Can you defend this thing?

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by CGII

Bam. This sucker is ugly, but it's efficient to the bone, which I think is a more fair priority than aesthetics in a housing project.

I think that this is a case where aesthetics and functionality should line up more than they do in this design. Its been shown multiple times that people's behavior changes based on their built environment and connection to it. As demonstrated by the various housing projects and the cages added to the balconies at RTH, if people are housed in a prison like criminals or treated like animals, they will be much more likely to behave like criminals and animals. I don't think a building with few tiny windows is an environment conducive to raising the moral and esteem of its residents who could certainly use it in a period of transition. A place with a more humane architecture treatment, even if it were mediocre post-modern neo-classicism would probably be much better for this use. I would of course prefer a more open, progressive modern design over a pomo trainwreck, but either is better than the depressing, bland box that has been built...

[mhays]

I agree with that. Pride in oneself is one of the main changes in transitioning people back to regular life. That's supported by living in a decent place.

[SFUVancouver]

In Vancouver we call this sort of housing 'supportive housing' and in addition to self-contained suites with bathroom and kitchenettes all of these buildings have on-site support services to cater to the building residents' unique needs as they transition from street and shelter homelessness to more permanent housing. So a building aimed at people with dual diagnosis (addiction and mental illness) will be very different than one for single mothers and their children or the one for First Nations people.

After a long hiatus our Provincial Government has begun funding supportive and social housing again and the City of Vancouver is providing land for the fourteen new buildings in the City of Vancouver that will be completed over three years. The buildings are all LEED Gold.

Here are the first few buildings that are complete or close to it:

Originally Posted by Built Form

Source

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Pender and Hamilton supportive housing

Taken by SFUVancouver, December 17th, 2010.

Source

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Main Street and National project

Taken by SFUVancouver, August 13th, 2010.

Source

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The Abbott and Pender building is coming along nicely.

Taken by SFUVancouver, November 22nd, 2010.

While not technically one of the fourteen sites, this is a new supportive housing project by a local charity has the same mission of transitioning people from street and shelter homelessness to more permanent housing.

Taken by SFUVancouver, November 22nd, 2010.

Source

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

That's because Bryson's being an arse and not showing you context. This point is the optimal viewing point for the structure in question from any major Philadelphia street (unfortunately this image was clearly taken in 2007, so you'll have to fill in with your mind's eye where it ought to be). Look closely at the back of the PSFS Building--you'll notice that it has the exact same paneling type in the exact same color scheme as Connolly House--what this project is called. The photo in the OP is taken from the foot of the PSFS Building, thereby obscuring the proper context, thereby creating an indefensible bias. From the street, I repeat, it looks like nothing more, or less, than a wing of the PSFS Building and so, while I do not personally care for the style, this building is far less worse, to me, than the historicist pastiche of Symphony House or the high-rise blank walls of 101 Walnut.

EDIT: #2 most-optimal viewpoint, and right by the so-new-it's-still-shiny Mitchell & Ness flagship store. Note construction site debris. Also note interaction its closest major neighbor has with the street, and the alley. Note, again, the shading of the paneling system used. This building is effectively indistinguishable from the PSFS Building's backside at almost every viewing angle, and if you weren't clued in that it was there, you'd easily miss a shortcut from here to 1234 Market.

knowing were the location of this building is, I am guessing that being stuck in what looks like back alleys looking at the backs of buildings there is no actual views to be seen from within the building. Which makes me wonder how the interior spaces were done, which knowing that would make it much easier to defend this building, but based on this location, I don't see anything wrong with it because you probably would never notice it was there anyway. Though I hope there is still a flood of healthy ambient light within the building.

[Troyeth]

Individuals can debate the merits of everything, and justify anything. Many might argue the legitimacy of premeditated murder if you provided them the rare opportunity.

What is clearly not up for debate with this building is the general feeling it produces, which, even for this site hosting radically varying opinions over design, is pretty uniform in its agreement.

It feels like a prison, or a half-way house, or an insane asylum, or a clumsy joke, or an unjustifiable monstrosity, or a piece of shit, and so forth.

Funny, remove the semantics and architectural/environmental theory and mumbo jumbo, we come as close to a consensus as any significant group ever will come: this structure is a repugnant, gag-worth pile unworthy of its manifestation from computerized rendering to physical reality.

