A little Coda: I think these ideas also translate to the building scale. Many historic buildings were more integrated in use, more flexible in design (room layouts that aren't determinative), oriented to people walking, (lots of doors). (And to smaller per acre availability of capital)
I'm often struck by by how specialized modern apartment buildings feel. A big 5:1 will be very hard to convert to any other use... which is much less the case of pre-war buildings.
What is meant by "more flexible in design (room layouts that aren't determinative)"? I ask because modern retail, both lifestyle centers and big box stores, are the ultimate in that. They have few to none weight bearing walls allowing for a variety of layouts to be quickly and cheaply implemented.
E.g. a local big box grocery that had been open around 25 years closed. Soon after a developer bought it and converted it into 3 stores ( Michaels, Planet Fitness, Goodwill ). Very flexible w/ no weight bearing walls allowing for most anything to be done.
The building type you’re describing is indeed very flexible, I love rehabbing them. However, they still can struggle b/c of the gross dimensions of the space, locations of possible doors, etc. can limit the minimum size tenant. (Eden Market in VA is a great exception to the rule). I’m mainly looking at modern office buildings, hotels, and apartment buildings which are so specialized in dimensions, room size, plumbing and mechanical locations that converting to one of the other uses is ~as expensive as building new.
This wasn’t always the case! For example, all the cool loft apartments and offices are in renovated warehouses and factories. And, if it were economically feasible, you could put light manufacturing back in there if you wanted!
I’m reading William James series of lectures on Pragmatism.
It strikes me that there is a distinction to be made from Idealistic Urbanism vs Pragmatic Urbanism. (Still need a better word to stand in for the systemic human settlement logos).
Thanks for another great essay. I have complained that we urbanists have ideas that are good enough for the faithful, but not good enough to to broaden the movement sufficiently. These conceptual-level questions are scratching in the right spots. I will probably post some responses in the fall.
A little Coda: I think these ideas also translate to the building scale. Many historic buildings were more integrated in use, more flexible in design (room layouts that aren't determinative), oriented to people walking, (lots of doors). (And to smaller per acre availability of capital)
I'm often struck by by how specialized modern apartment buildings feel. A big 5:1 will be very hard to convert to any other use... which is much less the case of pre-war buildings.
What is meant by "more flexible in design (room layouts that aren't determinative)"? I ask because modern retail, both lifestyle centers and big box stores, are the ultimate in that. They have few to none weight bearing walls allowing for a variety of layouts to be quickly and cheaply implemented.
E.g. a local big box grocery that had been open around 25 years closed. Soon after a developer bought it and converted it into 3 stores ( Michaels, Planet Fitness, Goodwill ). Very flexible w/ no weight bearing walls allowing for most anything to be done.
Good question!
The building type you’re describing is indeed very flexible, I love rehabbing them. However, they still can struggle b/c of the gross dimensions of the space, locations of possible doors, etc. can limit the minimum size tenant. (Eden Market in VA is a great exception to the rule). I’m mainly looking at modern office buildings, hotels, and apartment buildings which are so specialized in dimensions, room size, plumbing and mechanical locations that converting to one of the other uses is ~as expensive as building new.
This wasn’t always the case! For example, all the cool loft apartments and offices are in renovated warehouses and factories. And, if it were economically feasible, you could put light manufacturing back in there if you wanted!
You should read "How Cities Work" a short, insightful book on these tooics by Alex Marshall
Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll check it out!
I’m reading William James series of lectures on Pragmatism.
It strikes me that there is a distinction to be made from Idealistic Urbanism vs Pragmatic Urbanism. (Still need a better word to stand in for the systemic human settlement logos).
Thanks for another great essay. I have complained that we urbanists have ideas that are good enough for the faithful, but not good enough to to broaden the movement sufficiently. These conceptual-level questions are scratching in the right spots. I will probably post some responses in the fall.