Category: Urban Planning

Architect as … cultural healer

There’s been a lot of media attention on New Orleans and the removal of statues honoring the confederacy and notable confederates. This article from CNN talks a bit about it. It’s amazing that removal of a single statue can have such a strong personal impact on me when I’m so far away.

View of New Orleans from the Marigny Docks
View of New Orleans from the Marigny Docks

I applaud the city of New Orleans for taking a proactive step to try to heal the scars of slavery and all of the horrors that came after the “peculiar institution” came to an end, if only in name. As a Jew, to get close to the feelings that African Americans feel, I have to imagine living and operating daily in a world with statues to nazis. And the thing is, the nazi’s only directly terrorized and killed a single generation (and all their future generations that were snuffed out before they started). Imagine if the Nazi’s had ruled for 400 years and what kind of cultural baggage we would have.

The closest parallel to the confederate monuments I have personally and locally is Ronald Reagan National Airport here in Northern Virginia. I refuse to call it by its current name: I call it “National.” I do this not because of his politics or economic policy, but because his administration looked the other way while an entire generation of my gay forefathers died in a plague. They refused to act because HIV and AIDS were happening to ‘those people’ and it was ‘icky.’ This was negligent, but it wasn’t willful. They didn’t give gay people (and transfusion cases, the African American community, drug users, and others) HIV, but they didn’t do anything to stop it. And for that I can’t bring myself to say the official name of “National Airport.” I imagine if it had been intentional and gone on for hundreds of years and maybe I can start to understand what the African American community feels about confederate statues and memorials.

For that reason I feel like this is literally the least that should be done. I’m not saying we should erase the confederacy from the history of the south, but we should be looking to how Germany teaches its history. We need to remember that ‘nice people’ do horrible things to other people when profit can be made, whether it’s the south and slavery (and the rest of the triangle trade) or the whole country’s treatment of the Native American nations. That’s said, remembering history does not mean honoring those who perpetuated the horror. It’s not disrespectful to the dead, who were literally traitors to the union, it’s doing something to set right the scales of history. They had over a hundred and fifty years of being honored and remembered. It’s time to start setting things right.

So, set that all of that to the side. In another part of my brain I’m sad. It’s just another reminder that my city is not the city I left; that time moves on and things are constantly changing. Will I miss it being “Lee Circle?” Yes, I will. But that’s ok. Being an adult is being ok with things changing, especially if it’s for the right reason.

View of Gibson Hall of Tulane University from Audubon Park
View of Gibson Hall of Tulane University from Audubon Park

A third side of this came up just this week while I was writing this response.  It has been suggested that my Alma Matter, Tulane University, change its name as a part of these changes.  As you learn on any tour of the school, the University, which was originally the publicly funded Louisiana College of Medicine, became a private school and was renamed in honor of Paul Tulane after he made a sizeable endowment to the school in 1882.  What you don’t typically learn on any tour of the school is that Paul Tulane was also the largest donor to the Confederacy in New Orleans.  This raises some deep questions about the suitability of the name.

Should his funding of the confederacy be honored?  No, it should be condemned.  Should his endowing a school with enough funding to be self sufficient and become a seat of higher learning be honored?  Yes, it should be celebrated.  I feel like the answer to this comes down to intent.  The issue is clear cut for me on Confederate memorials because the intent of the memorial is to honor the leader of the confederacy, but its murkier on the name of Tulane University.   The intent of the school’s name is to honor the endowment by Paul Tulane, not his actions which helped prop up the confederacy.  Nevertheless, he did do that and there is an unavoidable link there.  Furthermore, his endowment was made after about 17 years after the end of the civil war, and might be seen as a way of making amends for his support of the Confederacy.  Then there are the logistical issues, if the school were to change names, how would that even work?  Would they need to send new diploma’s and transcripts to all alumni?  And how would that affect their overall brand?  Maybe the university should resurrect the Newcomb name and change from Tulane University to Newcomb University?

Personally, I think a name change is not warranted, since the name is meant to honor the endowment not Paul Tulane’s role in supporting the confederacy.  That said, I think the university needs to use this as a teachable moment and show that even those who do great deeds in service of the common good can also do great harm.  At the very least they should start making it common knowledge that University’s namesake was also a supporter of the Confederacy and a complicated man.