I take solace in the truth that it scars Philadelphia as opposed to Seattle, thus I am never to be visually confronted by its belligerent ugliness, even if it is 63.5% recyclable and biodegradable--or whatever. And who cares? It is not designed to be timeless; it will be razed soon enough.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Troyeth

Individuals can debate the merits of everything, and justify anything. Many might argue the legitimacy of premeditated murder if you provided them the rare opportunity.

What is clearly not up for debate with this building is the general feeling it produces, which, even for this site hosting radically varying opinions over design, is pretty uniform in its agreement.

It feels like a prison, or a half-way house, or an insane asylum, or a clumsy joke, or an unjustifiable monstrosity, or a piece of shit, and so forth.

Funny, remove the semantics and architectural/environmental theory and mumbo jumbo, we come as close to a consensus as any significant group ever will come: this structure is a repugnant, gag-worth pile unworthy of its manifestation from computerized rendering to physical reality.

I take solace in the truth that it scars Philadelphia as opposed to Seattle, thus I am never to be visually confronted by its belligerent ugliness, even if it is 63.5% recyclable and biodegradable--or whatever. And who cares? It is not designed to be timeless; it will be razed soon enough.

I have to disagree, but seeing that we only have a little bit of information about this building beyond its location and what it looks like from one vantage point, it is really hard to have a full debate over it.

[bryson662001]

SFUVancouver those are all pretty handsome buildings you posted. So far the best excuse for the Philadelphia structure seems to be that it is in a very inconspicuous spot and you aren't actually supposed to look at it.

[Troyeth]

Urbanlife, it seems you are looking to prove precisely what I wrote about in my original posting on this thread, and that is that people can debate anything and everything.

Perhaps you adore the structure, rendering you a rarity among architectural connoisseurs, but I have no doubt the general consensus would deem this particular structure undeserving of any defense or affection. The building feels like a failure when viewed in photograph (and I can only imagine the horror of it in person).

The wholly subjective criticism of this particular photo--that it is shot from the wrong street, that the street itself is unimportant, that it is from an unflattering angle, that the lighting was off-kilter--are all moot, preposterous, and needlessly debate stirring; red-herrings. Ultimately, the feeling produced by these several stacked floors of disappointment is that of a tremendous failure, and that triumphs over academic, though trivial discussions of this building's worth.

Constructed in a major city, visible from a public street--perhaps minor or major (no matter)--and supposedly an addition to Philadelphia's morphology that will withstand the generations; are we to pretend it will accomplish this objective as it voraciously bankrupts the stored good feeling of passers-by?

Debate theory and ideas all you want, and photographic lighting too. This building is not defensible.

[Phil McAvity]

No, I can't.

[Jasoncw]

Originally Posted by Troyeth

Urbanlife, it seems you are looking to prove precisely what I wrote about in my original posting on this thread, and that is that people can debate anything and everything.

Perhaps you adore the structure, rendering you a rarity among architectural connoisseurs, but I have no doubt the general consensus would deem this particular structure undeserving of any defense or affection. The building feels like a failure when viewed in photograph (and I can only imagine the horror of it in person).

The wholly subjective criticism of this particular photo--that it is shot from the wrong street, that the street itself is unimportant, that it is from an unflattering angle, that the lighting was off-kilter--are all moot, preposterous, and needlessly debate stirring; red-herrings. Ultimately, the feeling produced by these several stacked floors of disappointment is that of a tremendous failure, and that triumphs over academic, though trivial discussions of this building's worth.

Constructed in a major city, visible from a public street--perhaps minor or major (no matter)--and supposedly an addition to Philadelphia's morphology that will withstand the generations; are we to pretend it will accomplish this objective as it voraciously bankrupts the stored good feeling of passers-by?

Debate theory and ideas all you want, and photographic lighting too. This building is not defensible.

I don't think that the context of the building is moot at all. Not only that, the fact that this is transitional housing is also not moot. Neither of those things were shown at all in the first post.

So we find out that the building is sited on what is essentially an alley way, and the service area for the PSFS Building.

This was more than likely intentional by the organization running the shelter. The intention would have been to have the building sited in a quiet, out of the way place downtown. That way the people using the building don't have to be seen going in and out of it.

