Losing Providence, bit by bit

Posted on December 12, 2023 by David Brussat

Google street view of 151 Chestnut Street, site of a proposed multi-story apartment tower.

Rendering of lower portion of proposed “tower” in parking lot. Note, next door, the Samuel Lewis House, also known as the Thomas A. Doyle House for the city mayor who lived there.

The Downtown Design Review Committee met a couple of days ago to consider applications to demolish a couple of buildings on Chestnut Street and Richmond Street in the Jewelry District. I looked them up to see whether I should be concerned. They all seemed to be expendable: not so old, not so appealing.

On the principle that any demolished building is certain to be replaced by something worse, these buildings should probably all be preserved. But that would require a shift in ideals by a city that has lost its way and is unlikely to go with anything other than what would be worse. No campaign to save them or change city policy is likely to succeed.

Above is a Google street view of 151 Chestnut – a parking lot, or so it seems. On either side of the lot are buildings that probably displaced earlier buildings more attractive than what are there now. The heart aches at the thought of what was demolished to make way for this parking lot. The little house built in 1825, unseen off to the side next to the building to the right of the lot, but visible, although distorted, in the rendering (just below) of the proposed tower, seems to be where former Providence Mayor Thomas Doyle lived. His memory may account for its survival, and its immunity from the developers of the residential tower proposed for next door, which went before the DDRC for the latest design examination this week.

According to the Providence Business News, the proposed 12- (cut to 10) story residential tower destined for that parkiing lot was further downsized and presented again last month. The new proposal is down to five stories and down to 21 units from 138 in the initial proposal. It is now without the ground floor commercial space previously announced in 2019, which was granted several six-month extensions for covid and other reasons, possibly including opposition from locals, who rightly opposed even its latest shrunken five stories. At Monday’s meeting it was apparently delayed yet again.

PBN quoted an employee of ZDS, the cheesy local design firm that seems to have taken Providence by storm (and is responsible for the tedious hotel on Parcel 12 next to Kennedy Plaza). Scot R. Woodin described the architects’ so-called “analysis” as follows:

When designing the structure, which features mostly two- and three-bedroom apartments, Woodin noted they had done a “contextual analysis” of the surrounding area that features several historic buildings to understand what would be most appropriate for the site. However, the goal was not to replicate a historic building, but to introduce something more contemporary.

“Something more contemporary”? In historic Providence? Huh? Well, of course! Historical character be damned! Why do something admirable instead of something regrettable! Downright ugly if possible! Obviously, the “contextual analysis” had no meaning whatsoever. It was just a way to make members of the design panel feel good before they usher another piece of Providence into oblivion.

Maybe the proposal will go away, as it apparently has a couple of times already. That’s what all of these pesky proposals should do. It seems, unfortunately, as if another such proposal, the Brown medical building proposed for 261 Richmond St., is destined to move forward. Sad. Since it is dedicated to “science,” it is, typically, a building ugly as sin.

Bio Life Sciences building proposed by Brown University on Richmond Street. (PBN)

Posted in Architecture, Development, Preservation | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

Don’t demo this sad trio

Posted on November 27, 2023 by David Brussat

Three houses on Angell Street, in Providence, whose proposed demolition is considered mysterious.

Recent photograph of the three vacant houses whose demolition may be imminent.

Someone has it in for a row of decent old houses on Angell Street. Specifically, they are Nos. 209, 211 and 217. They should be preserved. Their preservation should be second nature at every level of policy in Providence. Yet demolition permits are, according to the Providence Journal, in the works for all three – no one seems to know who applied for them, or for what purpose – and so the houses are sitting ducks awaiting their sad fate.

The three were purchased by 217 Angell Investments II LLC on Oct. 4 of this year for $4.5 million. The firm was registered with the city on Sept. 13. The location had been chosen, according to city records and a report by WPRI Channel 12 News, as the site for a six-story Smart Hotel, with 116 rooms and internal parking for an unstated number of vehicles. Two attempts to develop a hotel were blocked in 2020 and 2022. No proposals have emerged as a possible replacement. … Yet.

Mayor Smiley’s spokesman, Josh Estrella, told Channel 12:

The owner of this private property requested this demolition and has followed all of the necessary processes required by our zoning ordinance. … The City of Providence has a robust process for preserving historic landmarks, however, these properties are not in a historically protected zone.

None of the three is listed in the 1986 Citywide Survey of Historic Resources by the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission, published in 1986. The illustrator whose nice work sits atop this post is unidentified and unknown to me. Beneath it is a recent photo, artist also unknown. The drawing lists them as Second Empire, Colonial, and Colonial, respectively, built in 1857-75, 1895, and 1892. None of them is an extraordinary example of its style of design. They are all pleasant houses of relatively modest historical and architectural merit in the College Hill/Thayer neighborhood. They are deemed to be “contributing” to their district (in the planning vernacular). There is no particular safety provided for these houses by the status of their district, which is not an official historic district, and even if it were, the protections offered would be minimal.