DC at the Speed of Traffic

Capitol Hill Street Scene

The majority of DC is a pedestrian city; it is meant to be viewed up close and slowly. The streets of row houses are hidden behind a protective screen of trees and gardens known affectionately as “The Parking” and can only be fully appreciated by a pedestrian wandering in this ribbon of green. Viewing these neighborhoods form a car is a difficult endeavor, first the greenery obstructs many of the facades and second unless you find a place to park, the buildings go by too rapidly (even at a leisurely 25 mph) to appreciate the finer details. The same goes for the grand vistas of the National Mall and the Federal City, while these are on a grander monumental scale, they are only really appreciated by pedestrians who can walk their lengths. Cars are able to drive down along the mall, but again the view across is screened by greenery and the few crossings do not provide a full appreciation of the structured view. Even the Modernist complexes of near South West are better appreciated on foot. Sure, you can see all of the buildings from the street, but only pedestrians can explore the rabbit warren of tunnels, paths and connections that link this Modernist Bloc into a city unto itself.

K Street

[Image via mgrass.]

There is a place in DC where this pedestrian preference disappears, and is in fact a hinderance, the golden triangle area of downtown. The buildings in this part of the city are not built with the pedestrian as the main consumer, sure there are pedestrian level storefronts and lobbies, but to be able to fully appreciate the streetscape you have to be driving. A perfect exmaple of this is K street. As a pedestrian the buildings on your side of the street seem to rise ever upward making canyons of steel and glass and the buildings across the way can only be seen at an almost worm’s eye perspective view perpendicular to the street or as an oblique two point perspective view down the street, either way the facades are not fully appreciated. Furthermore, the rhythm of the structures is such that a pedestrian it is boring, the bulk of the facades utilize very long elemental repeats which as a pedestrian are almost invisible.[There are a few exceptions to this, the buildings surrounding Farragut square tend to play to the park instead of the cars, and as such there are some stunning examples of intricate facades. But this is a a rarity] All of this changes from the perspective of the driver’s seat. The composition merges into a single point perspective view of the avenue where the bland facades suddenly reveal upper level details that were previously hidden. Furthermore, traffic not withstanding, the buildings read much more poetically at the stately speed of 25 miles per hour, their bland facades quickly passing and morphing into a steady stream of rhythm and order.

View across Faragut Square

Anacostia: Le Nouveau Rive Gauche?

A view of Quai de la Course on Île de La Cité in Paris

On yesterday’s Kojo Namdi Show Nir Buras, head of Buras Architecture, spoke about his proposal for a new Anacostia River. Mr Buras, who is a Classical Architect, suggested the narrowing of the river and creating of European style quays on both banks of the river. His proposal also included the creation of a Naval Museum and a shopping district and marina development.

I have to say, that this is something I could really get behind. I’ve always felt that the waterfront on the Potomac was wasted. The river is too wide to be a focus for development, not to mention that there is the hurdle of getting two different municipal planning bodies to agree. In addition, currently the Rock Creek Parkway extension does a tremendous job of cutting the steps at the end of the mall off from the river. The South bank of the Anacostia, on the other hand, is ripe for development as a new urban node, with its easy access to downtown through the Green Line and the proposed streetcar lines in Southeast. This part of the city has maybe suffered the worst from mid-century urban renewal, with the destruction of the historic waterfront and creation of interstate 295 this strip of land has been effectively cut off from both near Southeast and the rest of Anacostia for decades. With some decent planning and effort I can see Anacostia becoming the next Columbia Heights.

The major issue I can see with Mr Buras’s Porposal, besides drumming up enough political will and public support for something this extreme, would be creating a method to mitigate possible flooding from constricting the river. By changing the topography and constricting the river, this plan faces many of the same challenges that currently plague the Mall and West Potomac Park. In addition, I can see there being a lot of backlash if the current green buffer is lost in place of more urban developed.

[Thanks to And Now, Anacostia for the heads up about this show.]

Adaptively reused Circuit Cities, here we come!

With the recent closing of many of the area’s Circuit City stores and the bleak financial forecast, this Sunday’s Washington Post article about what to do with big box stores after they close down, seemed to be fortuitously timed to impact the local planning discourse. For this article, the Post assembled a collection of local architects and artists, such as Darrel Rippeteau, Roger K. Lewis, Esocoff & Associates, et al., and asked them how they would reuse a big-box store.

