DISCUSSING DESIGN
An ongoing series of Stamford’s development
‘A MISSED OPPORTUNITY’
When Lennar Multifamily Communities, a large national developer, selected Lessard International, a well known large and active architectural firm, with offices in Washington, D.C., Boston and India, to design the St. John Tower site in Stamford, they had a unique opportunity to make a step toward re-establishing downtown Stamford as a popular gathering place for residents, not only for the city, but also the surrounding region.
As a neighbor for over 60 years and having worked in Stamford, I witnessed with dismay, how the large-scale Urban Renewal project — second largest in the country — wiped out almost the entire historical downtown and replaced it with large office and apartment buildings while community life retreated to a small area on Bedford Street. This large scale project was characterized by architects and urban critics as “Architectural Zoo,” or “Urban Razzle-dazzle”.
Of course the business community appreciated the 9-to-5 activity that these new buildings provided.
Following the example of other developers, Lennar and its architect missed an opportunity of working with the local community. Instead, pursuing their project merely in the community, failing to contribute to a welcoming urban place. This building follows the tradition of building self-centered entities that have little to do with one another or the community. The result makes this project rather uninspired, especially because in the center, next to City Hall, it does not provide any community space or amenities. Perhaps — in exchange to the many requested Special Exemptions — the Zoning Board will be prepared to prevail on the development team to create a small public area at the corner of Washington and Tresser boulevards for the community to enjoy.
Papp is a semi-retried architect who ran a White Plains, New York-based Practice for 38 years. In Stamford, he served as executive director of the Urban Redevelopment Commission until 2005. He resides in New Canaan and is on the town’s Planning and Zoning Board.
‘OBVIOUSLY SUPERFICIAL’
The rendering of this proposed 400-unit apartment building isn't disturbing, but it's a bit discouraging. It won't diminish the architectural quality of downtown Stamford, but won't improve it either.
The architects' intention has clearly been to break down the apparent scale of this massive structure by numerous variations in surface materials
— by their nature obviously superficial. Above the presumably retail street-floor spaces, the uniform patterns of apartment windows are largely uninterrupted, despite the varied arrangements of cladding materials. There is an effort to give special treatment to the key corner of the building where Washington Boulevard meets Tresser Boulevard — a gesture toward a kind of turret. The walls here have extensive continuous glass areas, presumably making the corner apartments rather special.
The rendering shows a lot of umbrellas over what must be sidewalk dining tables. It's convenient to imagine an almost continuous row of eateries along here, but experience shows there are limits to restaurant demand, even in downtown Stamford. It would be great if the owners tried to sign up a retail food seller or two, since the area could use more sources of food for its increasingly numerous apartment kitchens.
Dixon, is an architecture journalist and editor who edited trade journals from Stamford offices for decades.
‘A BACKGROUND BUILDING’
It is an average “background” building design, hitting a non-controversial middle-ground. It is a hard building to characterize and it remains pretty nondescript. It neither adds to the context nor significantly detracts from it, but this is a very important site.
It sits across from City Hall and it is on a corner with two important wide boulevard faces. Maybe the most important corner in the city — the building does not enhance the site as it deserves.
I see it as a developer’s building rather than a piece of “architecture.” Architecture tries to develop an individual concept or personality, and a relationship with materials — a statement about its context in the city in a certain time period. This building design is fair, but it lacks an individual character for the downtown.
In addition to the base, there are five different facade detail sections with varied materials, colors, and window pattern scales. This all leads to a disjointed appearance, an overused design technique by developers and some architects to suggest that the massing [the building’s general shape] is broken into sections so it will reduce the overall scale or appearance of the structure. Unfortunately, when it is completed, the massing will remain as a block, and the facade will still look flat and stale.
I do not think it is ugly. I do not consider it beautiful. I give the architect some credit for working with a “base,” a “middle,” and a “top” for the building. These are important elements of facade development. The base appears to have retail “light” areas that can enliven the sidewalk. They also tried to do something special at the corner of Tresser and Washington, with the appearance of a projected bay window. That is an important gesture. However, the projection is only a few inches and will remain flat within the overall composition. Once again, it relies on multiple facade materials to manipulate an implied depth. While that works in a rendering, the actual result will lack scale and proportion.
There is a real missed opportunity to incorporate natural or environmental materials that are more pedestrian friendly. For instance, on the new tower at the corner of Tresser and Atlantic, designed by the same architect, the black stone lacks that sense of pedestrian friendliness.
