David Brussat, Dr. Downtown: Architecture and Development
Monday, January 05, 2015
“See Beautiful Rhode Island” is the state’s latest marketing slogan. “De-Beautify Rhode Island” has long seemed to be its economic policy. This does not compute.
The state’s new governor, Gina Raimondo, and the new mayor of Rhode Island’s capital city, Jorge Elorza, have both received free advice from this corner. I extend the advice to Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian. (See below.)
My advice, of course, is to encourage Rhode Island developers to build upon the state’s chief asset – its beauty – and to strengthen its historical character, which state leaders are obliged by law to protect. Rhode Island need not enact design codes supporting one style or opposing another. Its leaders need only request politely that developers keep the law in mind when selecting architects. “Protect historical character, please!”
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTDevelopers prefer to work with government rather than against it, so they will probably be happy to go along.
Walsh’s bully pulpit in Boston
Boston’s new mayor, Martin “Marty” Walsh, recently announced that the city wanted developers to build bolder modern architecture. In “Marty Walsh goes up against boring architecture,” on Dec. 10, Globe columnist Dante Ramos put it this way:
“During the [late Mayor Tom] Menino era, the message from the top was to err on the side of caution. Walsh’s comments … sent the opposite message to the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the civic groups that review building proposals. That alone will help.”
Walsh’s advice to developers is exactly the opposite of mine, but the important point is that Walsh understands that offering such advice is an entirely appropriate facet of his role as mayor. In Rhode Island, Governor Raimondo, Mayor Elorza, Mayor Avedisian and other leaders should take a page (if not the same page) from Walsh’s playbook.
They should use their bully pulpits to ask developers to help them reduce the dissonance that exists between “See Beautiful Rhode Island” and “De-Beautify Rhode Island.” It may be both the easiest and the least expensive new idea for economic development that you didn’t hear at the governor’s recent economic summit.
“Welcome to Warwick” indeed!
Warwickers are understandably irked whenever an airline pilot welcomes passengers to Providence as they land in Warwick.
Mayor Avedisian is letting developer Michael Integlia rip down one of the state’s most beautiful old factories, the Elizabeth Mill, built in 1875, to make way for a piece of junk. The Providence Journal ran a photo of Integlia holding up a picture of his proposed barf plant, while a slack-jawed Avedisian just stands there. The photo says it all.
Avedisian and Integlia had long expressed their intention to save the Elizabeth Mill. I doubt that it is suddenly too costly to save; Integlia merely wants a fatter profit. Bait-and-switch is the phrase that leaps most swiftly to mind.
The Journal quoted Warwick City Councilor Camille Vella-Wilkinson, who has raised her voice to oppose the demolition: “I don’t think Warwick is in need of another big-box cubicle farm. That is not the most inviting feature of the city.”
“Big-box cubicle farm”! A perfect example of the “De-Beautify Rhode Island” strategy. It has not worked. It will not work. Listen up, Warwick. Listen up, Rhode Island.
Rattle some cages, R.I.!
Here are some basic, irrefutable principles of design not taught in architecture school:
1. In traditional settings, historic preservation maintains existing beauty, new traditional architecture adds to existing beauty and new modern architecture subtracts from it. (Rhode Island is still a uniquely traditional setting.)
2. Modern architecture seeks novelty whereas traditional architecture builds the future upon the experience of the past. Therefore, mediocre architects can make acceptable traditional architecture, whereas only geniuses can make acceptable modern architecture. (Geniuses are as rare in Rhode Island as everywhere else.)
3. Good modern architecture is just as expensive as good traditional architecture, while bad traditional architecture is just as inexpensive as bad modern architecture. (You get what you pay for in Rhode Island no less than anywhere else.)
4. Dollar for dollar, new traditional architecture is more likely than new modern architecture to protect historical character by adding to beauty. (In Rhode Island, that means building traditional architecture is likely to be less expensive.)
5. Traditional architecture is more popular than modern architecture because respect for traditional architecture is instinctive whereas respect for modern architecture is learned. (In Rhode Island, that means development in traditional styles is likely to be less costly and easier to accomplish, even as it makes state economic policy more logical.)
Click here for David Brussat's Blog
Related Slideshow: David Brussat, Dr. Downtown’s Roses and Raspberries of 2014
Here are Dr. Downtown's roses and raspberries of 2014.
Related Articles
- Dr. Downtown, David Brussat: Free Advice for Raimondo
- Ask Dr. Downtown: David Brussat
- Dr. Downtown, David Brussat: The 10 Buildings that Need to Be Torn Down
- Re-Introducing: Dr. Downtown, David Brussat
- Dr. Downtown, David Brussat: Free Advice for Elorza
- Dr. Downtown, David Brussat: Thinkfesting the RhodeMap
- David Brussat, Dr. Downtown: Roses and Raspberries For 2014
- Dr. Downtown, David Brussat: Hard to Out-Edge Providence
- Dr. Downtown, David Brussat: Off the Bureaucracy!
- David Brussat, Dr. Downtown: Architecture and Development