The graphics in this article are intriguing and open an sub/urban planning discussion on what to do with the trappings of early twenty-first century American development once this business model has changed. The proposals include luxury housing, gardens, vineyards, and other adaptive reuse measures. This is all green and good, but I have to question the safety and cost of reusing these big box stores. Like fast food franchises, big box stores are not built to last. They are not constructed with any concept of their permanence, instead they are meant to go up quick and cheap and come down the same way when the new mega-ultra-super mart opens around the corner. The advantage of reusing old warehouses and factories is that theses large masonry structures were built to last and much of these structure can be re-purposed for less a strenuous program. This advantage would not be present in the Circuit Cities which will soon find themselves lacking a purpose.

There was one proposal that stood out to me, instead of re-imagining the big box store, it adapted the parking lot to a more urban context. The design called for two “linear buildings” surround a “parking module.” This strategy is closely related to one of the common forms for multifamily construction – the Texas Donut. In this strategy the parking garage is surrounded by the program, hiding it from view and creating a “safe” place for parking. This is a strategy that has become quite common in urban fringe development and could be beneficial in creating density within the big box context. The other reason this strategy caught my eye is that in my Thesis project for architecture school, I repurposed the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in New Orleans to create a public plaza and a municipal library. Part of the goal of my project was to acknowledge the big box stores as the modern equivalent of the urban market and to reintegrate them into the civic context.

An Urban Plan for a New New Orleans

I submitted the op-ed below to the editorial desk of the New Orleans Times Picayune two weeks ago. I have not received any response to my inquiries, so I assume that they are not interested; if that changes I may have to remove this post. In any case, I would like to present my solution for a sustainable redevelopment of New Orleans:

An urban plan for a new New Orleans.

Although New Orleans avoided Gustav’s wrath, we need to learn as much as we did the hard way from Katrina. Instead of rebuilding the city and the levees as they were, we need to make it so that New Orleans will never worry about a hurricane again.

New Orleans has had a past fraught with disasters: twice fires wiped out the bulk of the French and Spanish colonial city and there have been numerous floods and levee breaks which have altered the city’s shape.  Over the last century we believed that we had bent nature to our will by controlling the course of the Mississippi River and preventing the annual flood. At the same time developers drained the surrounding swamps to make new low-lying easily flooded subdivisions.  The damage caused by Katrina showed this control to be fleeting.

The rebuilding after Katrina was done with the wrong methodology: we treated the symptoms, not the problems. What we needed to do was create a plan to address the environment, the economy and the unique identity of New Orleans, and we still can.  The levee system by itself is not sufficient; overtopping and crevasses are always a possibility.  The city needs a two tiered approach to safety, one which selectively prevents and allows controlled flooding in to create a city that can function with six feet of water in the streets of evangeline.  New Orleans is also facing a similar struggle with its economy; it relies on the tourism industry and the port to survive.  With the current downturn in the national economy there is less money to be spent which will eventually hinder both the shipment of goods and services and the attraction of money to the tourist trade.  The city needs a new sustainable identity.

To save the Crescent City we need to recreate it as a new Creole city by blending the local culture with building concepts from around the world.  The Dutch city of Amsterdam and an area of Peru called Belén both have novel strategies to handle flooding; one is a city that walls off the water and the other is a community that floats atop it.  The older urban areas of New Orleans should learn from Amsterdam and create more raised levees and canals to bring high water from the river and the lake to designated overflows, much like the Bonnet Carré Spillway.  These areas, the former swamps and low lying neighborhoods devastated by Katrina, could be built anew using updated concepts based on the Peruvian strategy; buildings and public plazas that lay on the ground during parts of the year, but float on the surface of the water during flood periods.  These buildings would be anchored in place but allowed to move vertically to adjust to rising and falling water levels.  This strategy could serve as a water recharge basin and allow all rain water to be pumped from the low lying city streets into the new controlled flood plains where it can be treated and released down river or into the lake.  This constant movement of water will work like a bayou and prevent mosquito borne diseases.  These levees and canals will create a more efficient mass transit systems with in the city with boat traffic running atop the water and an enclosed rail system below.

New Orleans should look beyond structures and embrace a new urban identity.  By improving upon the model of Greensburg, Kansas – creating all platinum LEED buildings and aiming for carbon neutrality – New Orleans could brand itself as the heart of the Green movement.  Most of its power needs could be met through hydro electric, solar and other non-polluting forms of energy production.  Water that is collected in the recharge flood plains should be used for plant irrigation, cleaning the streets after parades and other non-potable water needs.  Tax breaks and incentives should be offered to companies that achieve carbon neutrality, manufacture alternative energy products and research new environmentally friendly technologies.  By encouraging organizations like the USGBC and Green Globes to make New Orleans their headquarters, the Big Easy could be the leader at the heart of the green movement. These new businesses would supply New Orleanians with jobs and the city with a consistent source of revenue that would enable a more locally funded rebuilding process.  In addition, the greening of New Orleans will help the tourist industry by making it a destination for cultural and environmental tourism.  The city may have missed the tech boom of the late twentieth century, but it could easily embrace the twenty-first as a model green city.

This redevelopment plan is a bold stroke and some may argue that it is unrealistic; but wasn’t draining almost 100 square miles of swamp for more dry real estate just as bold? It is my belief that without daring aspirations the Crescent City will always be teetering on the edge of destruction.  Yet, by allowing controlled flooding and by bringing in the industry of the twenty-first century, Creole culture and adaption can once again save New Orleans.

-Spencer Lepler is a graduate of the Tulane School of Architecture (’05) with a Master of Architecture and a certificate in Preservation Studies.  He lives in Northern Virginia and is working towards his architectural license.  His blog can be read at http://www.selophane.com/blog

3 years

Its been over three years since I moved to Northern Virginia and said good bye to my friends and Alma Mater in New Orleans. How was I to know that 3 months later the world would end and everything New Orleans would be measured in relevance to Katrina. Now, as we welcome in year 3 PK, New Orleans is facing the possibility of another major disaster. It is my hope of hopes that Gustav does not undo all the rebuilding and planning that have happened in the past three years.

If the worst happens and the city is deluged again, I worry that the country will not be as generous as last time; I can already hear them crying on the senate floor for abandonment and rebuilding elsewhere. I can see the talking heads blaming New Orleans for not “learning its lesson,” as if the city had not been flooded numerous times in its past. If the money does come again, I can just imagine the repressive building codes to and flood plane restrictions, all methods of preventing future loss of property. Yet the city would become one big concrete block raised 40 feet in the air.

How can we have rebuilt an entire continent over 50 years ago and then proceed to fly to the moon, but we cannot rebuild or even protect one city from the tempests of fate? It is simple, we’ve gotten to arrogant and stopped innovating. Instead of looking at how to build flood proof buildings and levees to hold back the water, we should be looking at buildings that will adapt to flooding and remember that the yearly flooding of the Mississippi is what raised New Orleans above sea level. Imagine, a city that truly embraces the entity of being Creole; it could be a hybrid of Venice, Amsterdam, and its current state. Improved dikes would protect the most historic neighborhoods, and the newer/rebuilt lower lying areas could be designed to raise and fall with the tide.

Architecture School – Preliminary Design Review

While reading other responses to Architecture School, i stumbled upon the conversation at Veritas et Venustas and felt compelled to add my 28 cents. I have reprinted my response below.

As a Tulane School of Architecture alumnus (’05) I feel a need to chime in with a few points.

1) There was, and I assume still is, an underlying conflict in the school and architecture as a whole. There are those modernist professors who put an emphasis on partis and design over neighborhood scale and character and they are continually in conflict with the preservationists/critical regionalists who emphasis context and character over grand design strategy. This studio would have been better suited being under the purview of a non-modernist professor, whose emphasis would have been on neighborhood development instead of personal architectural statements.

2) The problem with the existing houses and the neighborhood’s reaction is multifaceted. There is a severe air of distrust in New Orleans between the poor black neighborhoods and the rich (mostly) white gentry for very good reasons. The horrendous housing projects that were built during urban renewal were dehumanizing spaces (many not much better than stacked slave cabins), the construction of which allowed for the forced removal of people and buildings to build I-95, the Superdome, City Hall, and other municipal projects. In addition to this, for many of the neighborhood’s residents these new houses are parallel to the original critical failure of Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring.” This is the first time they are seeing new housing forms and they have no language or filter through which to interpreting them, so they default to ugly. But does this make their reaction wrong? Not really. They are partially right, these houses are 21st century islands amongst a sea of 20th century houses (most of the houses shown were craftsman shotguns with some Victorian shotguns), and in a sense do not belong. Maybe if they were renovating the 9th Ward or New Orleans East and starting fresh these would make sense, but as urban infill they are failures.
Now, that may be a bit harsh. The policeman’s house does borrow from a traditional New Orleanian form, the shuttered louvered window. The opening in the front responds to the louvered shutters, but instead of being a method of screening and protection, this window is an actual door. This kind of gesture works; it is a means of natural ventilation and it also helps bring a front porch to the project which engages the neighborhood and may help encourage more safety and security.

