Trump Thinks He Knows Architecture and Design

Architect Greg Walke sent us this meme circulating on the web.  'Nuff said. 

Trump, Speer, and the Queen of Hearts

In February 2020, Architectural Record reported that the Trump White House was considering an executive order entitled “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again.” While few would disagree with such an innocuous-sounding goal, Trump’s fiat is intended to put a noose around creativity until it sings Trump to the high heavens. Not so innocuous when you see the hubris behind the decree. 

The draft for the executive order mandates that “the classical architectural style shall be the preferred and default style” for new federal buildings. Unnoticed by the general public in this time of corona virus, the EO may seem trivial on its face. Most people don’t understand why architects would be agitated by the proposal. Generally, the public does not care about this issue. Who can blame them when there are so many immediately obvious threats hanging over our health, our democracy, the world economy.  Too many important things to occupy our worried minds. But “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again” is loaded with so many political and philosophical cluster bombs it stands — whether actually enacted or not — as a glaring emblem for all that is wrong with Trump World. There is so much malevolence in this one EO it is difficult to unpack all of its dangers. But we will try.

In 1931 a German architect named Albert Speer joined the Nazi party. In short order he became Hitler’s confidant and chief architect. Possessing great natural talent and a flare for the dramatic, Speer orchestrated extravagant architectural backdrops for Hitler’s Nazi domination fantasies. Some of Speer’s creations were so grandiose they were unbuilt or unbuildable. Like the proposed Volkshalle intended to seat 150,000 people under a vast Neoclassical dome 820 feet in diameter and nearly as tall as the Empire State Building.  Here der Führer could address his adoring fans with rousing speeches composed of lies, impossible promises, and impassioned pleas to make Germany great again. (Need we even ask if this sounds familiar?) Another unbuilt design was Deutsches Stadion which would have accommodated 400,000 people for Nazi rallies in an outdoor venue.  

Other Speer buildings did actually get built. One of his most brilliant designs was little more than a stage set: what came to be known as the Cathedral of Light. For his annual mass rally in 1933, Hitler wanted a huge new stadium. But time ran out before the stadium could be completed. Speer punted by creating a virtual space. He commandeered 152 massive searchlights from the Lufwaffe. Arranged around the stadium at 39 foot intervals, their powerful 5-foot-diameter lenses were aimed straight up to make a colonnade of light. It could be seen from five miles distant. The monumental effect stirred German pride in service to the Third Reich.  

Speer was adept at eliciting powerful emotions from his brick-and-mortar designs as well. The German Pavilion at the 1937 World Fair in Paris and Hitler’s Chancellery headquarters in Berlin were both designed to intimidate. A Nazi architectural style emerged, incited by Hitler’s megalomania and executed by Speer with relish. 

Nazi architecture had two characteristics. First, everything was up-scaled to impress. Columns were taller than they needed to be, rooms were vast, processional hallways long and grand. Second, the style was invariably a pared-down version of Classical architecture. Intending to borrow the authority of timeless Greek and Roman forms, this bare-bones classicism was also influenced by then-current Art Deco modernism. But the real intent was to shock and awe. Hitler wanted an architecture that would legitimize his power and Speer was happy to oblige. Nazi architecture had a dystopian edge from the very beginning. Somber, cruel, dreadful. Dreadful in the real sense of the word: one is full of dread just gazing at pictures of the evil empire’s architectural fever dreams. Hitler understood that the glorification of his ego through public works could manipulate people as effectively as his finely-crafted speeches. It was all theater. (Again, does this sound familiar?)

Albert Speer's "Cathedral of Light".