They are historical houses in the sense that they were built “back in history,” but they are not officially “historic” because there is nothing in their architecture or in broader slices of their history that puts them on the map, as it were. But as “contributing” houses their sheer abundance helps to make Providence the beautiful city it is, with a historical character that is the city’s most valuable attribute.

(That big blue office building off Waterman Street south of Thayer a couple of blocks from the three targeted houses, curiously known as “Bliss Place,” is, I believe, a “noncontributing” building. That’s not just a belaboring of the obvious, it is an understatement of considerable significance. Its very existence stinks up the place. Bliss Place indeed! If Providence had sensible planning, the planners would target 245 Waterman St. for demolition and replacement with something more attractive – except that’s too low a bar.)

The easternmost of the three houses slated for demolition, and the most attractive, is the office of the Bishop Group, whose 2023 and previous “free” calendars for customers sit atop a stack of papers on a stool next to my desk. Ed Bishop is my insurance agent, has been for decades. He is still a friend (I think!), though I have criticized previous development proposals of his, and certainly oppose this demolition – if he has anything to do with it, which has not been officially declared, and which I don’t assume or know for sure, and which mystifies the journalists covering this story (including me). Today all three of the houses are vacant.

The new owners have the right to destroy these houses if they want to do something else on the land, such as build a hotel, assuming that the envisioned use is legal under the zoning of the district. The recently re-elected councilman for this Ward I, John Goncalves, was present at a vigil for the three houses sponsored by the Providence Preservation Society. and had several things to say to reporters (I was not there).

Goncalves wrote and passed legislation that forced the city to inform neighbors that demo permits were being processed for the three houses on Angell. Otherwise, he said, these houses could be demolished “in the darkness of night, on an Easter Sunday,” as occurred on Easter weekend of 2021 when the beloved Duck & Bunny building was suddenly razed on Wickenden Street. He added: “Neighbors need to be briefed and not blind-sided, waking up only to discover a hole in the ground and an empty lot in their neighborhood and community. This is unacceptable.”

Goncalves told the Brown Daily Herald that “with no development plans in place, the demolition and subsequent empty lots here will leave a massive hole and scar in this neighborhood. … Demolition of these properties in these housing units with no plans is a travesty to the community, especially in light of the housing crisis that we face.”

Yes, the owners have their rights, and property rights are important, but the city has a duty to protect the rights of citizens at large, which are enumerated, as far as property and land use are concerned, in the Providence zoning code and comprehensive plan. These documents, made with input from citizens, not just politicians, consider the city’s status as a historic city, a consideration that bears on the value of its historical character. Part of that value is economic, and thus protects aspects of the city that enable it to compete with rival cities that may have been less successful in protecting the historical character they inherited, and which thus lose a considerable amount of business and tourist trade, and have done so over many decades, some of which loss has accrued to the benefit of Providence.

But the zoning and planning functions of the city also protect, or ought to protect, its beauty, not just as a boon to its economy but as an asset for all citizens which they may enjoy freely as citizens. While the city has done a good job protecting its historical character (and thus its beauty) for centuries – indeed, its historic character was not at risk until after modern architecture came into vogue in the 1950s. And since then the city’s dedication to its beauty has flagged, and the rights of every citizen are at risk.

Goncalves was wrong if, in his conversation with the Brown Daily Herald, he was suggesting that the absence of a plan to replace the three houses is why their demolition – they are still up as of today, surrounded by a chain-link fence – would be “a travesty.” No, the travesty is in their destruction, not in the absence of a replacement plan. The travesty would be diminished only if a plan to replace them with buildings of equal or greater beauty had been proposed. Such a prospect is intensely unlikely – not because such a prospect is commercially infeasible but because the minds of Providence planning officials are, and have been for decades, so dim. They are, as it were, stuck in the past. If Goncalves understands this, he has get to make it known to his constituents at large. (He should let me know if I am wrong about that.)

Saving the three houses on Angell Street is part of the way citizens can protect their rights, presumably with the help of elected officials. If elected officials do not think it proper to go to bat for these three houses, they will be demolished and the fight to protect citizens and their rights will continue, either there when a proposal finally emerges, or at other locations, where they may succeed or not. But even if they fail they will slow down the assassination of beauty in Providence. Its prosperous future, if it is to have one, depends upon its beauty.

Posted in Architecture, Development, Preservation | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Attack on downtown beauty

Posted on November 15, 2023 by David Brussat

Brick and cobblestone medallion on Westminster Street, in Providence. (GoLocalProv.com)

Providence Mayor Smiley has smudged a frown on the beauty of downtown. He has demolished the decorative brick and stonework at the intersection of Westminster and Dorrance streets. This is the intersection, part of former Mayor Paolino’s excellent redesign of the old “Westminster Mall” as a street in the 1980s, and popularized by network television coverage of the city’s “dancing cop,” Tony Lepore, who used to mix traffic control with dance to entertain pedestrians (and frustrate drivers) at that intersection.

Now that huge brick and stone medallion is gone, torn up, and will soon be replaced with asphalt blacktop. Voters should replace Smiley (if that is his real name) at the next opportunity if this error is not corrected.

“The City,” explained his spokeman Josh Estrella, “is not replacing the center medallion because it was determined that they get damaged too significantly by the bus traffic on Dorrance.” If that is the case, RIPTA should have a budget line item devoted to fixing the damage it causes – and not with asphalt. The fate of the other five medallions along Westminster is uncertain.

But, as noted by the anonymous reporter for GoLocalProv.com, “Over the years, the stone work was repeatedly torn up by utility companies and not properly restored.” If that is the case (and we know that it is), there ought to be a law mandating that utilities return streets to the condition they found when they started the necessary utility work. If indeed there is not already such a law – as there should be – honored in the breach, as they say.

GoLocal’s meticulous coverage of this important news story includes mention of a report featuring eight American cities that still have cobblestone streets.

Providence, Rhode Island, is a hidden gem for cobblestone enthusiasts. Wander through the city’s historic districts and discover cobblestone streets that wind through scenic neighborhoods. One such area is Benefit Street, known as the “Mile of History,” where you can admire beautifully preserved 18th- and 19th-century homes. Providence’s cobblestone streets are not only beautiful but also provide a glimpse into the city’s rich heritage.

As is conventional with such stories, the facts are exaggerated. Most of the few cobblestone streets in Providence are of recent vintage and other genuinely elderly stretches of cobblestone show through where asphalt has crumbled away over time. Either way, they are difficult to find, so when one of the best examples of newly laid cobblestone is purposely eliminated by the city, it is time to turn on the bullshit detector.

Yes, the city has scores of line items every year in its budget that could be zeroed out to cover the repair the downtown medallions on Westminster Street. Even if journalists eager to gild Providence’s lily exaggerate its remaining cobblestones, wasted money in the budget should go to save those medallions at risk.

GoLocal cites the firm Gavin Historical Bricks, in Iowa City, Iowa, on the utility underlying the beauty of cobblestones:

Cobblestones have disappeared from many streets. They played an important role in cities throughout New England. With the strength of cobblestone, no ruts developed in the streets. The surface remained flexible, so it wouldn’t crack during freezes. The stones also wouldn’t easily crack due to any normal movement on the road. Cobblestones prevented a road from getting muddy when it rained or from getting dusty in dry weather.

Maybe we should return to historic brick for street pavement. Toay manufacturere could probably replicate cobblestones that, aside from their beauty, might contribute to traffic calming – a practice that up until now has been performed with supreme ineptitude, what with the growth of speed bumps. Bad idea. Why not try cobblestones modified to be less bumpy but to promote more thrift with the gas pedal?

Historic character is the city’s most valuable trait, and its most delicate. We are losing it faster than we know. When we commit crimes against that trait, as Mayor Smiley has done, the entire city and all of its citizen are made the poorer by it. Wise up, Mayor!

Posted in Architecture, Urbanism and planning | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Anacostia waterfront in D.C.

Posted on November 1, 2023 by David Brussat

Section of proposed Anacostia river waterfront, in D.C. (Nir Buras)

I grew up in Washington, D.C., and probably gained my affection for classical architecture from its grand public spaces. I went off to college and upon my return found a striking new waterfront along the Potomac River, parallel to M Street and the C&O Canal, in Georgetown. It was exciting not because of but in spite of its architecture, which was a sort of postmodernist mash-up of various forms. But because Washington had for at least a century ignored its waterfronts, not just the Potomac but the Anacostia River, south of the U.S. Capitol and the Federal District, so just having a waterfront with popular restaurants and seating outdoors was a real pleasure for young and old in those heady disco days.

Just out is Robert Steuteville’s column on The Public Square, a blog curated by the Congress for the New Urbanism. He discusses three waterfront projects that have emerged over several decades in D.C., including the one in Georgetown, the only one I have visited. He concludes that they have “re-established Washington, D.C., as a waterfront city. The abundance, variety, easy access, and high quality of new public spaces within these developments have made the two rivers a destination and a welcomed addition to the many amenities in the nation’s capital.”

I have no dispute with that conclusion, but in terms of architecture, all three, predictably, are clunkers. Much preferable, and still possible along some lengths of the two rivers, would be a proposal by architect Nir Buras. He envisions a classically inspired waterfront along the Anacostia River, proposed in 2009, called MacMillan Two, after the MacMillan Plan that gave us D.C.’s National Mall in 1901. An in-depth look at the plan by Neil Flanagan for the website Greater Greater Washington is called “MacMillan Two envisions a classical Anacostia.”

The original plan for the Federeal City was drawn up by engineer Pierre Charles L’Enfant for George Washington in 1791. Additional inspiration for Buras’s plan comes from France. Georges-Eugène Haussmann drew up the plan of Paris we know so well for Emperor Napoleon III between 1853 and 1870. Flanagan sums up the thinking behind MacMillan Two:

[W]e know what is beautiful and what works, and we should follow that. Downplaying strident formal innovation, the relationship buildings have to precedents in a cultural tradition guides design. For McMillan Two, France provides that tradition, particularly L’Enfant’s garden models and the Beaux-arts education of Burnham, McKim, and Olmsted. …

Most buildings would stand six to eight stories tall, with the last two minimized behind a sloped roof. Large tree-lined promenades … would pass throughout the reclaimed area, with particularly verdant ones running along the upper level of the embankment. Spaces created in the embankment promenades would house boat clubs, restaurants accessible from a lower-level embankment.

This plan is plenty ambitious. Buras envisions it as unrolling over a period of a century. Perhaps, as the three waterfront developments in Steuteville’s column become tired and decrepit, and as the one pushed by Nir Buras (who was born in Israel, is author of The Art of Classic Planning, and founded the D.C. chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art) becomes more popular, it might spread north along the Potomac’s embankments, jumpstarting a revival of Western civilization. What a thought! Start now!

Far fetched, maybe, but here’s hoping for a glorious riverine future in D.C. It has waited long enough.

Posted in Architecture, Urbanism and planning | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

100 mill for a new archives?

Posted on October 18, 2023 by David Brussat

Archives committee met Tuesday in the library of the Rhode Island State House.

The committee seeking a new home for the Rhode Island State Archives left wiggle room on whether to erect a new building for that purpose across Smith Street from the State House. It seemed from yesterday’s discussion in the Library Room of the General Assembly that, except for the hemming and hawing, the decision to build it, rather then locating it in an existing historic building in downtown Providence, has already been made.

Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore, who chaired the meeting, and his colleagues admit that the final bill for a new archives might still rise beyond the currently estimated cost of $100 million. A few years ago, that estimate was $70 million. Even as the state still wallowed in covid money, the legislators nevertheless chose not to appropriate funds for the project.

Most of the meeting was taken up with a presentation by fundraising guru Ken Newman, who warned the committee that raising the funds for a new archives building would not be easy. Limiting the project to an archives rather than expanding it to include a museum of history would make the task much easier. That, however, would limit the public allure necessary to persuade local groups to raise the money – not to mention national sources, such as the U.S. Senate’s Appropriations Committee, on which U.S. Sen. Jack Reed sits. The decision to build a museum or an archives only is still pending.

One committee member raised memories of the 1990s fundraising fiasco of Heritage Harbor, when the prospect of a Rhode Island state history museum at the former Narragansett Electric Plant proved so attractive to donors that funds for existing historical institutions dried up almost completely for years. Though flush with money, the project nevertheless went belly up, and a state nursing school facility was installed at the site instead.

“We can’t just go to the General Assembly with a price tag,” Newman pointed out. Legislators must visit the site itself, he said, in order to generate crucial support for the project.

In fact, the archives committee recently visited the Massachusetts State Archives and the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum to see their archival and museum facilities. They found these to be very impressive, although Amore asserted that Rhode Island’s collection of historical artifacts is superior even to that of the Bay State.

It appears that while the committee is resolved to erect a new building, it remains undecided whether it will be primarily an archives or a history museum. How the committee fashions its campaign will determine how much money it can raise. For example, Newman emphasized that the project is “meant to reflect the new communities” living in Rhode Island. He added that the committee must appoint a “fiscal agent”  and that he or she must initiate a so-called “quiet phase” during which period a “matrix of donor groups” must be identified.

Hoping to win converts to the idea of a new building – needlessly, one is entitled to suspect – Amore stated congenially that no more brilliant collection of minds had ever been assembled in one room “since Thomas Jefferson dined alone at the White House.”

Whether that theory holds water depends on how the state carries out its effort. One member of the public attending the meeting had an excellent idea. Mary Shepard, a local urbanist, argued that a design competition should be held to select an architect. That would serve to publicize the idea, for better or worse, of a new building for the state archives (and museum, if that is included).

With or without such a competition, a building of traditional design would make it much easier to raise money for its construction. A herd of independent minds should not need to know that a large majority of the public (that is, voters) prefers traditional architecture to modern architecture. They need only know that historic character is built into the brand of the Ocean State. That ought to make an intelligent choice easier, especially for a building to hold its archival collections.

Posted in Architecture, Urbanism and planning | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

Attack on Wickenden St.

Posted on October 16, 2023 by David Brussat

Rendering of proposal to redevelop site of 269 Wickenden St. (CPC)

Thayer Street lost its character over the past two or three decades, as Providence and Brown shrugged their shoulders when “the Main Street of Brown University” saw its carriage trade and mom & pop shops ousted in favor of a still growing invasion of chain stores. Thayer is not without charm for those who admire the perusal of voluptuosity of either sex. But it no longer has the look or the feel of a community, or a neighborhood.

The same thing has been happening on Wickenden Street, which has for years played second fiddle to Thayer for neighborhood shopping and dining for years until Thayer opted out of the competition by putting out the welcome mat for the chains. With the development another chain apartment complex – a new building masquerading as three buildings at 269 Wickenden St. – a threshold will be breached, opening the floodgates to the destruction of the historic character and charm on Wickenden. The horizontal fenestration on the ground floor is sufficient reason to reject the proposal for aesthetic reasons – if such reasons are still considered appropriate.

The documents for the 269 Wickenden proposal.

The City Plan Commission will vote tomorrow (Tuesday, Oct. 17) on whether to approve the master plan for this gargantuan residential/retail project. Lily Bogosian, the interim director of the Fox Point Neighborhood Association, has sounded the alarm. Her letter to members of the FPNA reveals that as talks with the CPC have proceeded, the square footage of the project has grown to 75 apartment units, “more units than the entire street combined.” She adds: [Tuesday’s] meeting is likely to be FPNA’s last chance to preserve Wickenden Street’s unique and historic integrity.  Using the same development strategy, future developments that will also be unsuitable are likely to be approved.

The CPC meets at 444 Westminster, across Empire Street, beginning at 4:45 p.m. This item will be No. 6 on the agenda. It is a hybrid meeting so observers can atternd in person or on Zoom.

Here is Lily Bogosian’s letter to members of the FPNA, reprinted below in full:

On Tuesday, October 17 at 444 Westminster Street at 4:45 pm the next City Planning Commission (CPC) meeting will determine whether this controversial development that has been strongly opposed by the neighborhood and merchants is granted final Master Plan Approval.

FPNA supports responsible development throughout the city.  However, next week’s meeting is likely to be FPNA’s last chance to preserve Wickenden Street’s unique and historic integrity.  Using the same development strategy, future developments that will also be unsuitable are likely to be approved.

The new plans presented this week by the applicant have increased the building size and density to 75 apartment units, more units than the entire street combined. The 39,999 square feet of proposed residential space provides relief from a delivery drop space; a requirement at 40,0000 square feet. In other words, delivery trucks and emergency vehicles will have to double park on this already too busy two-lane street to enter the building. The height has also been increased from the upper ridge to the lowest grade on Brook and Wickenden to over 70’ tall.

This fundamental change in the heart of Wickenden Street will alter the future of our neighborhood, foretelling a street of chain stores and oversized buildings with 200-400 square foot rental units. Our neighborhood residents and local merchants’ confidence is shaken by the city’s unwillingness to incorporate very basic standards of neighborhood character as set forth  in our district’s neighborhood comprehensive plan.

To preserve all our neighborhoods’ development concerns and to guarantee adherence to the city’s comprehensive plan, FPNA needs our collective participation. The CPC must recognize that our neighborhoods are unified in support of responsible development citywide.

We hope that you will share FPNA’s immediate opposition to the 269 Wickenden development by attending the meeting on Tuesday at 4:45pm at 444 Westminster Street.  Should you prefer to attend virtually, here is the CPC’s Zoom link:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87233568540, or participate by telephone by dialing one of the following toll-free numbers: 833 548 0276, 833 548 0282, 877 853 5247, or 888 788 0099. The Webinar ID is 872 3356 8540.

Thank you in advance for considering your participation in FPNA’s responsible development effort.

Respectfully,

Lily Bogosian

Interim Director, FPNA

Posted in Architecture, Urbanism and planning | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

Framing the classical revival

Posted on October 6, 2023 by David Brussat

The modernist Richard Rogers plan for was outvoted in a survey by Quinlan Terry’s traditional proposal by 67 percent to 33 percent, but what was eventually build is an unsatisfactory compromise.

Here is a post written in May of 2014. Of the major efforts within the past decade to oppose modernist urban projects or to support traditional alternatives, mentioned below, most have failed. The Gehry Eisenhower memorial opened in 2020 largely as originally designed. Clemson seems to have been moved by widespread public opposition in Charleston, S.C., to a modernist architecture building at its campus there. Now it seeks to put the new building in a lovely old house blocks away from the  historic city center. After strong public opposition and the intervention of Prince (now King) Charles, the proposed modernist residential/office complex at Chelsea Barracks, in London, was blocked, but the public’s preferred design by Quinlan Terry was blocked by an unsatisfactory compromise. Construction of the planned 42-story pyramidal tower in Paris called The Triangle designed by Herzog & de Meuron began last year and is scheduled for completion in 2026. Efforts to block it in the French court system failed. Other Paris skyscrapers are pending. The proposal to rebuild Penn Station, in New York City, as originally designed by Charles Follen McKim remains one of several proposals, all of which are mired in the tangled politics of New York State transportation policy. Public participation clearly has a powerful impact on architectural development clearly, but thus far it has not shown itself to be capable of pushing aside the even more powerful forces of establishment modernism.

***

Next for the classical revival

May 24, 2015

What those who favor traditional architecture should do to promote its revival has been pretty much the subject of this blog since I started it in 2009. In fact, the strategy I favor has the advantage of being under way already. It needs merely to be shifted into a higher gear.

On Friday, I received an email that proposed using the word admirable in place of the word beauty. Then another person wrote in to defend the word beauty. Yet another person remarked that “something is emerging” in response (I think) to an email hailing a “New Classical Discourse.”

I must say I too prefer the word beauty over admirable. Admirable is too general. That may be its allure to some – it lacks the baggage that the modernist discourse has loaded upon the word beauty. Admirable is indeed an admirable word and concept, but it cannot fill in for beauty.

The whole idea of debating over new words to promote existing ideas strikes me as typical of the sort of discourse that, fascinating as it is, keeps us little by little from taking action to bring beauty back into mainstream of practice in design and building.

It seems to me that the New Classical Discourse is also a distraction from the main thing traditionalists should be doing – pushing tradition, or classicism, or beauty, or admirability – in the forums that have the power and the responsibility to shape our built environment. Those forums are city councils, design review committees, development authorities, even the newspapers, where events at the former venues are reported.

I have broached this topic a number of times on TradArch and Pro-Urb and in my blog posts without much response. I realize what I am suggesting is difficult because it goes up directly against force of influence in the real world rather than talking amongst ourselves (in the “garden party” or elsewhere) about nomenclature, framing, etc. Again, all quite vital but secondary if the goal is to bring new traditional work into the mainstream of architectural practice and the development process.

We can use existing organizational structure to promote this strategy. Indeed, it is already begun without an organizational structure. It is the work done publicly to derail the Gehry design for the Ike memorial. It is the work done in Charleston to stop Clemson’s monstrosity and to build a more reasonable political infrastructure to oversee new development there. It is the work done by the New Urbanist movement to revive principles of community that worked for hundreds of years. It is the work done in Britain to use public opinion polls to derail a Richard Rogers project in favor of a traditional project by Terry Quinlan for Chelsea Barracks. It is the work done by SOS Paris to oppose plans to build skyscrapers in the City of Light. It is the proposal in New York to rebuild Penn Station as it was originally designed by Charles Follen McKim. It is every activist descent upon  the meetings of public agencies, every letter to the editor from someone peeved by ugly new buildings and anti-urbanist projects being developed in cities and towns around the country, every effort to mobilize opposition to the further degradation of our communities.

I think the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art would be the most effective existing institution to expand this broad effort through its 15 chapters. To the extent that people have not hit the mute button on our increasingly ugly built environment, they favor traditional buildings and places by a large margin. [The ICAA stepped back from participation in this battle when it struck “advocacy” from its mission statement and barred chapter board members from using the ICAA name in its opposition to projects to which they object.]

Architects and those who support them have a responsibility to the public. The late Roger Scruton described the public as the “great disenfranchised majority of users of architecture.”

And I think that the goal should indeed be to move forward by reaching back to the already-existing answer to the problems that have beset architecture, planning, cities and the built environment. We do not need a “new discourse.”

Yes, we should reach back to the classicism and the traditions interrupted before World War II by modernism, and move forward within that tradition, adopting to changes in program and improvements in technology and materials as architecture has always done, learning from past practice, including modernism, as architecture has only lately ceased to do.

The reply will come that young people are not with us, that they consider traditional architecture to symbolize a history that they find embarrassing. I think this impression is false, generated by those who spend too much time listening to the wind blowing through the groves of academe – where generating social angst has become a cheap alternative to seeking practical answers to the real problems of the world. It’s not that such complaints entirely lack validity – it’s just that most people in the real world beyond campus walls pay them little mind, and that discourse has little to do with architecture.

In short, I think we should concentrate on an action program seeking to push forward with an already existing ideal that answers every question.

Posted in Architecture, Urbanism and planning | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

In London, a laudable ruling

Posted on September 27, 2023 by David Brussat

The left image shows the original design; the right image is the final product. (Guardian)

In London a developer has been ordered to tear down a completed 23-story residential building in the Royal Borough of Greenwich, in the southeast of London, because it deviates too far from the original proposal. Residents of 204 flats will have to find lodgings elsewhere. The authority that so declared states that the ruling is unprecedented, and maybe it is. If so, that’s damned pathetic. But whether it is or not, it has been decried as unfair and even brutal.

I disagree. It should be considered necessary and appropriate, even laudable. If such “brutal” rulings had been issued regularly over the years, where appropriate, this one would be unnecessary. Developers would understand by now that the rules for buildings are real, not to be ignored. The big problem is that developers do not believe planning authorities ever enforce the rules. And for years they have not done so. Here is a quote from the Guardian by the paper’s Robert Booth:

The visualisations before planning permission was granted over a decade ago showed a standard piece of contemporary residential architecture with details intended to render an otherwise blocky project easier on the eye. What was built is far more rudimentary and, in parts, resembles stacked shipping containers. There had been complaints from local people, the council said, adding that some of the buildings occupied a bigger footprint than allowed and there were missing facilities, including for disabled people.

Aidan Smith, cabinet member for regeneration, described it as a “mutant development that is a blight on the landscape.”

You can almost hear the developer saying, out of the corner of his mouth, “Oh, boo-hoo! Our footprint is too large, and the playground is not quite up to snuff. Cry me a river!” Well, don’t cry me a river, don’t tear the building down. Do throw the reprobate into the clink.

In Providence, the same situation prevails, except that it’s hard to imagine any board, panel, committee or authority having the balls to actually order that a completed building be torn down, anywhere in this city, this state or this country. For any reason. Period. Any reader who knows of such an order being enforced in the United States, please write and let me know.

The Providence Preservation Society has voiced its regret that an old house at 108 Waterman St., near Brown University on historic College Hill, is threatened with demolition. It is a lovely Arts & Crafts sort of quasi Victorian Gothic building of some distinction. In fact, however, the Providence Historic District Commission has ruled that the building is not architecturally significant enough to lift a finger to save. Its proposed replacement is not all that bad, if you believe they will build what they have promised to build. Tsk, tsk. Shame on these “commissioners”! Where is the hangman when you need him!

Photo of 108 Providence St., on College Hill, slated for demolition, courtesy of PHDC. (Trulia)

Here is the proposed residential building proposed for 108 Waterman St. (City Plan Commission)

Posted in Architecture, Development, Preservation | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Orr’s gateway to heaven

Posted on September 19, 2023 by David Brussat

Gate and obelisk designed by architect Robert Orr for garden of house in Essex Village, Conn. (TB)

Traditional Building, edited by Nancy Berry, may not take the longest to get through, but of the magazines I subscribe to, it is the one I long for the most whenever it comes out. I closely peruse all of the lush and colorful adverts for architectural services and crafted ornament. And the feature articles are a marvel to behold. I linger over the photographs and try to drink in all the detail conveyed by the journal’s excellent staff of writers.

A good example is the article by Nancy Ruhling about a garden gate designed by New Haven architect Robert Orr. I was stopped in my tracks while thumbing through its pages by the photo above. The wrought-iron roses twining through the curling metalwork of the gate are a masterpiece of craftsmanship. The lower part of the gate is a miniature fence to keep bunnies from feasting on the flowers of the garden behind the gate. The garden was designed by Robert’s wife, Carol Orr. The rose garden is in the rear of an 1843 Greek Revival house in Essex Village, Conn., which Orr’s firm was hired to “renovate” (meaning, I hope, to restore).

The photographs that accompany Ruhling’s essay are by Peter Aaron and the firm Garden Iron.

The gate, crafted by Chis Anderson of Garden Iron, in Westbrook, Conn., along with the obelisk behind it (designed by Orr for a limestone base, also designed by Orr and carved by the client’s sculptor in Paris) are engulfed in New Dawn roses – of the climbing persuasion – and Winchester Cathedral roses. Whatever they are, they do sound beautiful! The rest of the garden, writes Ruhling, features

forget-me-nots and bleeding hearts and peonies, … caryopteris and Little Lime hydrangeas. In between, there are bursts of poppies, foxgloves, catmint, and Montauk daisies. Eight other varieties of Austin Roses in shades of pink are planted within the border.

Invasions by young rabbits was a prime motivation for the gate:

which they consider edible delicacies. To that end, the bottom third of the gate, which is flanked by rustic granite pillars, is a series of fence-like rails that culminate in spiked arrows spaced just far enough apart to keep the rabbits at bay.

Orr adds:

If you look closely, you will see that many of the arrows are rose canes, complete with blooms, that wind themselves through to the top of the gate. … The roses were very carefully designed – they had to look like they were growing from the gate. They are integral to the design.

Ruhling adds:

They weave themselves around the main design element, an elegant quatrefoil that was inspired by that on a gate in the historic garden at Dumbarton Oaks created by Mildred Bliss, in collaboration with landscape designer Beatrix Farrand.

Unstated, and unnecessary to state, is what I naturally take away from this gate, so pleasingly described, which is that neither it nor it like are conceivable beyond the realm of the traditional architecture that is Orr’s specialty. (He and I are members of the New England chapter of the Institute of Classical Architecture & Art, headquartered in Boston.)

The gate is a masterpiece inspired in part by the gate at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington, D.C., where I went as a third-grader (if I recall correctly) to collect fallen leaves, such as sassafras, from the trees of autumn. I know nothing at all about verdure of any sort, though I can distinguish a sassafrass leaf from the droppings of an oak tree. And I swear I can admire the shapeliness of leaves without memorizing the names of the trees they fall from. Although I admit that retaining such nomenclature would more fully clutter my memory.

The chief quality of traditional architecture (and landscape architecture, for that matter) is that you need not know much about it to enjoy its charms, which, unlike the various embellishments that modernists sometimes ‘fess up to, you don’t need an expert to explicate its meaning in order to grasp its enchantments. The gate is also inspired by the Garden of Eden, and I suppose some explication might be needed these days to understand that.

In regard to the gate’s handle, Orr offers this: “It’s like the snake is guarding the garden. You literally have to pull it to gain access.”

Okay. I suppose one must admit that the imagery is quite exciting.

The Greek Revival house in Essex whose gate and garden are by Orr Architects, in New Haven. (TB)

Posted in Architecture, Landscape Architecture | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The soggy PVDFest mess

Posted on September 13, 2023 by David Brussat

A happier PVDFest in downtown Providence, June 3, 2019. (Photo by author)

I’d like to put in a bid for downtown as the site for the next PVDFest. Mayor Smiley moved this year’s event out of downtown to the waterfront along the Providence River. Downtown is where festivals such as PVDFest should be held. He should put it back where it belongs.

To be sure, much has been done over the past 30 years to improve the city’s waterfront. The original work, designed by the late Bill Warner and stretching from Waterplace Park to Crawford Street Bridge, is beyond beautiful. It puts other recently developed waterfronts to shame. Thumb through two books published in 1996 and 1997 by Ann Breen and Dick Rigby, which colorfully illustrate newly developed waterfronts around the world. Put together under the aegis of the Waterfront Center, an organization in Washington, D.C., that promotes waterfront planning, the books with show how the modernist fetish for novelty, in all its grotesque splendor, has captured the design of waterfronts around the world. Almost all of the examples are appalling, featuring the typical sterility and incongruity of their modernist equivalents in the architecture of the urban streetscapes we have come to regret.

A commenter on the Nextdoor website expressed his dismay over last weekend’s PVDFest. “Remember when PVDFest was held in June,” writes Barry Dejasu, “before Smiley insisted on moving it to early September and changing the location? Yeah, great move, it went SO well this weekend.”

He has a good point – not about the weather or its date but about its relocation away from downtown proper. Most of the festival occured along the post-1996, second phase of the waterfront, southward from the Crawford Street Bridge. Because of  its aesthetic modesty, this part is not as atrocious as most recently developed waterfronts worldwide, but it does not live up to the standards set by the waterfront’s initial phase. The so-called park at the western edge of the pedestrian bridge is about as dull as a park can be – a large, plain patch of grass with no trees or shrubbery and with fat sidewalks meeting at an extraordinarily undistinguished area of concrete (I think it is) the middle, and with a semi-public café of typically uninspired design planned for sometime in the future, if it has not already been canceled.

Most of PVDFest’s Sunday schedule was canceled because of the furious storm heading for town. Saturday night’s festivities pleased a large crowd of revelers. But they would have been able to revel with greater contentment on both Saturday and Sunday if PVDFest had remained in downtown. The many shops and eateries and entertainment venues along Westminster, Weybosset, Empire and Washington streets would have offered welcome shelter from Sunday’s storm. My family annually enjoys watching the passing scene of festivities at various festivals from window seats at Blake’s Tavern at Mathewson and Washington streets. Sunday’s storm would have dampened enchantment for we three voyeurs by reducing the crowds, but heavy rain, lightning and thunder would have offered their usual aural and visual stimulation.

Above all, downtown as a festival site offers architecture beautiful way beyond that of most American cities, large and small. Most cities have replaced the bulk of their traditional architecture with bland and frequently obnoxious modernist architecture, and the pleasure of being downtown in many of those cities is much reduced. Not so in Providence, most of whose buildings still feature the robust embellishment barred from buildings erected in the decades since 1960. More of downtown Providence is listed on the National Register of Historic Places than the downtown of any other American city, and every third-grader is capable of recognizing the difference. True, many Americans have gotten used to our bland built environment, and we may no longer notice its lack of beauty, but we feel it in our bones. Urban attention deficit disorder is our shared psychic response to the brutal attack of modern architecture on our cities.

Let us hope that Mayor Smiley will return PVDFest to its rightful and historical location in downtown next year.

(View below a two-minute video taken from Blake’s Tavern in 2017.)

Posted in Architecture, Urbanism and planning, Video | Tagged , , , , , | 7 Comments