3) The student proposals do not show an understanding of New Orleans’s traditional housing forms. Yes they are all long and narrow, but this is site generated, not design. None of the designs shown in the first episode take into account that most 2 story houses in this part of the city are Camel Back shotguns (one story dwellings with a “hump” in the rear). Instead they are all fully massed 2 story buildings, and one student was pushing for a three story house. Now that may work on St. Charles, Magazine street, or other dense areas uptown, but in this neighborhood that would be gigantic.
I blame the school for this; very few studios focus on housing, my entire portfolio, save my preservation classes, focused on public use buildings. Even though they have lived in the city for at least 3-4 years by the time they are in this platform, most of these students have has less exposure to the city’s architectural character than a typical tourist. The usual source of inspiration for most architecture students are the glossy magazines, and rarely do these focus on any traditional built form, be it New Orleans or Baltimore.

So in summary, yes there is an issue here, but it is greater than students producing substandard work. The emphasis should be on providing housing that will fit the needs of the neighborhood and help to strengthen the existing identity of this place, instead of being about providing housing in a grand gesture of contemporary thought.

Articles of Interest

Here are some links to articles that have peaked my interest in the last few days:

The Metro, The Metro, The Metro’s on Fire!

So this past week there were a number of fires and closings of stations within the DC Metro system. While the fires and the maintenance issues that caused them (and many more during the previous years) are one issue, the greater issue at hand is that these incidents completely incapacitated the Red and Orange lines. On a system with three major corridors downtown serviced by 5 lines, the loss of two (one of which runs alone on its corridor) is tantamount to a 50% loss of service. This is unacceptable in the 21st century, and especially in the Nation’s Capitol, where a 30 mile commute can take 2 hours by car.

On Sunday, The Washington Post ran an article identifying the double track system as the achilles heel in the Washington Metro. I have to agree with them. One of the greatest strengths of the NYC subway is that it can divert around stations and segments of tracks which are under repair or out of service. With the current system if a single track is out of service all trains must share a single track to bypass the problem. If both tracks are incapacitated by jumper or a fire than the whole system shuts down.

The problem with this article is that it gives no suggestions on how to improve the system besides creating a dedicated source of funding. In addition, while I am a proponent of increasing the capacity and coverage of the Metro system I worry that continued expansion without a remedy of the double track system will just lead to a rail analogous of the beltway and poor road planning in the area. It would be my suggestion that in addition to building the Dulles extension and a ring line, extra tracks should be added to all of the current lines. In an effort not to disturb stations, the two additional lines should function as bypass lanes for future express trains – they could be tunneled below the existing stations. While this seems outlandish, they are already talking about tunneling to put a line in Georgetown.

Urban Parkland

So I’ve been digging through the archive of articles that I have meant to write about, but have not had the chance and came across this article from boston.com which discusses Green Roofs, specifically the the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) in Washington DC, and discusses their popularity in Europe and compares them to standard roofs.

Green roofs are one of the areas where building design in the US lags behind the rest of the developed world. In Europe, green roofs are more ingrained in the culture, for lack of space and in the northern climates, as a pre-modern cultural adaption. It has only been recently that this urban parkland has been identified as a environmental boon, and not just a social one. In the US contractors balk at putting dirt, substrate, plants and a drainage method on a roof, complaining that ti will be too costly, need more structural reinforcement that the design calls for, and pose greater chances for leaks. Yet rooftop gardens have been a fixture in NY for years and not just in skyscrapers.

But green roofs should not just be urban elements. The suburban strip mall is perfect for green roofs or PV panels. The large expanses of asphalt and the traditional tar flat roofs can create suburban heat islands to rival their urban counterparts. Plus, it would be a good marketing ploy. Imagine if Target decided that to show its environmental awareness they would plant a green roof on every store, and whatever rainwater seeps through the soil, will be collected in a brown water storage system and used to flush toilets and urinals. Not only would they reap the benefits of lower heating/cooling loads and less municipal water use, but they would also bring in many customers looking for an “environmentally friendly” shopping experience.