Urban Living

Capitol Hill’s Other Bauhaus(es)

in , ,

As well as being the name of Capitol Hill’s premier coffee house and a 1980s Goth band, Bauhaus was the name of the modern movement in architecture’s most famous design school. Perhaps the most famous, ever. The only competition for such a superlative may be for the École des Beaux-Arts, the Parisian school that is most (in)famous for its pedagogy of classical architecture, and whose pre-immanence was in fact eclipsed once the Bauhaus came into being in the early 20th Century. The Bauhaus was justly famous as a school for painting, sculptor, dance, graphic design, but it was in the field of architecture that its legacy was — and is — strongest. Modernist icons such as Mies and Gropius both lead and taught at the institution, and both followed with highly successful and influential professional careers after the Bauhaus was disbanded by the Nazis prior to World War II. The design pedagogy taught resulted in some of the 20th Century’s best buildings, including that of the school itself, designed by Gropius and pictured below.  

[caption id="attachment_2113" align="aligncenter" width="550" caption="The Bauhaus (Source: Wikipedia)"]The Bauhaus (Source: Wikipedia)[/caption]

 

It would be hard to underestimate the influence the Bauhaus had on design schools in the United States. After its closing many instructors came here to continue their teaching careers and professional practice. Gropius landed and Harvard, while Mies ended up at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. Even tiny Black Mountain College (no longer extant) in the mountains of North Carolina landed some Bauhaus alums. The design approach taught was, in its time, at the cutting edge. So cutting edge, in fact, that it was initially a design approach typically found only in larger cities or for larger clients or more prestigious buildings. That was of course bound to change with time, but smaller markets (as Seattle at the time) were longer to embrace the Bauhaus aesthetic, especially for smaller, developer driven buildings. Education also had an influence on the Bauhaus’s dissemination into the U.S., as the Beaux-Arts tradition was what was taught at the vast majority of our universities well into the 1930s, and most likely at the U of Washington as well.

 

[caption id="attachment_2114" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="303 Harvard Avenue E Corner View"]303 Harvard Avenue E Corner View[/caption]

 

And though perhaps a bit slower to arrive at the modernists dance, Seattle’s Capitol Hill is fortunate to have several Bauhaus/International Style (similar time period and aesthetic) influenced apartments of various sizes, including the mid-sized beauty pictured above, built in 1949. Thirty years elapsed between the construction of the Bauhaus and 303 Harvard Ave E, perhaps enough time for a direct connection to be tenuous; however, the lineage is evident. Cubic massing, concentrated and expansive use of glass (with an emphasis on horizontals juxtaposed by verticals), and something missing form today’s Bauhaus prodigy: the crisp delineation of the depth between the buildings mass (in this case brick) verses its openings.

 

[caption id="attachment_2115" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="303 Harvard East Elevation"]303 Harvard East Elevation[/caption]

 

Similar to the recently profiled Boylston Court, 303 has the beloved steel window, whose effectiveness as a design element is enhanced by it being framed by the more massive feel of the brick, as well as the little horizontal projections at the window heads and sills. No corner windows here, alas, but the modernist,s next favorite trick — that of the continuous ribbon window — and here deftly used in combination with concrete spandrels on the building’s most significant facade. Nice!

 

[caption id="attachment_2116" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="303 Harvard Entrance"]303 Harvard Entrance[/caption]

 

Even the addressing numbers have the same proto-super graphic and vertical arrangement as the Bauhaus, this time with an art-deco font. The concrete entry canopy continues the thin lines above the windows in the body of the building, and is at a bit skewed from the mass of the rest of the building. No steel frames here, the window glass is framed directly into the concrete structure, lending it further distinction from the rest of the building. Especially nice is the re-entrant corner and the lone steel post. It would be nice to have a look at the interiors of the units, hopeful that they still may have some great space-age appliances and fixtures.

