Designing Starkvillage provided for an amazing opportunity to further discover what exactly my design process is. Time management played a large role, and next time I decide to tackle a 43 acre site - advice from Daniel to "pick my battles" will certainly come in handy. I really wanted to explore the design of the entire site - but after hours in sketchup, it became increasingly clear that I would have to pick and choose exactly which cards to show and which to hold. Regardless of time constraints, I am happy of the end product. My own critiques coincide with many of the critiques I got from classmates and professors.
Of all the critiques, I think Cory Lucius proposed the best question. He asked about the validity of the entire project. As a greenfield development, far away from where most other students proposed their infill developments, Starkvillage could easily be described as sprawl - and in some cases it is. Anyway, here are the justifications for Starkvillage.
THE SITE IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED ANYWAY - I usually hate the argument that if I don't do it someone else will, but in this case I spoke with the landowner who is hoping to sell to a developer. MSU is growing, and this adjacent property is prime. Already, apartment buildings have popped up in the area, however, there is no place to go except for residential housing on this entire side of campus. The question then becomes how do you develop a community on the site that retains the agrarian character, conserves the land, and packs in a lot of density? I think that Starkvillage answers this question.
SITE METRICS - Starkvillage's density is at 5 dwelling units per acre with everything (Farm and Conservation areas) included. Without these areas included, the density on disturbed land doubles. A typical suburban development with each home sitting on one acre would have 43 units. Starkvillage has 204 units. So in addition to providing 5 times the density of a sprawling suburb, it creates 17.5 acres of conservation areas, produces food from a 5 acre CSA Farm, and builds relationships on it's one acre community garden.
Most other critiques were involved with buildings and came from Sadik, Taze, and Beau.
Sadik, in particular, wanted more E-W oriented buildings in the village center. This fault was especially prevalent when performing the solar analysis with a massing model. Breaking up some of the longer N-S oriented buildings or adding clerestory windows are two solutions to this problem.
Taze suggested that instead of creating a new bed and breakfast to use the existing farmhouse. I suppose I was timid about bringing this plan to the owner and explaining his family was getting the boot for a bed and breakfast. In reality, however, it makes perfect since for the bed and breakfast to be located in the old farmhouse.
Taze, Beau, and others suggested breaking up some of the larger unit lots into smaller building footprints with multiple buildings. I set out to create a mix of housing opportunities - live/work, apartments, cottages, quadplexes, and larger homes. The homes to the East of the CSA could certainly benefit from the addition of granny flats out back. I wanted to keep larger farmhouse homes along Oktock Rd. to keep with the existing feel along the road. In retrospect, they could be broken up a bit further as well. I also looked at SKY developments for this location. At SKY in Florida, a homeowner builds their house and then adds on cottages and other units as they are able.
If anyone else has critiques I would love to hear them. Please feel free to destroy my work. It is the only way I will ever get better. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment