Building footprints, that is.
Between my discussions with architects, landscape architects, and environmental scientists, there seem to be differences in belief of how the building footprint should be managed on a large site such as mine.
Many architects would (and have) told me that I have plenty of room to spread my building out, that the site is large enough to not treat it too preciously. Economically and often architecturally, it would be better to have a one-story structure (although I would argue that a second story will be architecturally compelling for my design).
Those in the environmental sciences (and some architects as well) have told me that in fact, even on a site of this scale, I should work to minimize my footprint. A smaller footprint means less stormwater to manage and more space for habitat for non-human species.
I instinctively lean towards the latter view, so I was very glad to have it supported (without my even asking) by Metro scientist Lori Hennings. I think that many architects tend to think of land as either built or empty (as illustrated by their fondness for figure-ground diagrams), which is a narrow view that excludes the possibility that cities have spaces that support other species– something that my project is trying to reverse. Additionally, in the context of Portland (a somewhat sparsely built city trying to densify), it makes sense to design a building that is less spread out. I think that denser buildings with better open spaces is a good pattern of development for this city.
Thus, a two-story building.
Leave a Reply