Politics and architecture intersected in Nazi Germany. Architecture was manipulated to produce results amicable to the regime. The same impulse is the motivation behind the executive order being considered by the White House. The White House clearly perceives Classical architecture as a symbol of power and authority. We know this because Trump has already used the most vulgar forms of traditional architecture to display his wealth and establish his authority. (Try Googling images of his Trump Tower lair with its gilt excesses.) This shouldn’t be a surprise; every two-bit potentate has employed the same strategy. But Trump is an amateur. Speer celebrated Nazi corruption with fearless panache; the White House proposal is just a feeble grasping at perceived bygone glory.  

To avoid confusion, let’s be precise on exactly what type of  transgression we are criticizing. Architects are not incensed that Trump thinks the only “good” style is Classical. There are many practitioners who still specialize in Neoclassical architecture and approach it with sincere reverence. I have myself dabbled in the field and enjoy the occasional Doric column as much as the next guy. But even diehard proponents of classical architecture are dismayed by Trump’s EO. One, Michael Lykoudis, dean of architecture at Notre Dame, claims it “reduces an entire architectural philosophy to caricature.”  What is wrong here is the imperial willfulness of the Trump regime. Nobody cares if Trump’s personal tastes skew to the antique; it is his desire to impose his tastes on everybody — architects, government agencies, postal patron that rankles -- and his assumption that imperial architecture will convince everyone of his imperial-ness. 

When Alice was in Wonderland she encountered the Queen of Hearts. The Queen, being a queen, only wanted things one way: her way. Her preferred color for roses was red, not white. So her minions painted the roses red. A game of croquet in the Queen’s realm was never what it seemed. At the queen’s orders, flamingos acted as croquet mallets while terrified hedgehogs avoided being the targets. For all who defied the Queen’s wishes it was “off with their heads!” 

Trump wields his executive orders like the Queen’s scepter, forcing all of us through the looking glass into Trump World. When I mention this particular executive order it is met with disbelief.  Surely, that’s not true. Or, maybe you misunderstood. But for over three years we all have witnessed his attempts to create a bizarre world built on autocratic fantasy. This is true, no matter how ridiculous it sounds. In the realm of the Queen of Hearts, all orders, no matter how irrational, must be obeyed. Otherwise it is “off with their heads!” 

Trump’s proposed EO almost seems whimsical, but he has already put in place the mechanisms to enforce it. Architecture in Washington passes before the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts (CFA). One might think their review would provide a certain amount of protection against such arbitrary rules. But Trump has already appointed a new member to the CFA, Justin Shubow.  Mr. Shubow is not even an architect, but he is president of the National Civic Art Society (NCAS), an organization devoted to the promotion of Classical architecture. The NCAS web site proclaims that “contemporary architecture is… a failure.”  Mr. Shubow’s organization believes architecture should “return to its pre-Modernist roots.” Trump reinforced Mr. Shubow’s appointment by adding two additional NCAS members to the CFA. 

I usually avoid any discussions that conflate architecture with politics. They are not related in any way, but there are times in history when it is made to seem so. Art movements come and go, are reviled or proclaimed, promoted or suppressed. But one can be certain that anytime the state gets involved in such distinctions, it is a sure sign of bigger shenanigans going on.  Now, as in Nazi Germany, politics and architecture once again intersect. Not in exactly the same way, but with the same amount of hubris and megalomania. With overwhelming dismay from architects, this proposed order may never see the light of day. But it should be (yet another) warning sign that something is amiss in Washington. Trump does not have at his command the talent of an Albert Speer, but he is crashing around the hallowed halls of government like a drunken Queen of Hearts. How much damage can our institutions endure under such relentless attack? 

God save us from the Queen. 

Is Donald Trump an Architect?