Then the architect came in and built off that intention by making the building blend in with the PSFS Building. From the street (the actual street, not the alley) it blends in with the PSFS and you wouldn't even notice it. Even walking through past the building I doubt anyone would even notice it. And walking past, the alley/street is so narrow that unless you specifically look up I doubt you'd even see the facade. This is all intentional.

So being shown just a photo of the building, without any context or explanation, the building seems indefensible. But after learning about the project and thinking about it, the end design is the result of a very reasonable series of decisions. The project is very understandable and very defendable, even though it's ugly.

But architecture is more than just making things look pretty, and hopefully the architecture connoisseurs you're talking about will try to understand the project as a whole.

[Troyeth]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

The project is very understandable and very defendable, even though it's ugly.

The debate over a building or place can be painstakingly thorough and endless, but it ultimately distracts from the fundamental truth over how we feel about it.

Jason, you're further support for my points and I am unsure if you even realize it.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Troyeth

Urbanlife, it seems you are looking to prove precisely what I wrote about in my original posting on this thread, and that is that people can debate anything and everything.

Perhaps you adore the structure, rendering you a rarity among architectural connoisseurs, but I have no doubt the general consensus would deem this particular structure undeserving of any defense or affection. The building feels like a failure when viewed in photograph (and I can only imagine the horror of it in person).

The wholly subjective criticism of this particular photo--that it is shot from the wrong street, that the street itself is unimportant, that it is from an unflattering angle, that the lighting was off-kilter--are all moot, preposterous, and needlessly debate stirring; red-herrings. Ultimately, the feeling produced by these several stacked floors of disappointment is that of a tremendous failure, and that triumphs over academic, though trivial discussions of this building's worth.

Constructed in a major city, visible from a public street--perhaps minor or major (no matter)--and supposedly an addition to Philadelphia's morphology that will withstand the generations; are we to pretend it will accomplish this objective as it voraciously bankrupts the stored good feeling of passers-by?

Debate theory and ideas all you want, and photographic lighting too. This building is not defensible.

But I think you are missing my point, this is just one photo...and even with more accurate photos of its surroundings, it would be hard to say if this building were a success without actually seeing it in person. Sure, if we are judging this building solely off the one picture posted, then I would agree it is a horrible looking building. But if what has been said about this building is that is blends into its surroundings seamlessly, then that needs to be taken into consideration. Plus looking at where this building is located, there is a possibility that the views looking out of the building were ugly enough to warrant the smaller windows, who wants to look out onto back alleys and dumpsters. Basically going back to what I was saying, a building like this, I would need to see more photos of it in context to its surroundings and see photos from within the building to make any actual judgment on this building that isn't just a knee jerk reaction to the photo.

[vid]

I think you're blowing this out of proportion. You're acting like this single building has instantly blighted all of Philadelphia and architecture will never be enjoyed there again until this "horrible monstrosity" is razed.

Calm down.

[Troyeth]

My criticism of this building--honest and direct--is not an overreaction. I am simply stating matter-of-factly a feeling that is widely shared and expressed in this thread, as requested by the prompt.

And, while the city of Philadelphia is a metropolis of hundreds of square miles, this building is indeed an affront at the place where it counts; the street. The same street innumerable walk by. If anything, my terse but relatively tame writings regarding this structure lack the vitriol this building truly deserves.

Lastly, Urbanlife, even if all of those siting characteristics were proven true--that the sites adjacent to the structure were so obscene smaller windows or even no windows were absolutely necessary--there are far superior and healthier ways to mitigate those factors through competent design. Why do you need schematics and diagrammatic photographs to agree with this? One picture is all that is needed to conclude this building fails by every critical measure.

I should also make the point that a hideous building "fitting seamlessly" into an area already characterized as ugly is hardly a defense. It is merely perpetuating the destruction of urban physical beauty. It is an excuse for further civic vandalism, and a poor one at that.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Troyeth

Lastly, Urbanlife, even if all of those siting characteristics were proven true--that the sites adjacent to the structure were so obscene smaller windows or even no windows were absolutely necessary--there are far superior and healthier ways to mitigate those factors through competent design. Why do you need schematics and diagrammatic photographs to agree with this? One picture is all that is needed to conclude this building fails by every critical measure.

