Should We Almagamate Sites to Make Larger Sites?

John Andrews of Lake Macquarie City Council once asked me in a Developement Unit meeting if I agreed that it was better to design on a larger site. The following is the letter I sent to him explaining the issues from a designers point of view.

I feel I did not have time to answer your question as to whether it is better to design on a larger site completely in the meeting.

I think I answered in a summary to the effect that on a larger site the design would be different. This may sound like no answer at all. However, it is the summary of the “vibe” of all my experience.

Based on my experience I can say that narrow and small sites with a lot of constraints produce an easier design process (and are more fun). They also result in narrow buildings. A tall narrow building, that is to be precise, one in which the height is distinctly greater than the width, has more appeal to the public. In fact there is an anthropomorphic equivalent, in the reason as to why supermodels are so tall. Humans tend to find the vertical pleasing, I can think of such iconic spaces as Times Square dominated by that extremely thin building to the corner, the Chrysler Building, Westminster and Big Ben, the Eiffel tower the Harbour Bridge pylons.

A larger wider site is like the one I recently worked on in Camperdown as the architect. I marked off the setbacks and the envelope. And I had this ‘lump’ of space. It was really hard to design apartments in this space. An apartment should in my opinion have cross ventilation and be narrow for light penetration.

The sitte was not quite wide enough for a “U” of thin apartments. It was two wide for just one strip. I worked for two long days (from 8am to 8 pm) to get out a concept I was happy with. Even then there were some apartments that were less than ideal. It was not a matter of just taking them out, it was a function of the site being too wide and too deep for a single barrel or even a neat interleaved double layer. We would have needed another whole block due to setback constraints to get a “U”. There was no financial incentive to do this as the developer would not get a proportional increase on return (ie we would not get a proportional increase in apartments, apart from that, the lady would not sell, though offered an astounding amount.) The resulting building was wide and despite being six stories looked distinctly short. In fact we played with the horizontal nature of the building and gave each level a curved garden balcony. It should look like a sedate version of the Babylonian hanging gardens (as long as the plants don’t die or they are not killed by residents).

As you may gather, each site and design is unique. Every time I look at a blank piece of paper and dream it is a new thing I see in my mind. And at first I see nothing at all but the regulations. I draw their architectural consequences first. Sometimes I sigh. For regulation does not respect that every site has a unique orientation. Just swinging 20 degrees may change the whole design approach. Sometimes codes encourage too much stepping. For example the designers worked hard with the Paris apartments at Swansea but that stepping is ‘messy’ and the fact that the builders were not refined also increases the chaotic feel of that building.

If the regulation had encouraged a more regular more vertical building you would have a more urbane building. It’s only short! Why step for shadow if it faces to the North? I doubt if the designer would have any courage in entering that into the Civic Design Awards, which is a pity as EJE has a good reputation and has some fantastic award winning work.

Actually design out of the University of Newcastle tends to be modern and encourages regular and calm architecture, or a stripped angular post modern, both styles encourage long or tall forms with surface articulation, rather than a breaking up into small pieces. The reason for this is three fold: the first reason is that it produces more rational structural resolution, you know, stepping means a transfer beam, which is not rational.

The second reason is that from a distance all minor articulation vanishes and only the big forms “read” or are understood by the viewer (this can be proven by the view of that Swansea development from the distant water approach in the channel- its just flat), so it is better to work with bolder forms sometimes where the development is seen at a distance. The third reason is that detail resolution is easier with bigger forms. You know, in practice the Australian building industry is a bit “she’ll be right”.

I work with Vienna Design and the senior partner is from Milan. The senior partner is continually shocked by the shoddy workmanship they see in Sydney. I have experienced the detail available to designers in Scandinavia, due to their more sophisticated construction industry, and with that kind of good workmanship you can get refined junctions. Here we are not there yet, but then too they build for 400+ years, and Australians most often build to make money in the short term.

I have had wonderful experience with a client who was after quality on a very tight site with a lot of constraints, where I was forced to step the building, the builder came through with refinement in the detail. He spent hours on the handrails! A mat well at the door, recessed garden taps, so tidy. The client entered the building into the Civic Design Awards and got positive comments from the jurors (Rod Seymour had a spectacular location for a spectacular house and an excellent builder and he won that category).

To deal with another issue: The amalgamation of sites. I can understand your viewpoint: all these setback issues and site coverage. You may be noticing though that making the site bigger just means more building on it. It will still be pushing the envelope in both a literal and a figurative sense. There is not a designer alive who does not rejoice at playing with form. I only push the envelope though, to allow pulling back elsewhere. This allows that big scale big form play that I was speaking about. It allows us to reduce impact elsewhere. After all the regulations were not designed for specific sites and contexts, and we can move things around to gain the maximum benefit in terms of solar access, amenity and views. So the problem with bigger sites is they just shift the regulatory problems, not lessen them.

Sometimes designers focus only on the advantage for their site, but most top designers you will hear mention their impact on the neighbours. I love to hear my clients say, as they all have to date, except for one in a new subdivision up in Maitland, that they have spoken to their neighbours. (In fact that one in the new subdivision was hard as I was looking for context and had to second guess what the neighbours would design! I found out recently there will be a two story McMansion on the next site to the north and of course it will overshadow my client, but it was within the planning guidelines).

The second problem with amalgamating sites you will notice is that some people just won’t sell.

A third problem is that the bigger the site the bigger the building the greater the risk the bigger the company or entity that is needed to develop it. Now any big company in the uncertain Australian building industry is unstable. A big architectural practice or engineering practice needs staff slack, ie staff that are picked up for big projects then let go. Small versatile firms are more stable. This is true also of developers. It’s often all about money and a dispute can break up a partnership. Joint ventures are risky – 1st lesson of limiting professional or business liability! So encouraging smaller sites allows smaller operations from design to construction to build lower risk buildings. An example is World Square in Sydney. In fact what works there is that interim small development to get something happening at street level!

A fourth issue is the one of a large body corporate when building is operating. Now I have worked as a designer for a large body corporate and for smaller. Both have problems. A smaller group is more dynamic for upgrading the building, though, larger groups work well in expensive Sydney CBD office blocks as it becomes far more an organization.

A fifth issue is opportunity and sameness. I love the book by Jane Jacobs on cities and the Schumacher’s idea that small is beautiful. Smaller sites mean smaller buildings. Smaller buildings up to six stories mean it will be much longer for high rise to threaten to produce its shadowed canyons. It is hard to buy up a whole building. It also means that floor space is treated as quality space (ie not as in some shopping centres as bulk storage). Many different small shops also encourage walking. I can remember in the USA driving from one store to the other in the same complex as each store was so big it became too far to walk from one end to the other! In this sense the development in Swansea at present is fantastic. Only Coles is “big”. I suspect one reason for Swansea and Warners bay’s popularity with retired people is their compact shopping strip on level ground. Sameness is also bad for Urbanity. Think of going a block and seeing the same repeating materials and details. What if instead 10 different designers have produce a harmony of varied form and material? All architects are taught to design to context. We work with what is there unless it is has no virtue to respect.

I hope this answers your question. I was glad you asked it. However, I felt that a full explanation of my understanding of the complex issues that form my opinion regarding lot size was not appropriate in a meeting where you would all have to go to other meetings.

I hope the clients will pursue their dream. I loved the opportunity to dream of a way of designing liveable ‘permeable’ North facing apartments.

My favourite building form is the terrace, up to 3 stories with 20m2 for growing food. But in core zones I feel apartments are appropriate. My greatest hero is the great Architect who calls his design for Jerusalem a “compact city in unity”.