Style vs. character determines Silver Spring's future

Architecture

Style vs. character determines Silver Spring's future

by Dan Reed • May 27, 2010 11:47 am

Last Saturday, designers, architects and planners held a charrette, or design workshop, at Fenton Street Market in downtown Silver Spring.

East Silver Spring resident Hannah McCann, who founded the market last fall, organized the event. A senior editor for Architect magazine, she enlisted several local design professionals to lead the workshop, talking and drawing with those who came by. With my help as moderator, we developed three questions to ask the public:

What kind of development should we have in Silver Spring?
How much development should we have?
How should we get around?

Dozens (if not hundreds) of residents stopped by to give input on how they'd like Silver Spring to grow. Most seemed happy with the community they live in today, but there was a lot of disagreement over its future. Today and Tomorrow, we'll look at some of the issues that charrette participants raised.

Style vs. Character

Style is how most people who aren't architecturally trained understand the built environment. It's easy to "get" buildings if you can classify them as Victorian, Modernist or Art Deco. But style doesn't describe how a building works with or against its occupants, site and neighbors.

An "ugly, modern box." Drawing by Steve Knight.

Many people complained about the increase in "ugly, modern boxes" in Silver Spring. "I'm sick of all this glass and chrome," complains one woman. (We eventually figure out that by "chrome" she means "steel," as downtown Silver Spring is not a 1957 Chevy Bel-Air.) She feels that newer buildings downtown were cold and sterile and preferred older buildings. They're the soul of Silver Spring, she says.

She also doesn't like the new development on Ellsworth Drive. It has little glass or steel, but it was designed to feel like an outdoor shopping mall, not a city street. It feels "fake" to her, the woman laments.

"Of course it looks fake," I say, picking up a marker. "It's new." I start drawing and explain. Parts of Ellsworth pay homage to the old stuff—the Majestic 20 theatre, for instance, mimics the curved façade of the historic Hecht Company building (now City Place Mall) across the street.

Left: My drawing comparing the Majestic 20 (left) to City Place Mall.
Right: the Majestic 20 in real life.

"And even though the buildings may seem inauthentic, the people are always real," I continue. "Kids my age, who grew up with Ellsworth Drive, love this place. I'll bet you that in twenty years, it will be an integral part of Silver Spring's culture."

Nonetheless, she asks me to draw her some traditional buildings for Silver Spring. I draw her a picture of some old storefronts on Georgia Avenue. They look much as they did in the 1920's, but have since experienced ninety years of history: different shops, different people, different times. "I love it!" she says, throwing up her hands in delight.

"What you're looking for is character," suggests Darrel Rippeteau of Rippeteau Architects. "In the future, say you want more character, not less modern."

Vision of Fenton Village (Tony, Sandy & Steve Knight)

Steve, Tony and Sandy's "Vision for Fenton Village."

A few tables away, architect Steve Knight of David M. Schwarz Architects and my friends Tony Maiolatesi and Sandy Schwartz—like me, both recent grads of the University of Maryland—are drawing a "Vision for Fenton Village" with traditional buildings. It didn't look too different from Bethesda Row or Kentlands, developments purposely designed to feel old.

These places have good urban design, with buildings close to the street and smaller, human-scaled features. There's also been no shortage of complaints that their style, with lots of bricks, double-hung windows, and arches, feels "kitschy" or nostalgic.

1920's-era storefronts on Georgia Avenue, drawn by Darrel Rippeteau.

Of course, many people like and often prefer this aesthetic. But these two things are mutually exclusive. You can have an attractive building with poor urban design, like this strip mall in Frederick. But you can also have buildings with great urban design but poor aesthetics, like those along Ellsworth.

Yet none of these buildings can really have "character," no matter how old they look, if they're new. Character takes time to create, but it doesn't discriminate by architectural style. It is helped, however, by good urban form that encourages people to spend time in a place. If we want a Silver Spring with character, we should worry less about the aesthetics of a building and more about how they relate to the user and to their context.

Come back tomorrow for part two of our charrette recap, but in the meantime, check out this slideshow of the Fenton Street Market charrette.

16 comments

Tags: architecture, development, Maryland, Montgomery, Silver Spring

Charrette participants embrace Silver Spring's new urbanity (May 28, 2010)
How Silver Spring Park could be a good neighbor (Feb 23, 2010)
Rather than close Ellsworth Drive, narrow Georgia Avenue (Dec 21, 2010)
Sign font will affect perception of Silver Spring library (Dec 10, 2010)
Veterans' Plaza in Silver Spring worthy of The Turf's legacy (Aug 12, 2010)

A planner and architect by training, Dan Reed is interested in suburban retrofits. Dan works for the Friends of White Flint, writes his own blog, Just Up the Pike, and serves as the Land Use Chair for the Action Committee for Transit. Dan lives in Silver Spring.

Comments
Add a comment »

1. Make the Blairs condos for residents who wish to purchase.
2. Redo the Blairs strip mall adding a bar or restaurant.
3. Fill that empty parking lot.

