David Sucher critiques the Olympic Village

David Sucher, author of City Comforts and Seattle urban blogger, has done an intriguing critique of the Olympic Village.  Though it was originally a response to an article on the village by New Urban News editor Philip Langdon, I thought it deserved a reprint here for Vancouver readers. 

David quotes excerpts from Langdon’s article, and then responds with his own words and pictures.

________________

Criticisms of the Olympic Village (OV) seem to fall in a few clumps:

 “… buildings expressed as individual objects …  one meant to be seen as strongly separate from its neighbors.  Individualistic forms, differing heights, too much contrast between one building and another…”

I don’t see it. In fact the buildings blend together. And I looked carefully. Maybe too much blending and certainly not a lot of “object” buildings.

One thing I noticed (in the main square across from the birds): two large buildings directly opposite each other which read to me as essentially the same building — very similar height, structural systems (and probably similar floor plans, I assume) with the only change a flipping and reversing materials, decks, insets, etc. : 

In fact, just about every building is a non-object building. They are all basic urban buildings meeting the 3Rs (built to the sidewalk, with a permeable frontage, and parking “somewhere else.”)

I think that the stylistic differences don’t justify the term of “object building,” even the Erickson, which might be the weakest design in the OV.  And it is still by no means what I would call an object building, though I do agree that  leaning buildings are gratuitous.

________________

“A celebration of bold and honest use of materials…” 

You mentioned the phrase and seemed to object. Why? Is that in opposition to New Urbanism?

I know it is a cliche but the reason we use the phrase “celebration of bold and honest use of materials” is because it works both as verbiage and because it looks cool. And shouldn’t traditional buildings also be legible, with “real” materials?

________________

“Where is there a consistent line about two stories above street level?” 

It’s there. I’d guess tw-thirds of the 16 (?) structures have such lines. The two photos above show that line, and then several more (without looking very hard) also show such a two-story line:

________________

 “…general lack of small, delicate ornament, are not necessarily attuned to human scale.  Detail small enough to suggest human dimensions is often missing.  an absence of applied adornment. Where is ornament that your eye can rest on?”

Maybe not “ornament” as medieval stone carvings, I agree. I’d phrase it slightly differently. Not “ornament” but plenty of texture. The buildings and surrounds are broken up with much relief, change, vitality. Lots of interesting little details beyond the structures per se through the OV and can evolve with good management.

________________

“…absence of pleasing transitions between public space, semi-public space, and private or indoor space…”

Not sure I follow or understand. The transitions seem fine. 

Did I find it jarring? No. There are some big open plazas and the  waterfront walk / esplanade seemed quite nice, lots of seats … not enough food yet.

Then there are some gardens sheltered within/between buildings which could (if allowed) be gated if there are too many bothersome tourists. Private decks are private decks, so maybe not clear on transitions.  I’d have to get inside units to get a sense of how they might work.

________________

“…ground-floor units are even with the street level, tiny, elevated, shrubbery-shielded patios that serve as entrance-ways to individual units at the base of large buildings seem half-hearted paeans to the more generous entry sequences of old townhouse neighborhoods…”

I’d have to see the floor plans but I can say that many (at least 50%?) are raised from street level. Yes, few are more than four risers but according to the new Duany, Speck Smart Growth Manual, it says that 18- 24 inches is enough to create such a grade separation for residential uses to create some sense of privacy. Personally, I’d like to see more grade separatoon — 4′ or so. But that’s me and in any by no means are all ground floor units at grade. 

Btw, street level units at OV which might not work so well as dwellings might be able to function (if allowed by City and developer) as commercial space: law office, dentist, architect, hair salon, etc — specialized destination-oriented shop of any kind such as violin maker/repair. (I had such violin repair shop as a tenant and had very low impact sothe  use fit in very well with residential uses, if no other reason  that they closed up shop at dinner time.)

And btw such ground floor use might be a blessing if there was more daytime foot traffic in the OV. (That’s the importance of need for flexible, alert property management.)

________________

“But I do wonder whether the aversion to traditional architectural styles leads to a strategy of forcing modern object buildings, with little ornament and not much human scale and texture, into what are supposed to be pedestrian-friendly settings, undermining the livability of the place.”

I don’t think so. I think it looks to me to be a very human and humane project (trees will grow and the landscaping that flourishes now is terrific). And as soon as people start living at OV, I think it will be quite successful. I could see living there.

________________

If there is one major flaw it is inherent — the OV is a large-scale project where

• speed (too fast —no evolution);

• minimize transaction costs (get the project done); 

• security (needs large space separate from other part of the city) 

make Janes Jacobs’ slowly-evolving urbanism impossible.

The OV was unique —  explicitly a response as a global political event (i.e. they needed housing for the Olympic athletes), and some of the things which might be done better are probably just not practical in the context of an Olympics.

For example, ideally the site would be developed by not just different architects but by different developers which allow a greater range of intelligences at play.

But OV needed control of the time frame — the enormous transaction costs with 12-14 developers — I bet that such need for rapid development just could not be done with some many various organizations. 

Plus they needed a substantial piece of ground which was (I gather) already lying fallow so you get a somewhat isolated project.  The south side (away from the water) is a bit barren and one hopes for future evolution.  So yes, you don’t get slowly-evolved “real urbanism” with an OV — but you don’t get that in any ground-up New Urbanist project. Just the nature of the project, I suggest. Want slowly evolved urbanism? Don’t go big. 

________________

And since I am opining, I want to mention something more generally about the “appropriate standard of review”  — how we judge new buildings, projects, etc .  I think the argument is between optimizing versus satisficing. See Satisficing in Wikipedia.

I think there is far too much optimizing: the very very very best project possible. Let’s get realistic. I see perfectly good urban buildings yet hear people say, “Oh, that isn’t cutting edge.”

So what? The purpose of good urbanism is to re-create what we’ve already done before which we know will work. Even urbanists are seduced by the same psychology of star-architecture. Unless something is absolutely superb, fantastic, brilliant  – even if  all people want is plain old walkable urbanism –  then it is to be panned. 

I don’t think that the urbanistic standard should be “we’ve got to have greatness!” I am not an optimizer. In the context of our demented world, I am happy to be a satisficer — is it satisfactory? If we’ve done a decent job — let’s call a good strong “B” — then that’s great.   

Obviously that can beg the question as my “decent” can be another’s “failure.”  But I’d be happy with Seattle if only — if only! — all new buildings were merely a strong B. Then we’d have a marvelous city indeed.