When architecture is a commodity

Architecture — I am being generous in my use of the term here — in modern development tends to be a commodity, “a [product] for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.“

And it’s not just houses and office parks; it’s the restaurants and service buildings as well. When an architect is tasked with the construction of a fast food restaurant, a nationalized chain of muffler shops, they are given a prototype to follow. Some variations can and do occur, whether these are pushed by local requirements of a municipality or site — at times, the local architect of record might dive into the mix, working against the grain of the corporation (and raising a few hackles in the process — been there, done that).

This commodity architecture works on the level of giant signs, flying in the face, I might add of most sign ordinances. Shepherdstown has a very strict sign ordinance with regard to character and size of a sign for a business. What happens when the entire building is a sign. Yes, I am thinking about the possible annexation of the Rumsey Green development with its included Sheetz and, possibly, a nationalized casual dining restaurant.

In presentations of the Rumsey Green development, an assumption is proffered that the canopy of a new Sheetz filling station will be aesthetically offensive and, as such, will be behind the store. Let’s think seriously about this. These canopies are designed to allow amble clearance for tractor-trailer rigs. The space below them is as brightly lit as a wood shop. Suggesting that this element can simply be moved to the back is naïve or disingenuous.

Consider as well, that if one is purporting to create a walkable extension of the historic core of Shepherdstown, no ”behind the store” will exist. The sense of back comes from a car-culture assumption that West German Street-Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 45) is the front. Even if it was, the supposed requirements for successful development (with regard to sight lines of retail establishments and parking lots), the successful design of a contemporary filling station and the scale at hand will not allow the Sheetz to go unnoticed. That’s just bad business.

There is an alternative though. Do you remember when filling stations were designed? When Mobil rolled out their elliptical pump design with the round floating canopies? When filling stations were exciting? I love going to these big Sheetz stations and others of their ilk. They are, in their way, exciting. Let the architecture support that. Will it ever be mistaken for a delicate addition to the historic fabric of Shepherdstown? Of course not. But being a good player in a master plan does not always involve aping.

If a new Sheetz is destined to be jarring addition to West German Street, let it be a jarring addition of good design. The current model for any Sheetz is simply not. The canopies look cheap (and are cheap but these two things need not walk hand-in-hand) and the box store is rarely, if ever, well integrated into the canopy position.

Sheetz will push back against any variation on their “brand”. Moving the canopy to the back is, for them, a concession. But its a poor one. Should Shepherdstown annex this property the concession they should push for is for Sheetz to be more dramatic, more bold —  that canopy and its adjacent box can be a Pavarotti. It will always be an oversized sign — make it a good great one.

Draft job proposal discussed at recent meeting | Shepherdstown Chronicle

But what really stands out is this…

…in describing the proposed annexation of Rumsey Green:

Eric Lewis, part of Rumsey Development Group, said in an interview on July 20 that the engineer working on the development would employ tenants of smart growth to the commercial development, which will have a grocery store anchor as well as multi-use buildings. But, he said, the biggest feature of smart growth he sees being utilized on this project would be interconnectivity and walkability to downtown Historic Shepherdstown.

I’m not here to berate the idea of development, the developer or even the engineer’s intent. For all I know, the parties involved are as frustrated as I — although to date they have not expressed such.

The fact is, from what I have seen so far, with some knowledge of existing traffic flow, coupled with the current nature of West German Street-Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 45) and what I know from planning commission meetings, the stated goals are not being attained. And, not lightly, I would note that these laudable goals are perhaps unattainable.

The town, in cooperation with the county and private parcel owners in the Green Triangle* of Shepherdstown must move beyond the singular effort applied to any one parcel. This is the only way that the intent of Eric Lewis and the Rumsey Development Group will be realized.

Notes:

*With my wife, I jokingly refer to the area between Rt. 45, Rt. 480 and Potomac Farms Drive (the bypass) as the “golden triangle”, in reference to the like-named area of Paris. Green is as good as golden, for it is now mostly green, will generate green (profits in US$) and has the potential to be green (as a exemplary case for sustainable development).

The anti-pedestrian pedestrian feature

Why did I just recently tweet that the Shepherd University pedestrian underpass is pro-car? And does it follow that this is* anti-pedestrian?

Shepherd University will sponsor an open meeting for the community to hear a presentation about the pedestrian underpass planned for Route 480 on Wednesday, August 3 at 7 p.m. in Reynolds Hall.

I’ve been thinking about this problem for a long time but had not expected to see it in the news stream so soon — pity.

Let me just start by noting I am not against all forms of pedestrian underpasses. They have their place and, at least in some iterations, can be clean and safe — and dare I say — pleasant. Perhaps the Shepherd University pedestrian underpass will be a pleasure to use and a great benefit to the university and community. On the other hand, I’ve worked with state road departments. That experience has led me to expect less than stellar results for all manner of road and road related projects.

The design will meet a minimum recommendation for foot-candles in a pedestrian tunnel and engineering standards for cars moving overhead. Will extra care be afforded to the design of this project? Will it move beyond the barest engineering?