Is Donald Trump an architect? Or an interior designer? He is neither, of course. But he seems to think he has some authority in matters of design; last week he criticized the materials used in the venerable United Nations hall of the General Assembly. President Obama addressed the General Assembly, speaking in front of a familiar backdrop of green marble tiles. Trump opined that the tiles looked cheap and, if elected, he would replace them with big beautiful slabs of marble that would be great. This is an unsurprising thought coming from a rich man.  Large slabs of stone are more expensive than covering the same area in smaller tiles. Trump, being rich, is probably used to the more expensive version of materials. I doubt that the U.N. made the choice based on budget (the room is quite nicely appointed throughout). It is surprising that Mr. Trump is reticent about details of international policy, but does not hesitate in a call to action to redecorate the U.N. First of all, he is not (and has never been) in elected office; second, even if he were to be elected President of the United States, the U.N. would not be under his direction. Finally, aren't there more important issues to be discussed than the size of the tiles in the General Assembly?  Of course, Trump has been obsessed with size throughout his campaign. And he does purport to be an expert on walls.

President Obama at the U.N.

As if there aren't enough things to worry about when contemplating a Trump victory, we now have to consider his decorating talent. Based on what we've seen of his taste so far, I worry about what he would do to the White House if elected. The White House has always been a house, not a palace. We have deliberately and consciously treated our presidents as men of the people, not royalty sitting on a throne.  But Trump's style can only be described as early dictator. He likes guilded surfaces and baroque embellishments. It is the type of domestic pomp also favored by Sadaam Husein, Vladimir Putin, and other ne'er-do-wells.

Trump's New York apartment at Trump Tower.

Trump in his gold chair (with an uncomfrtable looking Mike Pence).

Vladimir Putin upon his gold throne.

Ditto for Sadaam Husein.

Melania Trump interviewed by Mika Brezinski.

Trump's Miralago estate.

The Architecture of Power 1: The Capitol Building

The Capitol of the United States.

Buildings are often symbols for something beyond the structures themselves.  Kevin Lynch famously made this argument in Learning from Las Vegas (Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, Steven Izenour; MIT Press 1977).  Lynch's book praised gigantic neon signs as an appropriate architecture for a fast-moving car culture that has no time for diminutive details. In Las Vegas the buildings themselves become signs, using architecture to attract gawkers and gamblers.

Buildings may blatantly telegraph their function. Hot dog stands in the shape of hot dogs. Ice cream shops as oversized canisters of cream. Motels as concrete teepees. These examples are kitsch; they hardly qualify as architecture. Buildings with more august functions usually employ subtle cues to communicate their function. This is when design transcends structure. It is particularly fascinating to contemplate the architecture of power. Can architecture be used to support the very idea of political power? There is no better place to look for an answer than the capital of the free world, Washington, D.C.

Little Man ice cream stand in Denver.

Roadside hot dog in Colorado.

Washington abounds with buildings designed to communicate power, authority, strength. The Capitol building itself is a leading example. An vague image of the Capitol is potent enough to signal power around the world. Whether as a photograph or an abstract logo, the Capitol is universally recognized as a symbol of power. The Capitol is so familiar that even a lean graphic suggesting the capitol dome provides instant recognition and authority. Letter heads, campaign stickers, or government edicts frequently employ the abstraction. It is used as a logo for political talk shows and to market patriotic merchandise of all sorts. Images of the capitol are ubiquitous.

Iconic images of the U.S. Capitol. 

The first Capitol dome, designed by Charles Bulfinch, a Boston architect, was finished in 1824. After Capitol expansions it was considered too small (and a fire hazard). A new dome was constructed to a design by Thomas U. Walter in the 1850s. Eleven Capitol architects have contributed changes and additions over the years. The building has morphed over time; it is impossible to credit authorship to any individual. The accretion of additions has also resulted in the dome looking somewhat like a decoration plopped atop a sheet cake, connected less than elegantly to the elements beneath. Such criticism may seem churlish to some. The symbolism of the Capitol bears almost as much emotional weight as the nation's flag. To criticize it seems unpatriotic. Which brings up the central problem in writing a serious architectural critique of the Capitol: the building is so familiar that it is more of an icon and less of a building. Still, it is architecture and can be viewed as such.

A cake.

