Has the 'Urban' Style Jumped the Shark?

[TheNiche]

I would contend that the concept of urbanism has closely aligned itself with a kind of architectural style. The two are not one in the same; urbanism has to do with planning policies applying to whole neighborhoods whereas an urban style seems to be typified by what you see below, regardless of whether it stands alone like this does (or as I would argue Post Midtown does in Houston) or is integrated into a community.

Another couple of good examples, I think, are Trinity Loft or Cityville at Southwestern Medical District, both in Dallas. Both have ground-level retail, neither have been able to attract tenants very easily or are at all integrated into a neighborhood supportive of such an urban style. Sawyer Lofts here in Houston also seem to fit the pattern, as being urban-style, but sandwiched in between a freeway and a parking lot in front of a big box retail store.

In and of itself, it does not seem like the contradiction between such projects with an urban style but lacking in urbanism seem to be off-putting to the public. Certainly strong leasing activity at Sawyer Lofts and Post Midtown prove the point.

But all of these examples beg the question: has 'urban' styling jumped the shark? Certainly the financial crisis could serve as a comma seperating this and the next generation of architectural styling. And if so, what is up and coming?

I graciously open the floor to speculation...

[Jeebus]

You ask two questions:

1. Has urban styling jumped the shark?

2. What's wrong with this picture?

My answers? To the first question: Yes. I think that once structures are built with an urban styling, but serve zero purpose to contribute to the overall concept of urbanism, then they have indeed jumped the shark tank.

To the second question: You haven't provided nearly enough information about the picture for anyone to give you a sufficient answer as to what is wrong, versus what is right with this picture.

[TheNiche]

To the second question: You haven't provided nearly enough information about the picture for anyone to give you a sufficient answer as to what is wrong, versus what is right with this picture.

Well, just look at it. What is atop the building footprint is an exceptionally dense residential building (and make no mistake about it, five-story stick construction is significantly more costly than four-story). The building itself follows precepts of urbanism, including an articulated first floor with awnings. But in urbanism first floors are articulated with awnings in order to accomodate a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, and in this case the building footprint is removed from either the street or the inadequate sidewalks by an overly generous setback. Also note the lack of trees that would provide shade for pedestrians during the summer months.

The style is that of a cookie-cutter urban-style apartment building; in stark contrast, the site plan screams suburbia. And the question I posed in the title of this thread was rhetorical.

[sowanome]

I agree about the suburban feel to the pic, I'd like to see the building closer to the sidewalk w/o the extra grass. Right now, it looks like another community w/setback issues that's currently in the burbs, but at least the p.lot is not visible. Other than that, it seems that they should've added more brick, to the facade.

IMO there is just something wrong with stucco and brick, esp with a structure that has very strong features.

[Dan the Man]

The building also appears to only have one entrance, which is accessed by a circular drive rather than a sidewalk. That's hardly "urban."

All architectural styles eventually become bastardized after they become popular. The most notorious, in my opinion, are the "New Urbanism" knock-off subdivisions. You can stick Hardi-Plank and traditional design cues all over a house, but these are just superficial details. The real meaning to the style, like you said, belongs to the larger scale planning of the building's context, which in the case of New Urbanism, would be a small-scale pedestrian friendly neighborhood.

Edit: To actually answer your question, yes, I think "Urban" design has "jumped the shark". I think "Green" or "Sustainable" design is the next style that will be promoted (and subsequently bastardized) by residential developers.

[UrbaNerd]

Just some commentary (not entirely conforming to the format, but why the heck not...) from an architecture student's perspective, regarding the "urban style" as Niche calls it: they are DOING IT WRONG. Most examples of the "urban" style are done incorrectly so, and the whole thing is just a simulacrum for the "real" experience. I'm not even talking about the old townhomes with front-loading garages argument; many of those can be considered legitimate infill, especially in an autocentric city like Houston.

Formula for the "urban" style:

Take a regular suburban apartment complex;be sure to use the same stick construction. Keep the basic design, take the sloped roof off, and replace it with either a less steeply sloped one, a parapet roof, or a flat roof. Add more offsets and such on the structure, to give an appearance of a "multi-structural street scene". Add a few balconies here and there, along with oddly placed awnings (most non-functional, and not even large enough to put a potted plant on) to give the "urban" feel to it all. Either festoon it with poorly replicated "neoclassical" trim, or go the more economical "modern" route of few details at all. EIFS is a MUST, and if you can, install Hardie siding where "people won't really notice it". Trendy colour schemes are a must, including yellows and oranges! Once you're done with that, fill the insides with granite countertops, "high end" finishes, and "modern" decor! Then charge double or MORE for rent than the original complex!

The problem is, maybe most people actually see through the superficiality of the above, which as Dan put it; it is all a bastardization of what is real, and the trend itself perhaps needs some updating.