4. Tear down the Discovery building and add some ground floor retail.
5. Gut City Place.
6. Condos, condos, condos. No more rentals.
7. Ellsworth...so it looks like a Mall, City Place is a piece of garbage. It's functional and central. Now give us a Bed Bath and Beyond or a Target where I can get something without having to go to Wheaton, Bethesda/Friendship Heights or Columbia Heights.

by Redline SOS on May 27, 2010 11:57 am • link • report

As a participant of the workshop, I think you captured the sentiments of most people accuratley. I would however disagree with a few of your characterizations. Character does indeed accrue over time, but some materials age more gracefully than others. While an eclectic by nature I still feel that the glass and steel buildings (prefered by most architects) don't age as gracefully as buildings of brick or stone (preferred by most non-architects). It's apparent that the "lay" architectural students are "taught" to appreciate the modernist styles in school, which seems odd if they are to work for their communities. Even with out time, the lady you spoke with seemed to react positivley towards the "traditional" street scape, time not withstanding.

Modernist buildings where originally conceived in a distinctly anti-urban context, or at a minimum, in reaction to traditional urbanism amongst other things. That isn't to say they can't fit nicely in a good pedestrian street, but one of the reason may people have negative feelings towards them is the context from which they where concieved.

That being said, our new Civic Building is beautiful and extreamly urban, even though it's a podium location rather than a fabric building like the surrounding Ellsworth buildings. I just wish more architects would unburden themselves of the puritanical modernist heritage that says any historical ornament is nostalgic and therefore intellectally soft. We are decorating animals, from the earliest cave drawings, to the steel I beams Mies Van De Rohe hung from his Seagrams building. We need to remember that we are responsible to the public, not academia.

by Thayer-D on May 27, 2010 12:44 pm • link • report

When people say they want "character", I take that to mean they want details to look at, as opposed to blank walls. You can have contemporary or traditional details, but you can't just throw up a big glass curtain wall or a empty brick facade and expect it to age gracefully.

If you want to be a good urban architect, give us details to look at that are human scaled, even on the most inhumanely scaled buildings.

by BeyondDC on May 27, 2010 1:05 pm • link • report

Why is it the public prefers brick and stone but professionals prefer glass and steel? I think it has to do with scale. The public judges buildings when they are on the sidewalk, confronted with a wall or window. Brick and stone have texture, depth, and are repeated at a much smaller scale than glass or steel, and are more likely to have design variations that make looking at a wall pleasant. Perhaps there are vines or grass or moss; these all add to the appeal. And brick and stone age well, as rain cause even deeper variations, like an old person with laugh lines. Steel, meanwhile, get rusty, or looks sloppy with dozens of coats of paint.

Professionals often judge buildings by viewing a drawing, photograph, or model. The scale make a big difference, because now you can judge it by the shape, by the abstract geometry. And normally these avatars are new and glossy.

The devil is in the details, or, in the case of many modern buildings, the lack of details.

by M.V. Jantzen on May 27, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report

Interesting discussion.... can a building have poor urban design and bad aesthetics, but still have "character?"

One example that comes to mind is that endearingly awful Christian Scientsist church downtown. How about the Pirelli Building in Connecticut?

Both of these buildings are objectively awful from an aesthetic and functional standpoint. However, they're landmarks nevertheless.

Old buildings also aren't always pretty.

by andrew on May 27, 2010 1:26 pm • link • report

I agree with the comments above about the importance of details that you can see at street level. I disagree that a new building can't have character. Things like gargoyles, gardens and plants, fountains, benches, all can be made lovingly with unique elements. What is true is that in "traditional" buildings with lots of little nooks and crannies, occupants have room to add extra details and further character over time. A flower box here, an awning there. But if you build a big steel and glass slab, there is no place to add anything or personalize. Where can character accrete on a flat, blank surface?

(Yes, I'm a philistine who loves brick and stone and the little street level surprises.)

by Erica on May 27, 2010 1:31 pm • link • report

>Professionals often judge buildings by viewing a drawing, photograph, or model.

I was going to bring this up, and think it's an major problem of design today. The sort of details that look good when you're walking down a sidewalk make 8.5x11 drawings look cluttered and messy.

by BeyondDC on May 27, 2010 1:53 pm • link • report

Another element to consider is that traditional buildings derived their aesthetics partially from having a public that moved at no faster than 10 mph (horse carriage top speed?). Modernism's infactuation with planes, trains, and automibiles (not people) probably influenced the aesthetic in that a modernist building set back from one of LeCorbusier's beloved highways designed to be appreciated by a pedestrian. Unfortunatley, developers hopped on the modernism cool bandwagon as a way to cut costs by casting the new aesthetic as "of it's time" laughing all the way to the bank. There are a few attractive glass and steel buildings, it's just that the batting average is way below
brick and stone buildings, especially for run of the mill buildings.

by Thayer-D on May 27, 2010 2:00 pm • link • report

When I moved to DC, I was amazed to learn how new the National Cathedral is. It definitely has character, and will surely age well. Brand-new glass buildings definitely carry a "wow" factor, but don't age well. I agree with @M. V. Jantzen--masonry gains character with age, while steel, glass, and concrete begin to look dingy.

by Matthias on May 27, 2010 2:34 pm • link • report

@Thayer-D

Could that just be as a result of survivorship bias -- that the old buildings still standing today were exemplary examples of their period? I don't think anybody is lamenting the demise of DC's shantytowns.