How does it stack up as architecture?  To my eye, the proportions are less than graceful. It looks like what it is: an accretion of add-ons and improvements over time by different people for different purposes. The cohesion of the separate elements is tenuous. I once voiced this criticism to a Washington, D.C. resident. He was horrified. What an affront to the city and it's most iconic building! Well, there you have it: the Capitol is an icon... it can hardly be criticized as architecture. As a symbol of power, it is unparalleled in the world. Perhaps it succeeds as architecture in spite of the architecture, because the building successfully communicates its role as the ultimate seat of power.  But a hot dog stand does the same thing in its realm; nobody would seriously call it architecture. This is a discussion that goes in circles without resolution. The Capitol is a prime example of the architecture of power, but it may or may not be good architecture. I believe it is nearly impossible to objectively see the Capitol, hidden behind its veil of political preconceptions and symbolism.

Finally, the interior of the Capitol building is, put plainly, a let down. Without question, other domed spaces are more impressive than the hall under the Capitol dome. Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, St. Peter's in Rome, the Duomo in Florence - all stand superior. Then we have the Senate and House chambers. When I visited, neither house was in session; it was easy to stroll through and get a sense of the architecture. Many state capitols are better designed than this national assembly. The Senate and House chambers are stuffy rooms, mechanically de-odorized as if there is some stench that needs to be masked. The windowless spaces, festooned with heavy velvet swags, felt like a funeral home. It was depressing to think that some of the most important decisions in the world are made in this environment. On a scale of one to ten, the Capitol interiors rate three.

Please don't think I am unpatriotic.

Aerial view of U.S. Capitol.

Is Dr. Ben Carson an Architect?

This blog is about exploring architecture in all its facets. It says so right on the masthead. Architecture is my area of expertise and I am pretty scrupulous about limiting my observations to just that subject. Sometimes other realms overlap this singular intent, as when I felt compelled to write about Donald Trump being “classy.” (The architecture he espouses is distinctly not classy.)  Now it happens again: politics intrudes into the world of architecture with Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson's assertion that the ancient Egyptian pyramids were built to store grain. In 1998 at Andrews University he said “when you look at the way the pyramids were made…. My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids in order to store grain.” On November 4, 2015 Dr. Carson confirmed his original statement when questioned by reporters. The subject has become entwined with 2015 presidential politics.

Is Ben Carson an architect? Or an archaeologist? No on both counts. So on what authority does Dr. Carson make this ridiculous claim?  He knows the pyramids aren’t hollow, doesn’t he? A grade-school-level of knowledge tells us the pyramids are mostly solid rock with a few small chambers and tunnels. Egyptian writings tell us their purpose: for royal entombment.  The pyramids also happen to predate the biblical Joseph. Furthermore, the Bible itself provides no corroboration for this empty idea. Dr. Ben Carson has no training in architecture; he had best stay away from the subject altogether and stick to something he knows, like politics. Oh, wait. He has no experience in politics either…

Pyramid at Giza.  Mostly solid.

Dr. Ben Carson.  Mostly hollow. 

For a detailed analysis of the pyramids-as-granaries idea, read Jason Colavito’s November 6th blog: The Long Strange History of the Pyramids as the Granaries of Joseph.

More Zoning Politics

I never intended this blog to delve into politics.  It's about architecture: the fun stuff like design, psychology, materials, and  significant architecture. Yet I find myself posting a third entry on the proposed new zoning code for the city of Denver. Zoning isn't about architecture, though it does affect architecture. It's mostly about politics, as individuals and neighborhood groups develop agendas about controlling what happens around them. Below is a letter I wrote to Councilmember Peggy Lehman with copies to the full City Council and Mayor Hickenlooper. The letter has been widely circulated and picked up by at least one neighborhood newsletter as an editorial. If you live in Denver, the new code will affect you directly. If you live elsewhere, similar issues come up on a regular basis in most cities. If you find these comments useful please feel free to reproduce them in any form. 

