I couldn't help but enjoy the sight of recent housing developments throughout San Diego, especially in the area east of downtown. Architecturally diverse, at least on the surface, most of them align with what urbanist meme-posters call YIMBY: "Yes In My Back Yard." These are usually projects that increase density, defines urban edges, provide "mixed-use" commercial and residential spaces, and affords a scale sensitive to its surroundings. In San Diego, these projects are generally bold (by American standards) and look nothing like the old housing stock. Instead, they create an alternative city environment: denser, visually heterogeneous, yet replete with the material cliches of so-called "urban living." (See lots more photos HERE.)
The architectural designs of projects I saw in San Diego reminded me of housing that went up in Paris in the 1990's. The US/California version is more conventional and often more ham-fisted in the details. But I am happy to see that neither architects nor clients in San Diego are afraid to be "modern.
Observers of the "YIMBY" projects are often critical even of their ostensible virtues. Examples of good architectural and urban design, for instance, are sometimes excoriated as serving only the rich -- serving, that is, only those who can afford elevated "market rate" prices. (Unfortunately, this is true in much of the USA, where development is generally developer-led.) For all the complaints about San Diego's exorbitant real-estate market, however, I found it hard to tell rich from not-so-rich:
Q: Which of these is social-oriented housing, and which is market-rate "luxury" housing?
A: Project on the left serves homeless persons with special needs; the middle project serves homeless and low-income tenants. The project shown on the right is a market-rate "makers" community development.
From what I observed, the least progressive element in these mixed-use developments is the marketing of their commercial spaces. Many of them remain empty still, testifying to rents too high to attract the range of businesses that an active street facade requires. If true, this is an unfortunate misunderstanding of how mixed-use projects can benefit everyone. Even if we all can't afford an apartment upstairs, we all should be able to use the services of diverse stores, restaurants, and office on the street. I would hope that developers everywhere understand that life of the street serves their own interests, even as a "loss-leader" to improve potential profits everywhere else.
So what characterizes San Diego's YIMBY projects architecturally? They range from 6 to 8 stories; they may or may not be a "podium building" like we see back east. (Indeed, I saw a lot of great exposed concrete. Thank you, California weather!) Their facades tend to emphasize material panelization and the in-out game played between windows and solid surfaces. More generally, San Diego's YIMBY buildings have been designed by architects apparently weened on Colin Rowe's "Ideal Villa" and "Transparency" essays. That's not surprising: pretty much every architect born after 1955 had to read them in school.
Many of San Diego's YIMBY projects seem to have been built between 1995 and 2015. Some recent projects tend towards the Vancouver model: tall tower (20 or more stories) on a four-story base. But there seems to have been a consensus among both designers and San Diego's city planners that development can reinvent positively their city, and that architectural design can contribute in new ways to that end. It helps to have a busy economic engine to fuel such development, but it helps also to have a consensus about the importance of design for the city. Here in Baltimore, we can sorely use a similar consensus, rather than embracing so often solipsistic projects like casinos, private hotels, and company compounds.
Comments