1. Starting with Guiding Principles
COMPATIBLE CONTEMPORARY DESIGN: AN ACHIEVABLE GOAL IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS
Starting with Guiding Principles

2. Too modern to exist?
Architectural Critic Paul Goldberger asks in Vanity Fair – is this house too modern to exist?
Oakwood Historic District in Raleigh, NC – mix of 19th and 20th c houses with quite a bit of variety

3. Too modern for St. Louis?
The house in St. Louis that was so ill-received that builders moved out

4. New Construction Design Standards: The Need
Contemporary design is one of the most contested aspects of historic district regulation
Compatibility in design is largely in the eye of the beholder
Brief and generic standards mean that approvals are highly discretionary; too prescriptive standards don’t support high-quality design
Long held sense that scale and materials are critical but not enough

5. Critical Terms Compatible Comparable
Compatible new design is not imitative or meant to be indistinguishable from old

6. Environmental Psychology: Support for some comparability
High degree of consensus in preferences for:
Popular style houses over high-style ones
Blocks with a high degree of consistency in scale and character
Low to moderate discrepancies although the unusual evokes interest
Preferences based on the observer’s knowledge structure for that kind of building and experience in the environment: the context
Façade design as important as scale for perception of consistency

7. Secretary of Interior’s Standards
Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

8. Philadelphia’s Sense of Place Study
Relied on Steven W. Semes’ Four Design Strategies
Literal Replication
Invention within a Style/Type
Abstract Reference
Intentional Opposition Juxtaposition

9. Replication in Lafayette Square, STL

10. BHB’s experience with replication
Because of current methods of construction and additional costs for any plane breaks, etc., replication attempts are not successful because:
Story heights are shorter and buildings often appear as “runts”
Brick veneer, as laid in 21st century, is so much more planar than historic use of brick, it does not replicate historic relief elements
Change of materials on side and rear facades often proposed and without a plane break to visually justify material change, the buildings look “off” in a historic streetscape
Owners want to use cheaper materials on non-street-facing elevations
Replication of scale, setback, color more important in streetscape than replication of actual features

11. Invention within the brick house type, STL

12. Abstract Reference Form Material
Modern interpretation of a dogtrot, a Little Rock Historic District

13. Juxtaposition

14. Recommendations from Philadelphia
If the district or area has a single, predominant environment and architecture, develop guidelines that provide minor variations consistent with this environment based on [replication] and invention within a style.
If the district or area has great variety, abstract reference in addition to inventions within a style could be appropriate.

15. Denver’s 2006 Intent Statement
New buildings should be subordinate to the existing historic context in many ways.
Materials, including quality of materials, are an important consideration.
A critical question: how does the project affect an observer’s ability to perceive the district's historic sense of time and place?
At a minimum, an acceptable design is neutral.
Respecting the urban form characteristic of the district is often more important than replicating its architectural form, and new construction that hinders this perception is unacceptable.

16. Historic Preservation League of Oregon Compatible Infill Design Study: Important Principles
The district is the resource, not its individual parts.
A new building must respond to and protect the integrity of the district just as an addition does to a historic building.
Exterior envelopes and patterning of new buildings will reflect district characteristics.
2011

17. Principles for COMPATIBLE Contemporary Design in SPOKANE Historic Districts
Browne’s Addition in particular

18. Proposed approach
“Sustaining a historic context requires provisions for change that maintain an appropriate balance between static and dynamic urban character, a threshold that varies from one context to another.”
Caroline Alderson

19. Spokane’s residential architecture varied
Mix of heights & scales
Mix of wood-framed and brick houses in most areas
Range of construction dates of years
Infill houses are contemporary
Continuity in setbacks
Public realm vegetated and shaded; continuity in front yards
Outdoor access: porches, balconies, patios

20. Browne’s Addition Character as basis for Principles
Browne’s Addition has considerable variety in its urban character and building stock.
Streetscapes often do have some consistency in building type, scale, height, and architectural presence
Buildings have been erected over time and represent various degrees of investment and architectural presence, as well as common building types, styles, and use of materials of the time during which they were built
People moving through the district experience the streetscapes, vegetation providing shade, and uninterrupted views

21. Streetscapes in Browne’s Addition
Variety throughout district
Individual streets have more consistency in scale and height

22. More variety in Browne’s

23. Newer Construction in Browne’s Addition
Invention/adaptation of a style/type

24. Recent residential buildings in Browne’s Addition
More difficult to categorize
Contemporary, hack of traditional house form/elements, historical references, not to buildings in Browne’s Addition

25. Principles to consider

26. The district is the resource.
The historic district is the resource that is more important than any of its individual components and new buildings will not detract from or be intrusive in the character of the district. New buildings need not be neutral in presence as variety is encouraged, but should not be visually intrusive or out of scale.

27. Compatibility is a visual characteristic.
It cannot be explained.
It cannot be based on programmatic or comparable quality or theoretical concepts.
It must be accessible to district residents.

28. The streetscape is experienced character and basis for compatibility.
Avenues have different characters than streets Avenues tend to have more consistent scale and heights in buildings Streets have more smaller houses, often next to taller Avenue-facing buildings.

29. Character and compatibility are local and varied.
The sense of what is compatible infill construction is local and therefore varies from place to place, street to street.
A project is site specific in visual compatibility.
Top – corner in Soulard; bottom Central West End

30. Compatibility requires some comparability.
The City’s historic district residential neighborhoods need infill buildings that are similar in scale and form, use of materials, and the presence of some common architectural elements.

31. Compatible design is an achievable design challenge.
Designing a compatible infill building is a particular design challenge that allows creativity and innovation within the parameters of some comparability and reflecting date of construction.

32. Context matters.
Areas with few contributing buildings can accommodate less comparable infill. On the other hand, a building site flanked by contributing buildings is expected to be incorporate enough comparability to blend into the streetscape

33. Use and combination of materials matter.
Traditional use of materials is often limited to variation within a material – wood siding and shingles – or two colors of brick. Variety for variety’s sake is not contributing to the comparability of a building in a historic district.

34. Color matters.
Color can compensate for a different building material or can diminish compatibility.

35. Height matters - even in a district with varied heights.
Variance in height of one or two stories can still be within a compatible range.
Shorter story heights in new construction should be addressed so the building does not appear out of scale.

36. Two Chicago buildings demonstrate interesting and neutral

38. Traditional offerings in Fort Collins
Evoking the Past

39. New in Denver historic districts
Complex
Contemporary
Use of materials

40. Anticipating Raising the Roof

41. The Pop-Up
The Saddle bags

42. On Cannon Park: adding on and remodeling
Before
Almost complete

43. On one block in Fort Collins

44. Compatible or Juxtaposition?

45. Concluding thoughts
Neighbors like more traditional and comparable design
Design professionals prefer reinvention, abstract, distinctive designs
Probably need to allow for both traditional and reinvention approaches
Challenges will be in materials (quality and mixing) and color (non-traditional), given recent projects in Spokane
Non-design components of a project - energy conservation, overall cost, quality and use of local materials – usually not addressed in standards

46. Step 1 Proposed public Conversation
Present some version of this presentation and encourage conversation without focusing on what has been built recently in Browne’s

47. STEP 2 Drafting text for Browne’s Addition
Board reviews proposed text and then consults with Browne’s Addition committee to come to some consensus about what is “right” for Browne’s

48. request
Design committee members interested in working with me on new construction standards – approaches and specifics