Common Side-Effects: The Influences of Context on Architectural Design

I have recently been focusing on the effects of cultural, social, and economic forces on our built environment. With this post I would like to rely more on the role that site-specific forces play on the design process of buildings. For each project, the architect is faced with inherent conditions in which he or she must respond to in their design. A few examples of these design considerations can include environmental orientation, adjacent property program, and building regulations from various agencies. These factors are unique to each project and can vary significantly based on the city in which the design occurs. Within the United States, there are a number of major metropolitan areas that have unique zoning codes, or lack thereof, that are indirectly responsible for the make-up of the urban fabric seen in our cities. In this post I will respond to the presentation of two projects from major cities in America, Los Angeles and New York. The first article, “Formosa 1140 by Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects”, was written by Megan Wilton of Dezeen Design Magazine and shows a new project by Lorcan O’Herlihy. The second building that will be examined is publicized in a story in Architectural Record, titled, “Tall Buildings Push Limits by Steeping Up, Not Back,” and focuses on another residential project at 23 East 22nd Street, designed by Rem Koolhaas’ OMA. In both of these jobs, the architects are challenging common building typologies indigenous to their regions in order to find innovative ways of enhancing the end product. My comments on the aforementioned posts can be found on their respective websites, but have also been copied below for convenience.

“Formosa 1140 by Lorcan O’Herlihy Architects”
Comment

I find this building to be particularly interesting in comparison to the vast pool of typical courtyard and “C” shaped housing blocks throughout Los Angeles. Not only are these buildings plentiful, but they usually yield underused public/private spaces creating a condition of wasted and often unsafe space. LOHA’s new type signifies a new housing typology, which if implemented and encouraged through zoning in specific areas of Los Angeles, could provide better, more usable, open space. The combination of these newly created spaces with adjacent properties would result in a holistic approach to urban planning where multiple buildings share a larger communal amenity that is more effective, programmatically, based on the many buildings that would activate the public space. Basically, the otherwise miniscule, gated-off “public” spaces of the typical L.A. apartment would become parts to a larger network of more usable space. LOHA’s proposition, however, is a bit idealistic without any form of city policies because without an enthusiastic developer, the economical impact of leaving half the site as landscape renders the gesture unrealistic.

Another positive issue that I would like to raise is the notion of defensible space, where safety of a region can be provided through the environments design. The traditional form of housing resulted in narrow residual spaces on all four sides of the building and a larger, unused open space in the middle. What concerns me is the narrow spaces between buildings that is created by zoning setbacks. The new typology proposed by LOHA, at the very least, eliminates one of these slender alleys and couples it with adjacent properties to create larger more visually defensible spaces. Ultimately, the move creates a safer, more usable park that benefits the building as well as the neighboring community. Although not an entirely new concept, the thought of ganging clusters of properties to create better shared spaces is an intriguing idea that, when applied in L.A., could yield a much more efficient use of land. In short, allocating smaller under-used spaces into larger activated parks should be a priority for our struggling city.

“Tall Buildings Push Limits by Stepping Up, Not Back”
Comment

After Rem’s studies of “the possibilities for skyscrapers following the landmark 1916 Zoning Law”, a building that challenges the legislation was inevitable and this example proves to be very engaging. Until now, high-rise and mid-rise buildings were typically extrusions with little to no interaction with the urban context. Aside from façade treatments or pulling the street into the lobby, bold urban gestures are not often seen in pinched sites with strict constraints such as this. Some might argue that the result is a posh move that is expected and made possible only because of “starchitect” Rem Koolhaas’ status, but once again, with further investigation, the moves actually generate some pretty sensitive contextual moves while also providing some major positives for the tenants and the community. The default ziggurat form provided by the zoning code provided outdoor terraces as you went up the building, but it also reduced the overall usable floor space as the building goes vertical. I enjoy the overall aesthetic of the shifting of floor plates in the building and can also appreciate the way it creates the same roof gardens as the ziggurat but also preserves the interior space. Granted these benefits of the design, I would imagine that the principle selling point for Rem to justify the large and hugely expensive cantilever is in order to preserve park views of the developers neighboring residential tower. While this is a sensitive move to this building, I wonder if it is impeding on another neighboring buildings view that a straight, vertically extruded building would not have. Even though the building’s main formal move is not an entirely new one, as seen in examples such as Herzog and de Meuron’s 56 Leonard Street project, OMA’s version seems to be the most contextual to date and is also the first to cantilever significantly over an adjacent property. I wonder whether the various contextual moves actually benefit the community or if they simply generate an awesomely sexy building that also provides the tenants with interesting spaces and amenities.