Here is a link to the new code: http://www.newcodedenver.org/

Dear Ms. Lehmann:

As a resident of Council District 4 and as an architect specializing in residential design I am concerned about the final draft for the proposed zoning code for the City of Denver. It still contains numerous arbitrary and unworkable ideas that do not benefit the city.

The fourth and final draft is a rewrite of previous drafts that were laden with conceptual conflicts and impossible restrictions. Members of the design community (private planners, architects, and investors) have given freely of their time to digest the voluminous proposal and analyze its impacts. Numerous changes were made in response to these efforts. Between Draft #3 and Draft #4, approximately 50% of the text has changed. This responsiveness on the part of Community Planning and Development is commendable. However, the amount of “redlines” also indicates the depth of equivocation in the new code. Four new drafts in the last few months contained major changes at each step and scant weeks between drafts for the rest of us to “crunch the numbers” and see what it really means. There is inadequate time or opportunity to analyze and correct the current, and supposedly final, draft.

Numerous problems and ambiguities remain in Draft #4. I cite just one here: the height limits for “S” (Suburban) zones. There are many such proposed zones throughout the city. To visualize one, picture the area of University Hills north of Eisenhower Park, slated to be “S-SU-D.” As you know, these blocks contain extensive new development that has replaced small, post-war housing. A suburban district evokes images of large sprawling homes on ample lots. However, this particular “suburban” neighborhood has unusually small homes that are not up to modern code and energy expectations. These older structures are excellent starter homes and rentals, but many owners dream of improving their lot in the future. This neighborhood contains perfect candidates for upgrade or replacement because the existing stock does not meet current market needs. Older homes in this neighborhood are of no historic value. They are energy sieves and cannot compete with the amenities offered in new homes outside of Denver. It is a good thing for neighborhoods such as this to experience redevelopment because it enhances property values, adds to the city tax base, draws diversity to the urban center, and provides housing that meets the needs of families and professionals. Certainly, it is a sign of the desirability of District 4 that such development has taken place on a large scale. However, the proposed Draft #4 imposes a de facto ban on two-story homes. This would effectively quash further development in University Hills.

Two story homes are technically permitted, but if an architect were clever enough to design a house under the 27’ overall limit (dimension A, below) the best you could get is 8’ ceilings to keep within the 20’ side wall restriction (dimension B, below). Eight-foot ceilings are not what the current market expects. In actual practice, not even eight-foot ceilings would be achievable since that works only for perfectly flat lots. Most lots have less than perfect conditions (a slope or a high water table, for examples) that would skew these numbers to ridiculous results. The probable effect is that a two-story house would be impossible to build in University Hills.

The drawing below is from Draft #4. The red numbers (added by me) demonstrate that, in redeveloping neighborhoods like University Hills, new housing will be unmarketable, unlivable, or unbuildable. This would be true regardless of lot size.

To illustrate this point, the house pictured below is typical post-war construction in the blocks north of Eisenhower Park. Redevelopment of homes such as these would cease under the rules proposed in Draft #4.

The recently developed homes below (also in the blocks north of Eisenhower Park) would be in gross non-compliance with the proposed new rules.

In parts of Draft #4, the “bulk plane” concept reappeared (after having been eliminated in earlier drafts). I believe the current bulk plane is a fair and workable concept; it should be restored to the “S” zones so neighborhoods like University Hills can continue to be renewed. As the economy recovers, we need the tax base, vibrancy, and new life that a refreshed housing market brings to Denver.

We are getting closer to a workable code but need more time to produce a final draft that addresses this and numerous other issues. I urge the Council to allow a period of review and response by the design community and all interested parties before voting on Draft #4.

Sincerely,

Michael Knorr

Three Minute Opinion

Readers of this blog may have noted my concerns about the major overhaul of Denver’s zoning code that's in the works. (See A Letter to the Mayor, July 6, 2009). The Denver Post also published an op/ed piece I wrote on the subject, criticizing the second draft of the code. The writers of the proposed code (Community Planning and Development, led by Peter Park) are now in their third draft and, to their credit, there is evidence they have been listening. Not just to me. The local AIA, builders groups, and others have been analyzing the document and providing critiques. However (and this is a big “however”) I still have concerns about the new rules and the timing of the entire process.

We are now at the point of public “listening sessions” where city council and CPD listens to public comments on the proposed code. The format for these sessions is "open mic" with three minutes of time allotted per person. Three minutes is not a long time if your concerns are many. Here is what I said (italics) at the first listening session held yesterday downtown.

Community Planning and Development has issued three drafts of the proposed code over the past three months. Each time the public has responded with input and questions. And each time CPD has responded with new language in the updated drafts.

I appreciate the responsiveness and hard work of CPD. However, I have two concerns.

First, with each new draft, the full impact of 700 (+/-) pages takes significant time to interpret and understand. CPD has had nearly five years to develop everything in the code. The general public, design professionals, builders and developers get only a few weeks between drafts to absorb and understand the issues. Most of us also have real jobs that occupy much of our time. Now the fourth and final draft is about to come down. My first concern is that there is simply not enough time budgeted to review, understand, and respond. I have reviewed parts of the proposed code that directly affect my work. The council is about to vote on all aspects of the code – every nook and cranny of it – for the entire city and for a long time into the future. If we can spend five years getting to this point we should also have a proper amount of time to avoid a rush to judgment. That time is not in the schedule now.

My second concern is more nuanced. It appears that in crafting a “form based” code there is a prejudice – whether intentional or accidental -- against some architectural styles. This emerges in the way the numbers are written. Counter intuitively, even some important traditional forms (such as the architecturally significant Jacques Benedict designs on Seventh Avenue Parkway) would be impossible to emulate under the proposed zoning. Though we have been told that the new code does not dictate architectural style, the de facto results of the numbers have a huge impact on style. In an apparent effort to maintain the status quo, many parts of the code micromanage form in a manner that is more like a narrowly-controlled, covenanted community then a vibrant urban center. Protecting our neighborhoods from traumatic change is desirable, but it should not be at the expense of innovation, creativity, and experimentation. That is what distinguishes a dynamic city from a backwater burg. The new code effectively freeze dries many parts of town, even where they are not historically, architecturally or economically interesting. We also need more time to fine tune what I hope are such unintended consequences of the proposed zoning code.

That is all three minutes allows.

The "prejudice... against some architectural styles" includes different height limits for pitched-roof buildings than flat-roofed (often contemporary) buildings. Here is how a pitched roof building in zone E-SU-Dx (refer to the code to understand these new "simplified" designations) would be affected. The red-highlighted areas would be disallowed under the new rules:
For an identical floor plan but with flat roofs the new restrictions would be so severe as to make the design unbuildable:
This appears to be a prejudice against contemporary design. A "bulk plane" approach, as we have now, would be a more objective way to control the impact of a structure on its neighbors.


But traditional designs are also hampered. Below are three of the Jacques Benedict designs referred to above. They would all be disallowed under the new code because their unbroken facades are too long. This would micromanage architectural design in a way that is inappropriate for a large city like Denver.
This material and more has been provided to city council.


I was heartened by the turn-out at yesterday's listening session. Many people are concerned about the impact of the code on their neighborhood and their property. Thoughtful and articulate opinions were voiced about areas of the proposed code that I have not yet explored. (It is over 700 pages, you know.)

You can explore the current draft of the new code and express your opinion at http://newcodedenver.org/ .

A Letter to the Mayor

The following letter was sent to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper last week following presentations by the Planning department regarding proposed zoning code changes. I reproduce it here in response to interest expressed by local architects, builders, Realtors and property owners. The proposed changes follow a nationwide drift to reduce property entitlements. The trend is to make redevelopment of private property more difficult, more restrictive, and less creative. (See "Malibu Dreaming" post, March 31, 2009.) I apologize to readers outside of Denver who may find this discussion of zoning rules a bit arcane, but be aware it could happen in your neighborhood.

I do believe the final draft of the new zoning changes will be less Draconian than the current proposal. How much better is difficult to predict. To keep abreast of the massive code revisions (hundreds of pages) visit www.denvergov.org/planning. You can also find contact information for the mayor, council members, and the Planning department at this site.

2 July 2009

The Honorable John Hickenlooper
Office of the Mayor
City and County Building
1437 Bannock, Room 350
Denver, CO 80202

Re: New Zoning Code

John Hickenlooper:

I have attended several meetings and workshops conducted by the department of Community Planning and Development regarding the new zoning code. The Planning department emphasizes that the new code is “a work in progress.” Work has progressed for some time with each rendition of the proposed code introducing additional troubling concepts and details. Since the shape of the code is now becoming quite specific, I feel it is time to register deep concerns regarding negative architectural and economic impacts the new code will have.

The proposed code is lengthy and complex, covering, as it must, very different neighborhoods and conditions. The observations in this letter are limited mainly to the S-SU-B and E-SU-D designations and specifically as they apply to the University Hills neighborhood. These are limited examples. Please be aware that other parts of the proposed code are similarly flawed.

S-SU-B

S-SU-B is a residential district. The blocks of University Hills north and east of Eisenhower Park fall under this new category. Spokespeople from Planning assert that the current R1 zoning (single family detached) would remain intact and thus “preserve current entitlements.” In fact, as written, S-SU-B would change current entitlements by significantly reducing the allowable size of future development. This will negatively impact property values and, by extension, the future tax base of the City and County of Denver.

Lots in this neighborhood vary considerably by orientation and shape. There is no typical lot, but a common size is 60’ x 155’ (approximately 9300 square feet) as illustrated below. Prior to February 2003 one could develop 50% of such a lot, including garage, porches, and any covered areas:

1 Zoning Restrictions Before 2003


This entitlement allowed for several features of proven value in the marketplace: a three-car garage (albeit with a “tandem” space on this narrow lot), the option of a single-story plan, and room for outdoor covered spaces.

These possibilities significantly changed with “Quick Wins II” in 2003. Those changes, currently in effect, limited developable area to 37.5 per cent of a lot:

2 Current Zoning

On the example 9300 square foot lot with similar garage and porch allowances, the main floor living area is reduced to 2300 square feet. The possibility of a single-story plan is sharply curtailed and two-story plans become more likely. Of course, smaller lots (of which there are many in the neighborhood) have less buildable area. Current zoning restrictions also sharply curtail the size of second floors, development in the rear one-third of a lot, and the bulk of structures. Nevertheless, the University Hills neighborhood has seen a renaissance of new housing in recent years under these restrictions.

The proposed zoning reduces the developable area again. The new maximum is a miserly thirty percent. In print, this is an abstract number. On actual lots the effects are Draconian:

3 Proposed zoning with 30% maximum lot coverage.

To yield 1900 square feet of living area one would be required to forgo a third garage space and reduce the amount of covered porches or patios. Single-story plans or main floor master suites become more difficult. Remember, the illustrated example is a relatively large lot by urban standards; even so we encounter difficulties meeting the demands of market-oriented housing. Imagine how problematic this becomes with smaller parcels. Big segments of the market would be jeopardized by these conditions: growing families who require more bedrooms and additional car shelter, older or physically challenged people who don’t want to climb stairs, and the affluent market that simply demands more space.

Property owners already experience negative impacts from previous zoning changes. The proposed zoning exacerbates the situation by shrinking allowable development. The following graphic illustrates the diminishing returns:

4 The Incredible Shrinking House

There are many other detrimental restrictions in the proposed zoning. Note in the above illustration how the allowable driveway shrinks to a ridiculously small area. The proposed rules would make servicing two-car garages impossible.

Also worrisome are the proposed height and setback changes. Current rules allow for a two-story house that could offer the style, amenities, and architectural volume to make it competitive in the broad marketplace. The proposed zoning drastically reduces width, overall height, and floor-to-ceiling allowances. Two story homes would lose 4’ to 9’ in height (depending on lot width). Single story homes would lose 10’ to 15’ in allowable height. Increased side yard setbacks further reduce the street presence of new construction. Houses already limited by Quick Wins II are further diminished in size and curb appeal.

5 Proposed zoning eliminates shaded area on a two-story house.

6 One story homes would fall under additional height restrictions.


The Planning department makes a point of claiming that architectural style is not affected by these changes. However, the restrictions channel design into squat structures with low-pitched roofs and low plate heights. Furthermore, even more severe limits on flat-roofed structures and single-story plans make modern or inventive styles impossible as shown in the two examples below:

7 Flat roof structures are singled out; the red-shaded areas would not be permitted.

8 Innovative architecture is problematic under the proposed limits; shaded areas not allowed.

E-SU-D

A second University Hills district, described as “urban edge”, falls to the south of Eisenhower Park. This E-SU-D designation is distinguished by square blocks with alleys. Otherwise, it is similar to the rest of University Hills in appearance and variety. Yet some of the restrictions here are even more severe. Rear setbacks are now proposed at 50% to 60% of the lot depth and allowable driveway features (such as circular drives) are mathematically eliminated. If the intent is to preserve the morphology of the neighborhood, the restrictions do not accomplish this. For example, an actual existing older home of 1500 square feet would be impossible to reproduce under the proposed rules. Square footage, width, and architectural offsets would all be in violation. Approximately 200 square feet would be lost in the following example:

9 An older existing home not allowed under the new rules.

Calibration

The response by Planning to these criticisms in public meetings has been that the restrictions are in flux and will be “calibrated” based on neighborhood input. My concerns are more fundamental than calibrating numbers. A catch phrase from Planning describes the zoning revisions as “form based” design. This means, by my understanding, that for every designated district the shape, size, offsets, and massing are predetermined by a matrix of dimensions. At the same time, we are told that these prescriptions do not regulate architectural style. The contradiction in the last two sentences should be apparent. Architectural style is not limited to frivolous details applied to predetermined shapes. Architecture is precisely a result of form.

Summary

This letter has focused on a limited portion of a lengthy document. I want to emphasize, again, that there are numerous examples throughout the proposed code where architecture and development possibilities are limited more like a covenant-controlled community than a vibrant urban center. Section 3.3.2, to cite one final example, gets into issues of architectural “articulation.” It describes (in detail) “horizontal articulation elements,” the “base, middle, cap” of a building, and even the dimensions of eave projections. There are whole swaths of architectural styles compromised by such picayune micromanagement.

The proposed zoning moves in the direction of freeze-drying our neighborhoods, as if they are already the best that they can be. This only stifles new ideas and discourages monetary investment. It will put Denver at a competitive disadvantage for tax dollars. It will limit the number and diversity of people attracted to our redeveloping neighborhoods. Most detrimental to current residents is the damper it places on existing lots and the possibilities of enjoying the full potential of our property.

As an architect, I would like to see every aspect of the built environment in perfect harmony, well proportioned and beautiful. But this works best when it happens organically and with variety. By allowing great latitude in the system, mistakes may happen and things may not always look the way we want them to. However, in balance, maximizing creative freedom also invites exciting innovations that just may point the way to a better life for everybody.

The proposed zoning code heads in the wrong direction. I trust that the mayor’s office will closely examine these impending policy changes. If you or a member of your staff would like to discuss these ideas or other aspects of the code in more detail I am available anytime.

Sincerely,

Michael Knorr