There are at least several other buildings of this ilk on the Hill, three of which I documented in this pamphlet: Capitol Hill Building Analysis . Each one unique, and each one worthy of providing precedent to future design projects on the Hill — all to better balance the prevalent and suffocating post-modern pastiche that is all too often referenced in the majority of our current development.

Boylston Court

in , ,

Courtyard housing is one of the oldest types of housing — whether for individual or multiple families — and dates back to at least ancient Greek times. It has such a lengthy heritage for several reasons, including interior cross ventilation and increased access to daylight. Outdoors, there is the ability to achieve a well-defined (and defended) space, which can be completely enclosed or open. Capitol Hill has its own assortment of courtyard housing, the majority most likely built before the 1970s with the Anhalts, dating to the 1920s, as the most famous example. As to the reasons for courtyards falling out of fashion I can only speculate, but maximizing return on investment must be one of them, as providing large planted landscapes not only lessens the number of units per parcel but also increases operational costs. Whatever the reasons, it is unfortunate fewer of them are being built.  

[caption id="attachment_2102" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Boylston Court view of Courtyard from Street"]Boylston Court view of Courtyard from Street[/caption]

 

I have a couple of favorite courtyard housing projects on the Hill, including Boylston Court, a nicely complex project just west of Seattle Central Community College, and the subject of this posting. Boylston Court has several noteworthy qualities, including a lushly planted and well maintained landscape, a south facing courtyard, and – my favorite aspect — an astonishing variety of design and detail in a compact footprint. Taken individually, the parts of Boylston Court are nothing outstanding; rather, it is in their successful assemblage that an exemplary building is found.

 

[caption id="attachment_2103" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Boylston Court view of Garages Along Olive"]Boylston Court view of Garages Along Olive[/caption]

 

Most likely built in the 1950s, it has many elements of that era. including roman brick and steel framed windows. I know I am not alone when I write that I am a sucker for steel-framed corner widows. And who wouldn’t be? They occur in several locations at Boylston Court, at both prominent, and well, less prominent, locations (such as this one at the above garage). But ooh, what beauties they are, regardless of location. It is a shame that steel windows today are (incredibly) expensive, making them prohibitive for most projects — a reason for us to treasure and preserve the few remaining ones we have. Other details include the most minimal of handrails (as seen  in the above photo) — similar to the steel windows there is nothing there but the minimum needed for support. Too bad such delicacy  is not allowed by code anymore . . .

 

[caption id="attachment_2104" align="aligncenter" width="730" caption="Boylston Court Southwest Corner of Courtyard at Olive"]Boylston Court Southwest Corner of Courtyard at Olive[/caption]

 

Opposite the courtyard from the above garage photo is another beloved steel-framed corner window, this time with the roof seemingly floating above it. I pray the owners never swap them out for vinyl windows (it does happen). Note how the foreground gives a hint of the courtyard landscape contained beyond.

 

[caption id="attachment_2105" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Boylston Court view of Eastern Building from Olive"]Boylston Court view of Eastern Building from Olive[/caption]

 

Above is an alternate view of the garage facade in the second image. Just beyond Boylston Court is an even older apartment building (in blue). Compared to the box that is its neighbor (and mind you, I do fancy boxes) Boyslton Court’s facade and massing falls with the grade. This not only creates a better pedestrian environment (garage doors not withstanding), but also creates a break in the mass of the building at both the roofline and the plane of the facade. Here is a break down in massing (that Holy Grail of design review boards) that is actually understandable and ties back to something tangible. What a refreshing departure from the current modulation craze that seems to have neither rhyme nor reason, other than a designer’s whimsy.