How do you know you are not looking at the back of the building, or how it looks from a tiny non important alley way? Plus it looks like it is still under construction within this photo, so how do you know how it looks finally completed? I have seen no renderings of the potential look of this building completed, I have seen no context in which this building is surrounded by, I have only seen a poorly shot awkward angle photo.

Again, if this building does sit in an alleyway then what does it matter if this building looks good if no one can ever see it from the outside of the building. Heck, for all we know, this building could have an amazing interior that gives those that use it a very uplifting feeling from the cold streets they were sleeping on...if it does, then I would have a hard time arguing that this is an ugly building.

If you want me to say that it is an ugly building based on this one awkward photo, then sure, it is an ugly building. But I have a feeling there is more to this building than what we have been presented so far.

[Troyeth]

Well, I do hope you find the photographs that justify your optimistic tendencies over this building. I doubt they will ever be forthcoming.


I believe strongly that the primary objective of architecture is to uplift our environs, no matter where the structure is being constructed (but especially in the public sphere). Alley or otherwise, it is of no concern to me. Let us all cease making excsuses for disastrously sub-par additions to the cityscape.

What is also of no concern to me, for the most part, is how a private structure appears internally. As architecture is a civic undertaking, the form of the facade should have serious consideration, if not absolute priority--in a building's creation.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Troyeth

As architecture is a civic undertaking, the form of the facade should have serious consideration, if not absolute priority--in a building's creation.

So basically, 1: fuck the people in the building, and 2: making the building blend into the back wall of a neighbouring building so that it doesn't stand out and is unassuming doesn't count as serious consideration.

There is more to architecture than being some grand masterpiece for passersby.

[bryson662001]

There is very little public information on this building but as far as I can tell it must be located approximately where the red x is here, behind St John's church on 13th St. If I am correct then it is visable from 13th st and the church as well as the windows of the surounding buildings. I may be wrong because it is hard to pin down but it does seem to be affiliated with the church which btw has a long history of caring for the homeless. Maybe the tiny windows are to obscure the views into the building.

[Troyeth]

Originally Posted by vid

So basically, 1: fuck the people in the building, and 2: making the building blend into the back wall of a neighbouring building so that it doesn't stand out and is unassuming doesn't count as serious consideration.

There is more to architecture than being some grand masterpiece for passersby.

If your first point is indeed your interpretation of what I have written, you have made a very serious misinterpretation of my words. I would argue that, ultimately, the role of the architect is to act as the primary agent of city building, and as such are responsible to the public for providing quality building facades that enliven and uplift a place. That by no means equates to your rather crass "fuck the people in the building".

And to your second point, again, you can debate why a building looks the way it does and why that is rational, clever, ingenious, necessary, whatever; none of that makes the structure a design success.

Lastly, there certainly is more to architecture than being a "grand masterpiece for passersby," but if architecture fails in its most fundamental goal of bettering the physical realm of our cities and towns, I very much question its relevancy and worth.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Troyeth

And to your second point, again, you can debate why a building looks the way it does and why that is rational, clever, ingenious, necessary, whatever; none of that makes the structure a design success.

Lastly, there certainly is more to architecture than being a "grand masterpiece for passersby," but if architecture fails in its most fundamental goal of bettering the physical realm of our cities and towns, I very much question its relevancy and worth.

It's not clear how making a building visually majestic and ostentatious is the only correct way to 'better the physical realm.' I would say that this project, a low energy using low income housing development using recycled materials with a sober design in a concealed location does quite a good job in doing just that. Considering that this building will inject new residents in clean, modern accommodations in the city center while significantly reducing each residents ecological footprint. It could've been done prettier, but then who knows where the money in the budget would be taken from to cover this (it could be in the recycled materials, or in the pedestrian scaling of the ground level, or from the quality of finish in the apartments). All so it could appear to be a nicer building from a back alley.

Naturally the best buildings are the ones that marry craft and aesthetic. But to prioritize aesthetic before craft is a mistake, especially with a building like this which has a greater demand to perform than look pretty. Would you buy the car that looks nice, or the car with better fuel economy, horsepower, handling, and reliability?