Palladio

I've followed discussion of development in Ohio City for years and am struck by how quickly discussion turns to those who oppose a particular development as NIMYs or "out of touch" or, even, an out of place suburbanite lost in an urban neighborhood. Perhaps this is true from time to time, but by and large my experience in living in Ohio City for the last 15 years is that the number one factor that drives opposition to any development is the poor quality of the architecture and how it fits within the context of the historic district. Too often, these discussions laud development because its development; others because its "better than what's there now." (Some have recently applauded "The Exchange" on Clinton - perhaps one of "cheapest" examples of poor "architecture" in the neighborhood; why should we applaud this?) Architects, perhaps more than most professions, affect our daily lives in how we interact with our built environment; architecture can show the values of a community; it can uplift or, in the case of 1970's architecture, depress. It is all together proper that people should be concerned about their built environment. Indeed, it is why many of you are reading this; you are concerned about your built environment. Let's ascribe to one another the same laudable desire, and see if we can't find a way of getting there together. People I've spoken with do not oppose Fulton House because it is multi-family, or dense, or because they don't want it in their back yard. Those who oppose the Fulton House, as drawn, are not lost suburbanites. Rather, like you, they care about the architecture and the architecture here is lacking. Pick up that rendering and drop it in Anywhere USA. There is nothing whatsoever that acknowledges that it is on Fulton Avenue in Ohio City. Not the massing, not the fenestration, not the materials, not the detailing. For sure, there is no need to mimic or, as one commenter put it, make it look like a Disneyland main street. But I think we can all agree that there is a large different between asking that context be reflected in the architecture, on one hand, and the inappropriateness of Disneyesque designs on the other. We do ourselves no favors by rushing to extremes or by conflating one with the other. Historic district guidelines serve as guardrails. They acknowledge the importance of our built environment. They acknowledge that development for the sake of development is not enough. The acknowledge that architecture matters. They call for a higher standard. It is my hope that we can all agree on that much.