 

[caption id="attachment_2106" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Garages and Decks along Boylston Avenue"]Garages and Decks along Boylston Avenue[/caption]

[caption id="attachment_2107" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Facade Along Boylston with Varandah Above"]Facade Along Boylston with Varandah Above[/caption]

 

The other street elevation of Boylston Court occurs, appropriately enough, along Boylston Avenue, where the designer created one of the better apartment facades on Capitol Hill although it is (again) dominated by garage doors for a section of its length. Despite this apparent handicap (or because of it?), over the garages there is a nice and spacious verandah on the level above the garage, whose size makes it appear to actually be quite usable. Being this close to the street a nice venue is offered for the residents and passing public to informally engage with one another (or not). Here, the garages are effectively used as a base, an intermediary that helps to maintain protocols. The garages also provide modulation (that again is understandable) to the verandahs, and order the various levels of transparency of the facade as it transitions from brick to metal railing and back to brick. Classic.

 

[caption id="attachment_2108" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Boylston Court End Unit with Private Entry"]Boylston Court End Unit with Private Entry[/caption]

 

Further north along Boylston is still another expression, this time more of a townhouse or even a single family home. Making a return appearance is the delicate guardrail from along Olive and the much-loved corner window. This unit even gets a bit of a front yard and entry porch, in place of a verandah, as well as its own set of stairs. Despite this entry being the fourth (fifth?) design treatment of the street frontage of the modestly sized project, the complex’s over-all architectural unity remains in tact. This is an extremely delicate balance to maintain, especially with so little street frontage. To have all of these parts flow cohesively is not something to take for granted, as each section can simultaneously stand on its own merit while still contributing to the greater whole; however, it is not just the buildings that play a role. The landscape’s design is equally important, be it the built landscape of the verandahs, the micro, intimate front yard noted above, or the the courtyard, pictured below.

 

[caption id="attachment_2109" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Boylston Court Inner Courtyards"]Boylston Court Inner Courtyards[/caption]

 

Instead of digging a large hole, and filling it with building (a typical approach), the designers of Boylston Court approached the site differently, leading to the above-mentioned qualities.  Where this approach really bears fruit is in the courtyards. In addition to the large, central courtyard depicted above, there are two alley-sized-courtyards that wind their way up the site, to the east and then north, creating a splendid terracing and layering of space effectively creating shared landscapes that are at the same time intimate. A well resolved dichotomy.

 

[caption id="attachment_2110" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Courtyard Facade with Wood Siding"]Courtyard Facade with Wood Siding[/caption]

 

Above, one sees the only significant break in the otherwise uniform palette of roman brick — rough sawn cedar siding (a fuller extent can be seen the first photo); curious, that this change is somewhat buried in the courtyard, and not on the street, where it would be more ‘expressive’. Or is it? I like to think it yet another example of the designer’s sophisticated approach. Whisper, don’t scream. Also, the wood siding is a softer material than the brick, and in the designer’s eye more apropos to be within the softer courtyard, the softer landscape.

Boylston Court is a great building in our neighborhood, and a great example of how a context driven design (be that the site or the content of the building’s program) can provide a wealth of valuable clues about which to design, and lead to a building that not only fits well into its context, but enhances and creates its own. It is also a superb example of courtyard housing, and a building typology I would like to see more of on the Hill (albeit, at a greater density).

A Tale of Two Spaces

in ,

Design of successful public landscapes is a difficult endeavor. Despite the use of good materials and beautiful plantings, and careful execution, there is one key component that can only happen (if one is fortunate) until after all other efforts have been completed: the peopling of the outcome.  For unlike buildings, which have a program guaranteeing that they will at least be used — if not loved — by the public, participation in landscapes is largely voluntary, as landscapes do not have as thorough a set of programmatic requirements (if any) as do buildings. ‘Build it and they will come’ may work for buildings, but not for landscapes. Landscapes, therefore, require a conceptual order outside the confines of the landscape itself, one that artfully blends utility, beauty, and cultural/social relevancy  in order to be inviting. Absent that balance, even the lushest landscape would pass underappreciated and underutilized, and therefore largely unsuccessful. Case in point: Seattle Central Community College’s lovely – but largely unsuccessful – garden-plaza landscape at the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets, the first of the Two Spaces. Despite having several great attributes (as described below) it is a space that is used only part-time, and typically only when SCCC classes are in session. Part-time success is not be bad per se, except that the landscape in question happens to be at one Broadway’s most important crossroads, and one that needs full-time use, full-time activity. Full-time occupancy.  

