficiency and craft then care must be required up front in order to plan and design the proper solution as well as the assemblage for it to last long enough to capitalize on the initial costs. Otherwise similar mistakes will perpetuate. Buildings will leak, walls will lean and everything will look similar enough to dull the eye.
Part of me, a good part of me, is jealous of Suzi for having the strength and the wherewithal so realize her happiness lies in sculpture more than architecture. I can see the allure. Part of me is frustrated with the status quo and am growing eternally bored of the conflict of science and art being bypassed for a buck. Most of me yearns to return to the exploration of craft that attracted me in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)