By Jon Quitslund
Architecture
is a social art. It becomes an instrument of human fate, because it . . .
shapes and conditions our responses. . . . It modifies and often breaks earlier
established habit. (Richard Neutra, 1958)
On February 9th, the proponents of the Grow
Community development finally had their chance to present the project
to the Planning Commission, and a three-hour meeting was devoted to the formal
presentation, Q & A with Commission members, and public comment.
It was a lively evening, with none of the droning
explanation and passive listening that sometimes settles over the Council
chambers for long intervals. There was a
good audience for the proceedings. I was
present with other citizens who had contributed to the project’s
‘Sustainability Action Plan,’ a book-length document that provides the rationale
for a somewhat utopian community.
Several aspects of the project were given a good going-over
by members of the Planning Commission and concerned citizens. Impacts on traffic, characteristics of the
faces that the buildings on Wyatt will turn toward Wyatt Ave., plans for
handling surface water, and the adequacy of pathways through the open spaces
between Wyatt Ave. on the north and Madison Ave. on the east were all
discussed. And the need for adequate parking came up, of course: more on that
later.
These were all legitimate concerns, touching on problems of
first importance to the architect and other contributors to the project. From the beginning, it has been crucial to
provide for dynamic relationships of the residents and the built environment of
the new community with its near neighbors and the Island as a whole.
Several people expressed a hope that as this innovative
project takes shape, with the developer assuming responsibility for its
boundaries, the City and various citizen groups will coordinate efforts to
improve the infrastructure of roads, trails, and sidewalks beyond those
boundaries.
Just maybe, we can break free of a tendency toward reactive,
piecemeal, and contentious responses to our problems and opportunities, and
commit to projects that fit into long-range plans. We could, simultaneously, increase vitality
in neighborhoods and provide attractive connections of each place with others.
When I had an opportunity to comment, I started with the
quotation from the architect Richard Neutra that appears at the beginning of
this post. “Architecture is a social
art.” The Grow Community project is a
bold instance of architecture as a social art.
Many people – both professionals and amateurs – have contributed to the
project, and many more will be involved in its unfolding.
When it is imaginative and original, architecure “becomes an
instrument of human fate.” Richard
Neutra’s thoughts about the architect’s social role, shaping behavior and
breaking established habits, emerged against the backdrop of 20th-century
modernism in the International Style.
The two decades after the end of WW II were an epochal time
for architecture in the United States, and for the planning and building of
cities and suburbs, with all the infrastructure needed to provide people and
commerce with a mobility to match the era’s prosperity and its newfound need
for convenience, efficiency, and freedom.
Real progress in the quality of life for the great majority of Americans
was achieved in those decades, but in recent years it has become clear that
some Faustian bargains were made.
Now the devil’s at the door.
Cheap energy and the other non-renewable resources that made the
American dream possible aren’t so cheap any more, and efforts to keep fossil
fuels cheap are wrecking our environment.
Land isn’t cheap either, except in places where cities, towns, and
suburbs are blighted and jobs are scarce.
Mobility is still important, but sometimes it’s
problematic. People love to travel, but
long commutes by car are less and less feasible. We’re getting more aware of mpg ratios, more
interested in carpooling and the availability (or not) of public
transportation. Those who are fit and
brave enough to commute by bike or scooter are envied; likewise, those who can
walk to work or work at home.
Which is more important: high speed internet access, or
hassle-free driving, anywhere, any time?
I think our culture is already redefining mobility, and reexamining the
priorities that shape how we spend our time, how much stuff we need to own, what
big-ticket purchases our incomes must support, and what we can do without.
Concern for the environmental impacts of an acquisitive
lifestyle isn’t the only factor that’s driving these cultural changes, nor is
the current economic downturn and the dim prospects for a return to go-go
growth. Thoughtful people are
considering in fresh ways what choices and activities make them happy, and what
circumstances really contribute to their security.
These changes, and others related to them, are already
shaping our future, regionally and right here on Bainbridge. Which brings me back to the Grow Community,
and to the proposition that the architects who build a community can modify and
even break established habits.
Marja Preston acknowledged that the prices for units in the
new neighborhood are not “affordable” by conventional measures, but she pointed
out that if the community’s emphasis on teamwork, common property, and
cost-sharing means that you won’t need a car of your own, or a washer and
dryer, and if much of your food comes from community gardens, then the total
cost of living there won’t be so high after all.
Members of the Planning Commission asked the designers to
find room for more parking spaces before the project is fully built out. I seriously doubt that they will be needed. We don’t know what the future will hold, so
things have to be done step by step, adapting positively to contingencies and
possibilities. I hope this process won’t
be hindered by outdated assumptions.
