Comments on: Reviewing Design Review http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2008/09/02/reviewing-design-review/ This blog will focus on how Seattle shapes itself — its design, its planning and its aspirations. Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:09:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Recuso http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2008/09/02/reviewing-design-review/#comment-327 Recuso Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:35:06 +0000 http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/?p=565#comment-327 The sad part of all this is that Design Review is even necessary. I do not argue that it's a useful program, but one would hope that better design started with the architect, not a committee. The problem here this that between ever more proscriptive land-use guidelines and the uncertainity of the Design Review response, architects are forced further toward safe, inoffensive--and by extension--boring designs. Yes, one can work harder to present a creative, exciting solution, but that means convincing not just your client, but the City, Design Review and ultimately, the community. Very few architects or their clients can afford to spend the time necessary to take this chance. With this in mind, I should hope that the Weinstein A|U study does not recommend burdening the profession with more process, but rather focuses on a more streamlined program that perhaps focuses more on teh big picture and less on the details. The sad part of all this is that Design Review is even necessary. I do not argue that it’s a useful program, but one would hope that better design started with the architect, not a committee. The problem here this that between ever more proscriptive land-use guidelines and the uncertainity of the Design Review response, architects are forced further toward safe, inoffensive–and by extension–boring designs. Yes, one can work harder to present a creative, exciting solution, but that means convincing not just your client, but the City, Design Review and ultimately, the community. Very few architects or their clients can afford to spend the time necessary to take this chance.

With this in mind, I should hope that the Weinstein A|U study does not recommend burdening the profession with more process, but rather focuses on a more streamlined program that perhaps focuses more on teh big picture and less on the details.

]]> By: JBlue http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/2008/09/02/reviewing-design-review/#comment-319 JBlue Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:40:30 +0000 http://www.djc.com/blogs/SeattleScape/?p=565#comment-319 Hmmm. Thought provoking. So...the idea is that a single planner at DPD [who may or may not - in fact, often do NOT - have a solid background in design or planning] could do a better job of helping to craft and shape the design of a project through an "administrative design review process" by working in a vaccuum, without the benefit of public discourse and DRB guidance? The current system while not perfect, at least involves the community and five members from divergent disciplines [design, development, business, community and member at large] that give guidance in an open forum over a series of 1.5 hour public meetings [usually about three, sometimes more]. It is easy to forget that before design review, the MUP process was internal to DPD, without public input, and the result was that a very substantial number of projects were appealed. After design review was implemented, less than a handful per year. When people ask about a given project "how did that get through design review?" - the truth is that in many cases it did not. More often than one could imagine, the DRB-approved design is later changed either before or during construction, and there is no one at the city to ensure compliance. Examples of agregious non-compliance to DRB guidance are abundant - that needs to get fixed. But even in cases where the design guidance is followed to a 'T', does this ensure good design? Unfortunately not, because you cannot legisilate or force good design through a committee - good design requires a competant architect and community minded developer. Not to mention that design is the most subjective thing on the planet and very few people agree on any given projects design merit. But DRB at least provides a forum for public discourse and a system where architects and developers are forced to demonstrate compliance with, and think through fundamental design issues involving context and sympathy to neighborhood. Will design improve if adjudicated through a single planner or even a committee of staffers at the city? That would be a no, Bob. Not to disrespect DPD, there are some great people here/there, but it takes a collaborative process to make an urban village. All things considered, you have raised some thought provoking points and we are ALL hopeful that the Weinstein study results in some positive improvements to the process - without going backwards! Hmmm. Thought provoking. So…the idea is that a single planner at DPD [who may or may not - in fact, often do NOT - have a solid background in design or planning] could do a better job of helping to craft and shape the design of a project through an “administrative design review process” by working in a vaccuum, without the benefit of public discourse and DRB guidance? The current system while not perfect, at least involves the community and five members from divergent disciplines [design, development, business, community and member at large] that give guidance in an open forum over a series of 1.5 hour public meetings [usually about three, sometimes more]. It is easy to forget that before design review, the MUP process was internal to DPD, without public input, and the result was that a very substantial number of projects were appealed. After design review was implemented, less than a handful per year. When people ask about a given project “how did that get through design review?” - the truth is that in many cases it did not. More often than one could imagine, the DRB-approved design is later changed either before or during construction, and there is no one at the city to ensure compliance. Examples of agregious non-compliance to DRB guidance are abundant - that needs to get fixed. But even in cases where the design guidance is followed to a ‘T’, does this ensure good design? Unfortunately not, because you cannot legisilate or force good design through a committee - good design requires a competant architect and community minded developer. Not to mention that design is the most subjective thing on the planet and very few people agree on any given projects design merit. But DRB at least provides a forum for public discourse and a system where architects and developers are forced to demonstrate compliance with, and think through fundamental design issues involving context and sympathy to neighborhood. Will design improve if adjudicated through a single planner or even a committee of staffers at the city? That would be a no, Bob. Not to disrespect DPD, there are some great people here/there, but it takes a collaborative process to make an urban village. All things considered, you have raised some thought provoking points and we are ALL hopeful that the Weinstein study results in some positive improvements to the process - without going backwards!

]]>