The Pine and Broadway Entrance
The Pine and Broadway Entrance

[caption id="attachment_2083" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="The Pine and Broadway Entrance"][/caption]

As the photos herein depict, the garden-plaza is a surprisingly pleasant landscape, both nicely planted and well sculpted, as well as being a classically modernist design. The London Plane trees (its most immediately recognizable feature) are a traditional favorite throughout North America and Europe, and were specifically bred to achieve urban heartiness — making them a great choice for this location. The visual interest of their exfoliating bark and the dazzling light and shadow portrayed by their canopy is seldom bettered by any other tree, and the well-defined planting rows (allées) could not be more appropriate or truer to the tree’s artistic attributes and centuries-long distinguished service. At SCCC, they live up to their heritage.

dappleded-light-21
dappleded-light-21

[caption id="attachment_2086" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Interior View Looking West"][/caption]

Topographical relief (changes in grade) is effectively utilized in the garden-plaza and provides nice seating-steps composed of both hardscape and turf. The stepping defines a sheltered place, a refuge, which combined with the shade trees to provides relief from the busy intersection and adjacent streets. Concentrically arranged, the seating-steps focus on a bronze sculpture and a children’s play area.

dappleded-light-1
dappleded-light-1

[caption id="attachment_2087" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="View Looking East, Towards Broadway"][/caption]

A robust, rusticated wall neatly defines the landscape’s perimeter to the south and west, its materiality deftly reflecting that of the Broadway Performance Hall, just to the north (the wall was originally part of the buildings base, when it sat on the corner, prior to its being moved to its current location). On an opposite corner of the site, and at grade, wide entries welcome passersby into the landscape, and into the College, beyond. As aforementioned, sculptures (of varying levels of quality), pepper the landscape, creating points of visual interest, while another stepped-seating of turf and hardscape provides another prospect on the site northeast corner. So far, so good.

dappleded-light-3
dappleded-light-3

[caption id="attachment_2088" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="View Looking North, Towards the Broadway Theater"][/caption]

As so often happens, however, the sum is lesser than of its parts; for, despite all of these apparently good qualities (taken individually), the space is a largely a failure because it is introverted and self-absorbed. Again, this would not be a bad thing, except it is adjacent to an important Capitol Hill crossroads. It is not inviting to passersby nor is it a strong landmark, two qualities it should have given its prominent location. Its relationship to its context is muddy, and in fact it denies connection to much of its surroundings. It is a public landscape by ownership only, not by perception or use.

bus-stop
bus-stop

[caption id="attachment_2090" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Bus Shelter and Landscape Wall Along Pine"][/caption]

The first problem with the design — if I were to order them — is the robust, architecturally appropriate wall, mentioned above. Too robust, it turns out. Too tall. Too long in its unbroken southern and western lengths, making it too daunting to surmount and gain entrance into the niceties described  above. Below, one sees the rather abrupt (and frequent) edge the wall defines. Hundreds of linear feet, I dare say, and cliff-like for more than a few of dozen of them. And what of its dutiful retention of the turf, so true to the wall’s being? Alas, it is, but too much of a burden to bear as witnessed by the diminutive Metro bus patrons (above) awaiting the 3:17 and dwarfed by, you guessed it — too much retained earth — a few too many ‘toos’, I’m afraid.

view-to-sw
view-to-sw

[caption id="attachment_2091" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="The Southwest Corner Cliff"][/caption]

The inaccessibility delimited by the walls and grade challenges create an isolated space, an isolation furthered by the above mentioned stepped-seating, which also happens to focus inwardly. Conceptually, a contemplative space is not a bad thing, but as it focuses onto things that are not visible from the surrounding streets, it loses the opportunity  to pique the passerby’s interest and tempt entry, and populate the space. And the object of the focus: a gated playground. The playground part is fine, just not the gated part. More isolation. Less inclusive. And again, not the quality for a space at one of the most important intersections on the Hill.