State highway departments across the country have a reputation for a laser-like focus on one thing: moving things on roads. Pedestrian movement is a secondary feature which interferes with the movement of traffic. Anyone who has stood at a left-turn signaled intersection waiting for a walk signal can attest to this. The character of Shepherdstown is rooted in the importance afforded the pedestrian — at minimum as an equal partner to vehicle movement, more often dominant.

A tunnel is first defined by what happens overhead

The design of this tunnel to move people faces an uphill battle:

1. Road width: the cross walk it replaces is already in a location that is strike one against the pedestrian. Why? It moves across a three lanes of traffic — in the worst possible way — in the middle of a turn lane. Granted, this is planned as two consecutive turn lanes but let’s be realistic — at least 50% of cars turning left on Shepherd Grade Road are moving into the turn lane which is meant for the Shepherd University entrance. State road planners are assuredly unhappy with this arrangement but until Shepherd closes that entrance to daily traffic (this is in the master plan) it is not going away.
2. Shoulders: three lanes is enough to cross but this is a state highway. State highway design specifications call for minimum shoulder widths. That width is designed for the ever-present worst case scenario — we live with many roads which do not meet that specification but, in the end, if the space is there the state wants it. How long is the tunnel now? — roughly 70 feet long.
3. Grade: I don’t even know where to begin with this one — perhaps the underpass is being slated for a different location than the surface cross walk. Perhaps some advantage can be found to ease the transition from the current grade to a comfortable tunnel height — what that is I can not imagine. Anyone who has dug into the earth in our area knows that digging means rock ledge and every trench not dug helps.
4. Vehicular speed: the first thought might be that this matters not. With pedestrians moving under the road bed, who cares what speed cars move overhead? And while I am not cynical about such things, the local constabulary would enjoy a little windfall — make no mistake: once obstacles are removed from the picture (in this case, pedestrians on a cross walk), speeds go up. That becomes a problem for the intersection of Duke Street (Rt. 480) and High Street, about 450′ away.

Working backwards from these four points:

4. Driving across the bridge into Shepherdstown today, I did note that the shoulders adjacent the exiting cross walk (particularly as on moves to the south) have been cut. In other words, the road is lower than the adjacent grade. Some advantage can be won by raising the road bed then, lessening the depth and length of the tunnel approaches. While this does not yet mean that the road surface will read as a bridge over a pedestrian path, it would be of some benefit.

3. As already noted, roads which lack a shoulder built to state minimums function are already present and function well. In this particular case, generous shoulders exist to the north and none to the south. A sensitive design† will match the shoulder-less condition to the south. What can not be eliminated are sidewalks but accommodation for north-south pedestrian movement is not likely to follow the vehicular path, instead linking (and moving downward) to the tunnel entrances on each side. I am not certain but I imagine this means a more friendly underpass length of 45′.

2.Eliminate that turn lane and we’re down to 30′. But how? Simple. Don’t allow people to turn left. Impossible you say? Let’s work in the realm of the possible. Imagine a traffic circle which not only does away with the left turn but eases the congestion already present at Rt. 480 and Shepherd Grade Road. Take it even further and we might enjoy two much shorter pedestrian underpass, with gently sloping approaches taking advantage of the extended geometry of a traffic circle.

1. A traffic circle also calms traffic. They also are used in a variety of places as a “sign” that the nature of the road is changing. A traffic circle here would send a clear signal that one is going from a rural road (which includes a bridge designed as if it is part of the Interstate Highway System) to the urban landscape of the town. It also gives Shepherd University to include a feature it sorely lacks: the impression of a “front door”.

Sketch for a traffic circle with pedestrian tunnels and center in the spirit of James Turrell

The reference to James Turrell in the caption above comes from my memories being in his landscape pieces that are little more than bowls, particularly at the Liss Ard Garden in Ireland. I’ve not included pedestrian paths nor buildings here. I’m only floating a concept regarding pedestrian movement under Rt. 480, where three tunnels cut under the arcs of the traffic circle, collecting in a bright well in the center. Each spoke would be less than 20′. Truly, now, an underpass. Arcs within and outside of the traffic circle give ample opportunity for architectural expression (e.g., the relocated stone wall at Shepherd Grade Rd.) or signs of campus life/displays. A more daring version might see an increase in the size of the traffic circle to allow enough interior space to be a point to meet with a friend. It’s an odd place for a campus focus — the middle of the road — but in a campus oddly lacking in any notable space-making, it’s a start.

Perhaps much of what I write here is unworkable but I hope I have at least shown that a) pedestrian tunnels need not be horrible and b) that a critical eye really needs to be pour over the proposal throughout the design and construction phases. The Shepherdstown Planning Commission and Historical Landmarks Commission must take a strong position as an advocate for good design here, with an eye not toward architectural detail but to mitigate the impact of this tunnel on the essential urban fabric of Shepherdstown. Vehicles won the battle at the Potomac;  Shepherdstown should not allow another element of suburban infrastructure to press onward.

Notes:

*I tapped out “us” in the Tweet when I meant to tap “is”. That’s what happens when I have The Boy ™ breathing down my neck.

†It is in situations such as road edges where the force of the town needs to be applied. And herein lies a possible weakness in the administration of standards which guard against destroying the unique character of Shepherdstown. We (rightly) focus on the buildings — I might have said something similar in this blog before — but we often neglect the spaces in between.