From McMansion to McMain Street
From McMansion to McMain Street
MAR. 12, 2019 By MICHAEL HUSTON Read More: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/201...et-main-street Quote:
A McMain Street example, left, compares to a real Main Street. https://i.imgur.com/dcog7nk.jpg Example of a McMain Street, at left: A hotel in Seattle attempts to mimic the small-scale module of the traditional Main Street. The hotel at right, of similar scale to the one in Seattle, makes no attempt to disguise itself as anything other than a hotel. Photos by Michael Huston. https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/fi...te-MHuston.jpg A more contemporary version of a McMain Street in the form of a multi-family building. Here the large building is “disguised” as a mash of about five different buildings. Yet no one would mistake this building for a true Main Street that evolved over time. Photo by Michael Huston. https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/fi...ntemporary.jpg In this example of a McMain Street, at left, nearly every room is treated as a separate building! Photo courtesty of Jay Narayana, Livable Plans & Codes. The Storrs Center, in Mansfield CT, at right, developed by LeylandAlliance, does a better job of creating the illusion of multiple buildings. The design shows restraint in the number of façade divisions. Source: LeylandAlliance, courtesy of CNU. https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/fi...ain-storrs.jpg At left, a streetscape in lower Manhatten which exemplifies a variety of lot and building sizes. In a complex and vibrant urban environment there is no need for artificial complexity. In a more recent example, right, the Main Street at Rosemary Beach, by DPZ CoDesign, works because the lot lines were platted in small increments and developed by different owners. Such character would have been virtually impossible to create by the hand of one architect. Photos by Michael Huston. https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/fi...n-rosemary.jpg 3D diagram of a 300ft McMain Street block face, at left. The facade uses “innies and outies” to create complexity – too much complexity in this author’s opinion. Architects and city planners should keep in mind that urban buildings are typically viewed at an acute angle which foreshortens the façade and amplifies the vertical lines and complexity. 3D diagram of a 300ft block face where the vertical divisions of the façade are simplified, at right. The height of the top story is varied using mezzanines (which typically do not count as an additional floor), terraces, stepbacks and changes to the cornice height. The height of the storefront cornice can also be manipulated to subtly emphasize the building divisions. This approach seems more convincing. Images by Michael Huston. https://www.cnu.org/sites/default/fi...ain-better.jpg |
This is an interesting read. I agree with the recommendations, especially on the topic of smaller lots. Smaller lots forces architects to be more creative in their use of space. DC comes to mind, a city developing right.
That’s contrasted by some of the newer developments in Atlanta, fully meets the McMain Street critique to a tee. |
I don’t think it’s fair to compare this McMain street thing with the horrible exurban McMansion.
To me it’s just an ordinary multiuse apartment buildings, which are a nice thing for cities. |
Quote:
|
These fake facades can be done tastefully. It's not so much a problem with the concept but with the execution...
|
It looks like “McMain street” is just another word for “modern urban development”. If people like living there, what is wrong with that? And smaller lots mean smaller housing or smaller business units. Not a good thing.
|
It's a relatively minor issue to discuss, but I think they make some valid observations.
Some examples from the Toronto area. I suppose this would be an example of a "fake Main Street" from the suburb of Markham. When the yellow brick they use on each "building" is the same kind of yellow brick, and the red brick is the same kind of red brick, and the kaki green pain is the same kaki green paint, it doesn't take too much observation to recognize that this was all built by one developer. It still looks pretty nice though. https://i.imgur.com/6L94ZB1.jpg However, this building in Port Credit looks just as nice imo and it doesn't even bother pretending to be multiple buildings. There's still different paint colours (and other small differences) used to distinguish between the different units, but they still form a cohesive whole. https://i.imgur.com/THDnDXU.jpg This building in a 1940s-1950s vintage neighbourhood in Oakville looks fine too. The bones of the building are a minimalist mid-century modern design with zero variation from one end of the building to the other, however, the individual business owners were still given considerable leeway in customizing their storefronts which makes all the difference. https://i.imgur.com/wTEzkjX.jpg For taller buildings, the individual customizations of storefronts by business owners is more likely to be overpowered by the rest of the floors. In 2-3 storey buildings the ground floor is 33%-50% of the building frontage, but on midrises and highrises it's 20% or less. I think in those cases, you can just have architectural details that break up the mass of the building while still forming a cohesive whole. In this building from downtown Toronto, there's a recessed section of the building that divides the building into a right and left portion. Normally this would be a good place for a residential/office/hotel entrance, or maybe a restaurant/cafe patio. The building is further broken up horizontally by the alternating brick and window wall. https://i.imgur.com/O5w1QSu.jpg I think this building does a pretty good job at breaking up the massing too. https://i.imgur.com/sNVGTvw.jpg Or even this one, just by alternating between regular walls and balconies. https://i.imgur.com/xaWgE0h.jpg |
Quote:
|
Well for example the pictures you showed seemed to be good sized lots and those were considered “mcmain street”. If you can manage to do a good sized lot it can work.
|
It’s still terrible architecture.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
My dividing line is actually between early and later Victorian. The former is much like Georgian architecture, perhaps with a bit more embellishment but similar quality of construction. The latter was a product of the Industrial Revolution and mass production to create housing for an exploding population, and is often much lower quality both in terms of design and construction. There’s actually a much-needed debate starting over here about how much of that stuff from the end of the 19th century should really be saved. Do we really need literally hundreds of thousands of tiny, cramped rowhouses with thin walls that were originally built for low-income factory workers to be preserved? Or should many of them be Hausmann’d and replaced with much higher density 6-8 story apartment buildings in more central areas? |
I guess it depends on where the McMain street is built - if it weaves into an already dense city fabric, I don't think it is too bad. But when a sprawling suburb or exurb decides to build a 'town square' with one or two blocks of McMain, it's tacky.