view-down-broadway1
view-down-broadway1

[caption id="attachment_2089" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="The Vacancy of Broadway along the College's Main Facades"][/caption]

On the opposite end of the too defined, too isolated spectrum of design – (both geographically and spatially)  is a space of too little definition. Yes, many of us are aware of  the expansive sidewalk betwixt SCCC and Broadway (another design issue, to tackle another day).  Not only does the expansive sidewalk damage SCCC’s frontage along Broadway, but it provides too little definition – containment – for the garden-plaza’s northeast boundary. Unlike the overly defined and inaccessible southern and western walled edges, the northeast corner spills out into a space that itself is spilling out. Double spillage? What a mess. An easy and understandable transition from one space to another is generally a positive thing in landscape, but in this case the sheer size of the Broadway sidewalk sucks the energy, the place-ness, right out of the landscape in question, and scatter-shoots it along the void that is south Broadway.

bobby-morris-diagonal
bobby-morris-diagonal

[caption id="attachment_2092" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="And the People go on Forever . . ."][/caption]

By contrast, a mere half block away, on the same sunny, 4th of July afternoon, we have another landscape (the second of our ‘two spaces’) that is almost over-burdened by its success: the Bobby Morris Playfield. “Unfair”, “cheap shot”, some would say. “It is a different space, for different needs.” “It has a program –that designer’s crutch.” Correct the nay-sayers are, but that misses the point. Despite its quality components and its different intentions from the Playfield, SCCC’s garden-plaza does lack the niceties of program, but it more importantly lacks the most important component of any public landscape — people — which Bobby Morris has in abundance. Even participants in landscapes of repose benefit from at least a few other users near by. Keeps the space, well,  public.

Sunshine . . . that’s what the folks in the Playfield wanted! Sun and action. That is why the Playfield has people, and the SCCC landscape does not. What if the blazing sunlight and programmatic crutch of the playfield were snatched away? Would the Playfield still attract people? Hmm? Well, it would, and it did, for not quite five minutes later and 200 yards to the north, I took the photo below. In the shade. No action. Just folks relaxing. Much as they would do if they were in the SCCC garden-plaza — that is if the SCCC landscape functioned as it should and attracted them.

bobby-morris-shade
bobby-morris-shade

[caption id="attachment_2093" align="aligncenter" width="720" caption="Made in the Shade . . . ."][/caption]

So, what to do with this under-performing landscape, located at a key Capitol Hill intersection and gateway to SCCC — tear it down  and build on it. “What an architect” some would cry. Destroy a lovely landscape, and put a building there. Well, say I, I would rather spend my entire day at Volunteer Park, Cal Anderson Park, or Bobby Morris than any building on Capitol Hill, so my suggestions are not from my dark, egotistical architect’s perspective, but from a lover of public landscapes. The Broadway and Pine intersection needs the kind of strong, spatial definition provided by a building, not the vacancy provided by an underperforming landscape. And given the types of shortcomings described above, renovation is not an option.

So, let us consider replacing the lovely — but woefully underperforming — garden-plaza in its entirety, with a new hybrid-use type of SCCC building and a new, contextually relevant landscape plaza. Hybrid-use I say? Yes, for this site (and all future SCCC sites) should foster a dynamic, integrated engagement with the larger Capitol Hill community. A hybrid-use building and landscape would have, among other things, 24-hour, active uses, a transparent ground floor, and recognition and enhancement of its key location on the Hill, as well as uses outside of SCCC’s traditional educational-only ones. This hybrid-use building and landscape would provide the kind of 24 hour peopling needed (by all Hill residents) for this most important site. A tall order for an institution with a mixed history of building on the Hill, and one that will require a change of approach on their part and strong support from the community on ours; however, there is new leadership at the College, and with it new perspectives that may help achieve redefined and shared goals.