[infinite_jim]

Do you think this typological suburban program with urban facade will ever lead to actual urbanism to it's immediate adjacency? Long term, will this product be designed to accommodate an easier conversion to activate pedestrian activity or is it a short term returns gimmick to validate an automotive lifestyle as being authentically urbanism via "urban style"?

Edit:

As far as a new style is concerned, I think tetris will be the next good look if articulated with green/sustainable detailing and more indoor/outdoor design principles in play to expand perceivable space opposed to conditioned square-footage. Ultimately a more efficient model and honest mask.

[Gooch]

Keep the basic design, take the sloped roof off, and replace it with either a less steeply sloped one, a parapet roof, or a flat roof. Add more offsets and such on the structure, to give an appearance of a "multi-structural street scene". Add a few balconies here and there, along with oddly placed awnings (most non-functional, and not even large enough to put a potted plant on) to give the "urban" feel to it all. Either festoon it with poorly replicated "neoclassical" trim, or go the more economical "modern" route of few details at all. EIFS is a MUST, and if you can, install Hardie siding where "people won't really notice it". Trendy colour schemes are a must, including yellows and oranges!

The EXACT description of this monstrosity in Baton Rouge! C'mon, fess up, you were looking at this place when you wrote that!

[Jeebus]

Well, just look at it.

I did - and I am.

The building itself follows precepts of urbanism, including an articulated first floor with awnings. But in urbanism first floors are articulated with awnings in order to accomodate a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, and in this case the building footprint is removed from either the street or the inadequate sidewalks by an overly generous setback. Also note the lack of trees that would provide shade for pedestrians during the summer months.

This is why I originally posted that there is not enough information. You ask if urban style had jumped the shark. If this development did attempt to put retail on the first floor then it could be considered to have jumped the shark. As it is now, it appears as simply the backside to a residential building - which explains the setback with no parking, no trees, no sign identifying the property, or any means of access besides a small pull-through drive way.

The style is that of a cookie-cutter urban-style apartment building; in stark contrast, the site plan screams suburbia.

Yes, it is cookie-cutter, and it screams suburbia, but I don't think it screams urbanism emulation as you suggest. Perhaps not viewing the property from only the backside would help make a better determination as to whether an attempt to bastardize urbanism was actually made.

As it stands now, the backside of all mid-rise nursing homes in the Houston area fall under your criteria for rip-off urbanism.

[cottonmather0]

You mention Sawyer Heights - what is the preoccupation with labeling dedicated upscale apartment buildings as lofts? This subject has been touched on a million times on this board, but it just makes no sense to me. Same with the complex on W. 18th @ 610. They look like nice apartments from the outside, but for crying out loud, there's an APPLEBEE'S in the parking lot. Those are not lofts! They're apartments.

[TheNiche]

I did - and I am.

This is why I originally posted that there is not enough information. You ask if urban style had jumped the shark. If this development did attempt to put retail on the first floor then it could be considered to have jumped the shark. As it is now, it appears as simply the backside to a residential building - which explains the setback with no parking, no trees, no sign identifying the property, or any means of access besides a small pull-through drive way.

Yes, it is cookie-cutter, and it screams suburbia, but I don't think it screams urbanism emulation as you suggest. Perhaps not viewing the property from only the backside would help make a better determination as to whether an attempt to bastardize urbanism was actually made.

As it stands now, the backside of all mid-rise nursing homes in the Houston area fall under your criteria for rip-off urbanism.

That is the front.

Do you think this typological suburban program with urban facade will ever lead to actual urbanism to it's immediate adjacency? Long term, will this product be designed to accommodate an easier conversion to activate pedestrian activity or is it a short term returns gimmick to validate an automotive lifestyle as being authentically urbanism via "urban style"?

No. This is in Arkansas and not within a CBD.

[Jeebus]

That is the front.

It may be "labeled" the front, but I consider the front of a building the side that is most accessed. There is no way all the residents of that building use that one little valet drive on the side of the building.

I want to see the real front of this thing before I pass any more judgement.

[N Judah]

It looks like they were replicating the symptoms, not the cause. I think this approach is fundamentally wrong.

[infinite_jim]

It looks like they were replicating the symptoms, not the cause. I think this approach is fundamentally wrong.

str8^lulz

I would call this approach the architectural equivalent of "web-banging" and would be a better fit in Phoenix.

[20thStDad]

The EXACT description of this monstrosity in Baton Rouge! C'mon, fess up, you were looking at this place when you wrote that!

Where in BR is this?

[Gooch]

Where in BR is this?

Nicholson and West Chimes, just north of LSU campus. If you look really close you can see the North Gate between the building and Northbound side of Nicholson. Northgate Liqour used to be across the street. Doesn't fit the area - AT ALL.