Indeed! Site plan trumps elevation

Morrone  strikes again and notes

My own feeling is that Modernist urbanism has got to go--and we can deal with that through appropriate channels. It's a city planning not a historic preservation issue--though I'll grant that in some cases the two fields are closely related.

My point, I guess, is that sensitive designers might well weave together an urban fabric that uses traditional means and manners to help Modernist buildings work better in an urbanistic way.

I think Francis demands too much. It is not merely sensitive designers who can create a good urban street in a modernist style. Banal designers -- even uncouth fools! even Rem Koolhaas! -- can take part in creating a good urban street if they simply understand and then follow The Three Rules.

What is missing -- I say yet again -- from most of these discussions of modern versus traditional are two other boxes in the matrix which vastly trump mere style since they are based on and reinforce human behavior: architecture versus site plan.

Francis gets it; why do so few others? These endless discussions of modern versus traditional lead nowhere unless one can distinguish between site plan and architecture. Would it help if I rephrased the matter as one between site plan and elevation?

Comments

[Chris Burd]

No, not enough people understand the architectual sense of "elevation". They'll think geographical elevation. How about *style* and site plan?

[David Sucher]

I see your point, Chris.
I guess it depends on the audience.

[Chris Burd]

I think so. "Site plan trumps elevation" might to for an educated audience, but you need a vernacular equivalent. Maybe: "It's not how a building looks, it's how it relates to the street."