MARCH 2016 \ BUILDING DIALOGUE \
83
the immediate context and even improves the buildings
around it. Our solution looked beyond the design of a sin-
gle building. We focused instead on the aggregation of
buildings, which creates a sense of place achieved when
surroundings are embraced rather than ignored.
I would also like to see special districts established that
allow developers and architects far more design leeway
within their boundaries. Existing zoning or other require-
ments could be softened to allow greater creativity in
terms of building height and footprint, parking and site
orientation, for example. That would give architects and
developers a way to artfully manage density, create public
spaces, maximize beneficial existing land features and cre-
ate buildings that people want to experience.
Our zoning should be pliable enough to support and
incentivize density and parking requirements that offer
alternatives to five-story wood-framed apartment build-
ings with attached parking. Based on the notion of pri-
mary, secondary and tertiary street development – similar
to density patterns proposed by advocates of the "Missing
Middle" approach to urban planning – “stepped density”
would replace the “blanket density” guidelines used in our
present zoning.
In this approach, primary streets (busier and more urban
in character) would have higher density, more retail and
very limited parking facing the street. Secondary streets
would be allowed some street-facing parking. And tertiary
streets – where support/infrastructure buildings are locat-
ed – would contain most of the parking. This way neigh-
borhoods and urban areas would have a diversity of streets
and land values, which would ultimately strengthen the
character and availability of lower cost housing and allow
for the residential development without attached parking.
This, in turn, would lead to more pedestrian-friendly, cre-
ative multifamily housing solutions.
We should also look at what other cities are doing to
both activate our streets and ensure that they are lined
with local, viable entities relevant to the community. In
Seattle, for example, developers are teaming with the city
to move beyond the simplistic notion of just adding code
required retail space at the base of their multifamily hous-
ing buildings. Instead the city and developers are providing
incentives to local entities with ties to the neighborhood.
Research has clearly indicated that smaller local entities
have a much greater impact on maintaining the character
and vibrancy of a neighborhood than leasing to national
brands with no community connection.
City-sponsored design competitions would also encour-
age new thinking, expanded perspectives and greater inno-
vation. Our firm has hosted a number of competitions like
these. Our most recent event was a micro-housing design
competition. It drew more than 100 national and global
entries, and dramatically elevated the conversation about
the viability of compact residential spaces, incorporating
new materials, and how they help foster the psychological
and sociological behaviors that create community.
\\
