Comments on: Design review board doesn’t like looks of health clinic design http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2011/11/10/design-review-board-doesn%e2%80%99t-like-looks-of-health-clinic-design/ Ramona's Community Paper Since 1886 Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Doug Humphries, Architect http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2011/11/10/design-review-board-doesn%e2%80%99t-like-looks-of-health-clinic-design/#comment-123584 Doug Humphries, Architect Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:21:08 +0000 http://ramonasentinel.mscsddev.com/?p=7576#comment-123584 I agree with Brent. They give us Planning & Zoning rules, we design within those rules then we get nitpicked to death by Nitwits ultimately wasting more of our time and possibly ruining our Design. There was an article about how the City of Santa Monica, CA will no longer have an Architect on their board because of a City Attorney decision that a Design Board Member that has a project within the City cannot simply recuse themselves from reviewing any of their own projects. No Architect in Santa Monica wants to preclude themselves from doing work in their own community. I agree with Brent. They give us Planning & Zoning rules, we design within those rules then we get nitpicked to death by Nitwits ultimately wasting more of our time and possibly ruining our Design. There was an article about how the City of Santa Monica, CA will no longer have an Architect on their board because of a City Attorney decision that a Design Board Member that has a project within the City cannot simply recuse themselves from reviewing any of their own projects. No Architect in Santa Monica wants to preclude themselves from doing work in their own community.

]]> By: canada goose jackets online http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2011/11/10/design-review-board-doesn%e2%80%99t-like-looks-of-health-clinic-design/#comment-95208 canada goose jackets online Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:00:05 +0000 http://ramonasentinel.mscsddev.com/?p=7576#comment-95208 Hello my family member! I want to say that this article is awesome, nice written and include almost all vital infos. I'd like to peer more posts like this . Hello my family member! I want to say that this article is awesome, nice written and include almost all vital infos. I’d like to peer more posts like this .

]]> By: Brent http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2011/11/10/design-review-board-doesn%e2%80%99t-like-looks-of-health-clinic-design/#comment-78090 Brent Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:29:40 +0000 http://ramonasentinel.mscsddev.com/?p=7576#comment-78090 The concerns that I have regarding this article are less specific to the PPH building, but are more global in nature. As architects, we are trained in design, we study the theories of design, and history of architecture styles as they evolved through the centuries. Yet as design professionals, we submit our designs that have developed through thousands of decisions, influenced by codes, function, maintenance and budget to design review boards that have typically do not have formal training in design, planning or real estate in general. Yet, design review boards have far too much power on the influence of building design. Inhibiting architect’s design and the owner’s vision. Of greater concern regarding design review boards, is their ability to take away or manipulate individual property rights by restricting the design of a privately owned building on private ground. Unless the design review board (or the jurisdiction they represent) participates in the added cost resulting from the findings of the design review board, then the board should not have the authority to influence design. Simply put, who is the design review board to spend an owner’s money? When people ask me about design review boards and design requirements, I relate them to something all can understand. Say you want to buy a car, your needs justify a small economy car and that is what your budget can accommodate. But the city in which you reside requires all citizens to buy a luxury car regardless of your need or budget. Why? Because it conveys the image the city wants. I leave you with this question to consider, “In 1906, would an Oak Park design review board approved FL Wright’s design of the Unity Temple design?” The concerns that I have regarding this article are less specific to the PPH building, but are more global in nature.

As architects, we are trained in design, we study the theories of design, and history of architecture styles as they evolved through the centuries. Yet as design professionals, we submit our designs that have developed through thousands of decisions, influenced by codes, function, maintenance and budget to design review boards that have typically do not have formal training in design, planning or real estate in general. Yet, design review boards have far too much power on the influence of building design. Inhibiting architect’s design and the owner’s vision.

Of greater concern regarding design review boards, is their ability to take away or manipulate individual property rights by restricting the design of a privately owned building on private ground. Unless the design review board (or the jurisdiction they represent) participates in the added cost resulting from the findings of the design review board, then the board should not have the authority to influence design. Simply put, who is the design review board to spend an owner’s money?

When people ask me about design review boards and design requirements, I relate them to something all can understand. Say you want to buy a car, your needs justify a small economy car and that is what your budget can accommodate. But the city in which you reside requires all citizens to buy a luxury car regardless of your need or budget. Why? Because it conveys the image the city wants.

I leave you with this question to consider, “In 1906, would an Oak Park design review board approved FL Wright’s design of the Unity Temple design?”

]]> By: Doug Humphries, Architect http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2011/11/10/design-review-board-doesn%e2%80%99t-like-looks-of-health-clinic-design/#comment-74709 Doug Humphries, Architect Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:11:27 +0000 http://ramonasentinel.mscsddev.com/?p=7576#comment-74709 Articles like these are almost useless without posting the renderings of the Design being commented on. I agree with Mario's first paragraph but I do think that even a place that one has to go to when ill should be pleasant and inviting. But then the term "inviting" is completely subjective. Articles like these are almost useless without posting the renderings of the Design being commented on. I agree with Mario’s first paragraph but I do think that even a place that one has to go to when ill should be pleasant and inviting. But then the term “inviting” is completely subjective.

]]> By: Mario http://www.ramonasentinel.com/2011/11/10/design-review-board-doesn%e2%80%99t-like-looks-of-health-clinic-design/#comment-74105 Mario Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:20:54 +0000 http://ramonasentinel.mscsddev.com/?p=7576#comment-74105 Not mentioned in the article is the difference in budget for the scaled-down proposal vs. the original 37,000 square foot creature. Given that the "economy is bad", I would only be able to assume that the new 7,600 version is proportional to the given budget. So, is the "design board" (it is questionable about who exactly occupies the seats on so-called design boards) wanting more for less? They want all the hoopla, but don't want to pay for it? Secondly, what's wrong with a medical clinic designed to fit in with the community? It was stated that the current proposal "…doesn’t do anything, doesn’t invite me." Do we as citizens really _want_ to be invited to a hospital? Seriously, let's take it easy on being sick and injured. How about being invited to something in the community that is healthy and preventative (i.e.: public parks, gardens, etc.) as opposed to treating after-the-fact illnesses. Okay, change the front gable, but let's not dwell on some structure that is more fitting to downtown Tokyo and look at the vernacular (hint: Venturi) of Ramona. Not mentioned in the article is the difference in budget for the scaled-down proposal vs. the original 37,000 square foot creature. Given that the “economy is bad”, I would only be able to assume that the new 7,600 version is proportional to the given budget. So, is the “design board” (it is questionable about who exactly occupies the seats on so-called design boards) wanting more for less? They want all the hoopla, but don’t want to pay for it?

Secondly, what’s wrong with a medical clinic designed to fit in with the community? It was stated that the current proposal “…doesn’t do anything, doesn’t invite me.” Do we as citizens really _want_ to be invited to a hospital? Seriously, let’s take it easy on being sick and injured. How about being invited to something in the community that is healthy and preventative (i.e.: public parks, gardens, etc.) as opposed to treating after-the-fact illnesses. Okay, change the front gable, but let’s not dwell on some structure that is more fitting to downtown Tokyo and look at the vernacular (hint: Venturi) of Ramona.

]]>