Similarly, today, brick & stone buildings are generally higher-end structures.

by andrew on May 27, 2010 3:22 pm • link • report

Much of this comes down to the quality of the materials and the maintenance of the building as much as how the materials "age." NY has far too many examples of this sort of thing. A good quiz on when buildings were built would be in order, but in lieu of that...

Glass Buildings that have aged well:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30982458@N00/171618070/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/epicharmus/2147720406/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/atelier79033/2844476690/

Brick Buildings that have not aged well:
http://www.in-arch.net/NYC_Images/3parkave.html
http://www.in-arch.net/NYC_Images/schom.html
http://www.in-arch.net/NYC_Images/seward.html

It happens?

by Matt on May 27, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report

Andrew,
That's an excellent point. Crappy building practices never go out of style, and developers aren't any greedier today than say the 1890's, except a poorly built 12" brick wall is still going to hold up better than a poorly built curtain wall value engineered to with-in an inch of its life. And unfortunatley, they didn't tear down just shanty towns as most any urban renewal photos of SE, Shaw, Columbia Heights, etc. will attest to.

@ Matt,
It does happen, except if you want to compare apples to apples, it might help your case. The Lever House and Seagrams buildings, both class A office buildings in the most desirable parts of town and both having recieved complete renovations up against some ratty projects building a good comparison dosen't make.

Wikipedia quote on the Lever House example:

"By that time, however, much of Lever House's original brilliance had been dimmed by time. The building's blue-green glass facade deteriorated due to harsh weather conditions and the limitations of the original fabrication and materials. Water seeped behind the stainless steel mullions causing the carbon steel within (and around) the glazing pockets to rust and expand. This corrosion bowed the horizontal mullions and broke most of the spandrel glass panels. By the mid-1990s, only one percent of the original glass remained leaving the once glimmering curtain wall a patchwork of mismatched greenish glass."

Aesthetically, none have any character whatsoever, unless dehumanizing can be considered character, especially One Chase Manhattan Plaza, ouch!

by Thayer-D on May 27, 2010 4:05 pm • link • report

Redline SOS said:

1. Make the Blairs condos for residents who wish to purchase.
2. Redo the Blairs strip mall adding a bar or restaurant.
3. Fill that empty parking lot.

re-

1. Include a section of the Blair Towers to have affordable Units(under $1200 a month).....

2. The "Blair Strip Mall" already have restaurants but it would be nice to add a Bar/Lounge....

3. Fill the empty parking lot with Office Buildings......

4. You can't have everything you wish for because the reality is that Silver Spring does not have enough Office Buildings so the Discovery Building will continue to stay as is........

5. Gut City Place ain't gonna happen either.... There is already an Office Building in plans for being built on top of City Place. The best thing they can do to city place is to Attract more Upscale Stores like they have at Ballston Commons and Pentagon City..........

6. Extremely Selfish to discriminate against people that wish to rent in Silver Spring. If you want Condos only then check out Friendship Heights or Georgetown.......

7. Target and a Bed Bath and Beyond would be a nice addition to City Place......

by tim on May 27, 2010 7:13 pm • link • report

It is ridiculous that the Planning Board does not have architectual review. Montgomery County is suffering and many projects have been completed that are suburban and distasteful, especially many churches. The Planning Board must realize that this is Montgomery County not some Northern Virginia suburban hellhole.

by Cyrus on May 27, 2010 9:34 pm • link • report

Dan I don't think you or Darrell Rippeteau are quite accurate here. Style and character are two sides of the same coin. It's urban design that is the issue. "Old" buildings and their "character" is nothing more than a matter of style -- old buildings vs. new buildings, and new buildings, as you point out, lack the layering and complexity that comes from places that are built and changed over long periods of time.

I do think it's possible, but not easy, to make "modern" buildings work in terms of urban design and placemaking principles, which some people also mistake as "character" issues, even though myself I prefer more classical styles and materials. (Although I can't say there are a lot of good examples these days.)

The other issue is mixed height and mass or variegation of the built form/urban form/building stock. Because of land use and real estate development economics, having a variety in this sense isn't too likely to happen any more, because of the cost and value of land in desirable places and the cost of development. That's why (not that you don't already know this), we have blocks and blocks of boxy buildings in Silver Spring, DC, and elsewhere. It's the best way to realize land value.

by Richard Layman on May 28, 2010 12:04 pm • link • report

Accepting that poster's premise as dogma would mean no cities- no, as in NO densification, regardless of the details of design.

by Douglas A. Willinger on May 29, 2010 2:13 pm • link • report