The same can be said for the metal or aluminum perforated panels on the parking garage on that building, on both the Atlantic and Tresser facades. Moreover, the lighting in the garage shines through at all times of day and at night. I hope this will not be repeated: The same treatment is shown on the elevations for the Bell Street side.
Woods is a principal architect at Stamford-based firm Marsh + Woods Architects. He is also a member of the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission.
‘COMPETENT CONTEMPORARY CORPORATE’
What stands out most about the design for 885 Washington Blvd is its modest ambitions, especially compared to the architectural style of the building it will replace, a St. John Tower.
Stylistically, I would call the new building Competent Contemporary Corporate (let’s call it CCC). CCC is primarily intended not to offend – not to offend Stamford residents, the city officials who will review and approve the design or the building’s future residents.
Taking it one “C” at a time, the architecture is Competent. The building will be a good citizen urbanistically: it fills the block and mixes housing with commercial spaces to make walkable sidewalks and contained streets. The building is fairly fun to look at — its facade has layered patterns of multiple materials and subtle relief. The building also, as architects like to say, “works at multiple scales:” those layered patterns and grids suggest multiple buildings of different sizes combined into a single block. Like a renaissance Venetian palace, it is made of three layers: a four story base defined by a heavy frame, middle layers of apartments, and a glass top. Those layers aren’t too obvious, there is a nice interplay and overlay between them.
The design is “Contemporary” in the sense that there are countless buildings being built all over the country that are nearly identical including many by the architect, Lessard Design.
Finally, and above all else, the design is Corporate — the primary thing it conveys is that the building is a piece of real estate designed to make money and house those who have it. The building will appeal to the young professionals who are likely to live in it by suggesting status and certain amount of luxury. Compared to the grand and often egalitarian ambition of modernist style employed in the St John Tower, these are modest and prosaic ambitions. At its best, Modernism embraced new technology, opened the interior to the outside environment and provided housing for “the masses.” While the St John Tower is certainly not a great example of the style, it is a universal cylindrical shape that could be built over and over, giving each resident an equal slice of the tower’s 360 degree view. In contrast, the new building suggests economic hierarchy and the exclusivity of its residents. It may, or may not, be designed in to be sustainable, with energy efficient systems, green materials or passible ventilation, but as architecture, it doesn’t an interest in any environmental or social concerns.
Urbanistically, the new building will likely be an asset. Architecturally, it will immediately fade away. This is only a loss if you believe that our everyday environment can be a form of culture, that it can challenge us to see and experience the city in new and inclusive ways. This design won’t do any of that for Stamford.
Buck is a critic at the Yale School of Architecture. He is partner at New York City and Los Angeles-based FreelandBuck.
‘BULKY, BOXY AND RATHER GENERIC’
The design of the new building to be erected on 885 Washington Boulevard is an improvement on what is there now, given the tower’s current state of neglect and deterioration. What I see on the renderings is a bulky, boxy and rather generic structure. There is not much sculptural articulation, which the architect is doing his best to overcome by different fenestrations and use of some vertical and horizontal bands.
Being an architect who designed many buildings of similar scope in New York City, I know exactly why this is happening. The reason is the dilemma facing every architect in such a project: How do you satisfy the developer’s requirement to utilize every square inch of floor area allowed by zoning and, at the same time, keep the height of the structure within limits allowed by zoning? The easiest way to
do it is precisely what we see on the proposed renderings — a building placed on the footprint determined by zoning setbacks and lotcoverage limits and rising to the maximum height permitted.
In traditional European cities buildings kept street lines intact, but they used many devises by which monotony was broken. First of all, there were a lot of towers piercing sky at strategic points. The buildings stepped back at street corners created little plazas. The facades were articulated with rotundas, colonnades, loggias, balconies and other means to create dynamic effects.
Setting some parts of the building away from the street and, thus, creating sculptural effects would lose some floor area. I am not blaming the developers for needing to make their projects profitable. I am just wondering if there is a way to revise zoning laws to, first, allow some parts of the building — say 20 to 25 percent — to be taller than the designated height; and second, give some incentives for corner plazas and other facade setbacks and articulations.
In any event, the building I see on the proposed renderings is OK. However, it is not an “iconic” building. The three cylindrical towers designed by Victor Bisharat almost half a century ago were recognizable symbols of Stamford. We have many generic apartment buildings in the South End erected in the last few years. They are all nice, infinitely marketable and conveniently located, but not “iconic.”
The corner of Tresser and Washington boulevards is the last available street corner in the center our city. This prominent location calls for more imaginative architecture.
Elena Kalman is a Stamford-based independent architect.