|
(Continued from Page 4)
<br />
<br />to do this by requiring that all commercial, industrial, and
<br />multi-family projects conform to the requirements of the
<br />Design Review Ordinance and undergo sc,mt[ny by the
<br />Design Review Board. During its infancy, the Tempe
<br />Design Review Board focused'its efforts on development
<br />adjacent to arterial streets. Over time, and at the urging
<br />of developers concerned with property values, the Board's
<br />authority encompassed the entire city, excepting
<br />single-family residential development· The seven member,
<br />plus one alternate, board is composed of design profession-
<br />als and other interested citizens, appointed by the Mayor
<br />and City Council.
<br />
<br />Individual commissioners consider each proposal on a
<br />case-by-case basis, applying their diverse backgrounds and
<br />experiences to their perception of the project and its rela-
<br />tionship to the site, context and community aspirations.
<br />D. esign guidelines, per se, even in Tempe's bustking down-
<br />town, are not employed. Rather, the ordinance functions
<br />as a checklist of functional and aesthetic points for the
<br />applicant and review board to regard. While perhaps not ' _
<br />universally cherished, the process is generally regarded as
<br />fair by the development and design community, and essen-
<br />tial by the engaged citizenry.
<br />
<br /> Lafu~ ~ Dines Block, Dorcn~or~m Tempe; 1898/1
<br />
<br />How should we then live?
<br />Almost certainly, no review board sets out to harass out-
<br />standing design work. Most boards do not consider design
<br />review as an adversarial struggle, but as a negotiation -
<br />"give-and-take~. Perhaps the most important thing to bring
<br />to the board's meeting - besides drawings, photographs, and
<br />a thoughtful explanation of the plans - is flexibility. Design
<br />review simply involves maMng sure that new buildings or
<br />changes to existing ones fit their context. A majority of the
<br />time the review board, as representatives of the community,
<br />strives to encourage applicants to do better, to aim higher,
<br />to be more contemporary with the design of the projects
<br />they propose. New architecture should fit iq. Most boards
<br />are committed to diversity mud discourage slavish cops~ng of
<br />earlier designs or "reproduction architectm-e~.
<br />
<br />Ideally, an enlightened client retains a talented, receptive
<br />architect to design a functional project that compliments its
<br />surroundings, while elevatin~ the. averyday existence of its,
<br />users and others in the cor~r~umty who encounter it. It is
<br />important to remember that the vast majority of buildings
<br />constructed and sites developed are not intended to be archi-
<br />tectural masterpieces or monumental structures. While
<br />beauty is a hoped for by-product of the process, it is not it's
<br />focus. Perhaps design review can best be viewed as
<br />'pre-emp~ve redevelopment"; in that it is established to
<br />avoid the creation of blight. Unfortunately, as James
<br />Howard Kunstler observed in Home from Nowhere:
<br />"We drive up and down the gruesome, tragic suburban
<br />boulevards of commerce, and we're over~chelmed at the fan-
<br />~tastic, awesome, stupefying ugliness of absolutely every-
<br />thing in sight... Low standards that wouldn't have been
<br />acceptable in our grandparents' day, when this was a
<br />less-affluent country, are today perfectly normal."
<br />
<br />Rather than overreacting by adopting Draconian restrictions
<br />on what is allowable, our communities would be better
<br />served to develop design standards that seek not to Lmpose
<br />a particular style or limlted palette of materials, but to
<br />establish bench-marks of excellence in the built environ-
<br />ment for the benefit of the cor~munity as whole. It is clear
<br />that.there ~s a desire and need for designers to have para-
<br />meters within which to Work, but not for the dictation of
<br />every element of a design. After all, as Stanley Abercrobie
<br />reports, 'The absence of limits is the greatest enemy of
<br />art." And as Dale Dauten (Vice- Chairman of the Tempe
<br />Planning & Zoning Commission) observes, in his article,
<br />"Manage by standards that count,~ in The Arizona Republic,
<br />24 March 1997, 'A single standard is worth a thousand
<br />rMles.~
<br />
<br />Sta~ndards may be developed through community visioning
<br />exercises, visual preference surveys, a series of charettes
<br />or other means of engaging public debate and incorporating
<br />professional input. Our ultimate goal as planners, archi-
<br />tects, elected and appointed officials, is to improve the qua. li-
<br />ty of life, through the improvement of the tangible, built
<br />form, for the public we serve. Design review facilitates the
<br />incorporation of an ~intar~gible. factor, ambience, which makes
<br />a city unique. Ambience is not something which can be
<br />applied. A sense of place grows out of efforts and activities
<br />which are inherent to a community. This design effort
<br />involves knowing when to guide and when to let the evolu-
<br />tion proceed· The entire comr~unity, including citizens,
<br />planners, developers, designers, and owners, benefits from
<br />stable and attractive surroundings because each community
<br />member is required to make design decisions with the oth-
<br />ers in mind. It is within our powen
<br />
<br />S;eve Ve.qker is a Principal Planner, Architect; Landscape
<br />A~,chitec~ a.:d lead staff for t~e Tempe Design Review Board;
<br />Mark Vii.son is a Senior Plammer, Amchitect, and Tempe
<br />Historic Preservation Officer.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|