Michael Lewyn  Artleads • 7 hours ago

It seems to me that every new building changes "character" in some way. But my sense is that when you say "character" maybe you really mean "height." Assuming that to be the case, I agree that taller buildings tend to be more controversial. As to whether they are substantively necessary to achieve transit-supportive densities or to lower housing costs, I think the right answer is probably: "sometimes." (which of course could lead to a lot of commentary!)

 

•

Reply

•

Share ›

• 

  Artleads  Michael Lewyn • a few seconds ago

  Height is most important. But in addition to over all height of a building, there's height of stories, window heights, etc. The two large structures in the middle of your cover picture show the uniformity of heights from ground to crown. And despite difference in stylistic detail, the geometry of one building conforms with that of its neighbor.

  The density which I'd consider appropriate for keeping this above mentioned "character" would be much smaller and equally consistent (height, geometry, window size, etc.), far set back rows of structure on the roof. The issue with setting them back is that they aren't visible from street level, thus not impacting visual style. it's as thought they weren't even there. But if they are seen, they have been thoughtfully designed so as to bear a pleasing relationship with the original structures lining the street. New Urbanist like to see streets like this as roofless rooms, for which the buildings (or trees) are walls. But the roof structures are too set back to function like walls.

  My point is that each neighborhood, based on its current form, needs a sympathetic sort of densification. And the appropriate form of transportation might follow from that. I admit that mine is a gentle approach, but I think it signals an extremely large degree of densification when extrapolated throughout the built environment.