|
Quote:
Mt Pleasant, Brampton https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.67561...7i16384!8i8192 Fairport, Ajax https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.81512...7i16384!8i8192 North Oakville https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.47161...7i16384!8i8192 |
|
Quote:
I still think that small lots are still preferable from an aesthetic perspective. https://www.google.ca/maps/@32.81274...7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.ca/maps/@30.27893...7i13312!8i6656 Although you still need good architecture, built form and relatively flexible zoning as well. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Inspire Boulevard, Brampton: The buildings are kinda basic looking but my main issue is with the street/public realm design. 1) There's a center lane that serves no purpose than to make the street wider? They should at least turn it into a landscaped median or something because it really does feel too wide imo. 2) Why are the benches facing the on-street parking? People like to sit on benches to people watch, not to stare at a Nissan Pathfinder's right side rear passenger door. They should face down the length of the street imo, or if they face across the street they should at leas be on the building side of the sidewalk. This is also because people don't like turning their back to people For some reason landscape architects really struggle to understand this? I have the same issue with some of the benches along a path at the University of Waterloo. Like imagine if you are about to enter an elevator and there's a guy facing the rear wall of the elevator with his back to the door and his face a mere foot from the elevator's rear wall. You'd think he has Antisocial Personality Disorder and wait for the next elevator to arrive... Because it goes against human nature to turn your back to people like this. This the UW example that also has this issue: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4676...7i13312!8i6656 When I visited this spot the wild flowers had grown significantly larger, making it look considerably weirder, since your view across the flower bed to the other path was now obstructed by plants. I'm sure the person who designed this was well intentioned and trying to encourage people to sit and admire the plants, but they can still do that while looking across the path. Ex this park in Prague: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0820...7i13312!8i6656 The orientation of the benches in Mt Pleasant and Downtown Brampton make much more sense so at least someone in Brampton is competent at this... 3) Okay the on-street parking and bike lane situation is kinda weird... It looks like the demand for on-street parking was higher than anticipated so people starting angled parking onto the sidewalk instead of parallel parking? I see one angled parked minivan overhanging into the bike lane, nice... Now when you're angle parked like that, you're going to have a hard time seeing a bicycle coming towards you when you back out, so cyclists would be likely to have to swerve to avoid the backing out car and potentially get hit by a car preparing to overtake them on their left. This is especially problematic since the bike line is at the side of the road which means they'll be harder to see for drivers backing out than the car traffic that will be closer to the middle of the road, since they'll be more blocked from view by the adjacent parked cars. The roadway is quite wide, so if they need angled parking, I think they can do it properly by taking away that useless median. Then either have a sharrow for bikes or have a narrow bike lane next to the sidewalk or a wide multi-use path instead of the sidewalk. Preserve Dr., Oakville: Yeah this is pretty good. I passed through here on a bike ride in November. The path going along the stormwater retention ponds is really nice and has the potential to become an excellent community amenity. Hopefully they can grow the trees along Dundas Road to block the sight and noise of it better. The sections of that path that are like a pedestrian street are really nice too. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4724...7i16384!8i8192 Hopefully they'll extend the path West of George Savage Ave and East of Preserve Dr. (although it kind of looks like they won't?) Bur Oak Dr., Markham: The architecture looks kinda cheap and overall looks very residential for what was intended to be a commercial street. I think the setback from the sidewalk is too much too, and the untrimmed shrubs and weeds growing in there add to the vibe of this being a failed commercial street... Looks like about half of the retail units have been converted to residential. Is the road really expected to get so much traffic to justify being 4 lanes wide? Cathedral High St., Markham: Hopefully the business owners that are committed to staying here invest in customizing their store fronts over time so that they stand out more. I have to say, it is a pretty big challenge to attract people to pedestrian oriented streets like this in suburbs where you have to compete against strip malls. There's probably less room for error when it comes to place making, architecture, etc than in denser urban neighbourhoods where these kinds of shops have a more captive customer base. It seems like there's fewer vacancies here than on Bur Oak though even though I see no pedestrians. The parked cars are a positive sign (Bur Oak had a lot of unused on-street parking). Hopefully it will help when the neighbourhood is more fully built out. Some of the storefront elements are a bit too residential here too though imo. Like why aren't the store doors fully glass? That's how it usually it with commercial units, whether its in a strip mall or on main street. |
Quote:
The examples I posted are a better approach imo, since they're actually integrated into the surrounding neighbourhoods. Don Mills in Toronto is a bit like that Milwaukee example but better integrated with the surroundings imo. The surrounding arterials are still much less highway-like and most of the arterials will eventually have condos along them. The overall residential component should be quite large too, not just a few hundred units, but several thousands. The public realm is already pretty well used, not sure how that compares to the suburban Milwaukee development. https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7345...7i16384!8i8192 |
Here is a South Florida example (Doral). All built at once by a single developer (actually a redevelopment of a former golf course). Its the Miami area so of course some highrise condos get thrown in, even in the burbs:
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.8197...7i16384!8i8192 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.