Urbnlivn loves reader contributions, especially ones that make us a think.
–
Dear Mr. Goyer,
As a regular reader of urbnlivn.com I find myself usually agreeing with you, so I thought I would take a few minutes to write about a break in that pattern: my reaction upon walking through Sanctuary at First Church. By way of preface I should explain that by profession I am not an architect or developer or engineer — so my reaction here derives from no relevant expertise whatsoever, not in historical re-use, urban planning or anything else. I went to Sanctuary intrigued by the photos on your site and expecting to be at least mildly thrilled by an aesthetic vision. But I was not: I couldn’t find the vision at all, not in the context of actual urban living. All there was was a sense of being a tourist in a deconsecrated temple, admiring what was past but unable to imagine any meaningful activities to come.
What are townhouses? Before anything else, they must be boundaries between public and private. They are row houses with open space front and back. Front, a view of a street, usually, or else a commons; back, a view of private gardens, or a child’s swing set, or the like. The yards, both front and back, should be at the level of the main living spaces of the building — you don’t build townhouse rows on hills. You walk in from the front, from public to private; you continue through the structure and come out into light again at the back, in your own garden.
Try to map these considerations onto the units in Sanctuary: _it can’t be done._ Public (commons) and private spaces are reversed, and neither one makes sense. Which entrance, for instance, faces the “street”? The one down on 16th or Howell, or the one under the skylight? It is as if the structure was erected on a very small, very steep mountain entered from darkness, via some sort of tube under the peak. In another sense, though, individual units have neither front nor back. You cannot walk “through” them — there is no sense of flow here. The space of the “sanctuary” itself is not a commons, an outdoor area, a natural respite … it has no function. (We spoke to some contractor, or at least we think he was, or represented, a contractor … and he said there are no plans to put ANYTHING under that central light. No seating, no plantings, no power supply … nothing. It’s to be empty.)
But also the “fronts” of the units are blind: they have no buffer from the street except the opacity of their original windows.
So the units in fact are not located anywhere at all. They do not relate to any aspect of the urban environment in which the building is actually situated, the corner of 16th and Howell. To ignore the surroundings is fine for a church — it is in fact the whole point — but it’s far from
appropriate for a set of townhouses.
In other words, the idea of a _demarcation,_ from public to private, and a _flow_ from public to private (or the reverse) as you walk through, both of which the classic townhouse gives you (remember Alexander’s “Pattern Language”?), is completely lacking. We have in its place some sort of centrifugal design (“-fugal” meaning “flight” in the sense of fleeing), where people emerge from a central elevator, distribute themselves around twelve front doors, and never see one another again. They disappear. The metaphor would appear to be not flow but, perhaps, peristalsis.
This sense of being nowhere in particular is heightened by the narrowness of most of those floors. I didn’t bring a tape measure, but they looked to be about 16 x 50 in plan, which is awfully far from square even for a true townhouse and particularly long for a blind shoebox, and even longer when the front has no view of a transition to the street.
So, as glorious as that central skylight is, and as fascinating as the refitting/reuse of the original moldings and other architectural elements, the site struck my wife and me, immediately, as completely incapable of being related to locus in the way that urban architecture needs to be. It’s not sanctuary in the sense of the sacred, or of security, or of worship; it’s sanctuary in the sense of concealment, and that’s just not the point of a loft apartment on Capitol Hill. It is, of course, the point of a church — you don’t flow through a church, it is consecrated in part _because_ it is solely a destination, not a journey — but townhouses aren’t supposed to be like that.
If mine is the minority view of this project, as I suspect it might be, the marketing will be no problem. And then we can check back in five years to see if the owners have made some sort of a commons area out of that third-floor lobby, or created some sort of “backyard” at street level, or whatever. Townhouses have to separate public from private; if they don’t do that, what is the point of that glorious skylight, under which no children will ever play?
Popularity: 6% [?]
View Comments so far ↓
1 Justin // Jun 22, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Wow! Not sure I agree with the guy, but certainly is some poetic writing. I could use some help coming up some lyrics for my Seattle condo blog rap…
Maybe I can just copy and paste. Someone give me a beat!
This sense of being nowhere in particular is heightened by the narrowness of most of those floors.
Where people emerge from, a central elevator, distribute themselves, around twelve front doors.
Good Stuff!
2 Jason // Jun 22, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Staying with the obvious rhyme battle challenge.
This guy needs to really pull back the talons,
like I'm not sure about this stance,
“Public (commons) and private spaces are reversed, and neither one makes sense. Which entrance, for instance, faces the “street”?
The uniqueness and ambiance would sure be hard to beat.
Yo' B, grab the mic…and tell me whatcha think.
3 Justin // Jun 22, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I don't know J, it's just not right.
I don't want this guy think'n his writin's not tight.
4 condoboy // Jun 22, 2009 at 7:50 pm
the ramistat is confimulerated with the shizzamaflan, furthermore, it furticulates its own unique purple-nexus-ness-ness.
…. but seriously I agree with the poster.
5 condoboy // Jun 22, 2009 at 7:55 pm
so I actually found that post incredibly concise, and spot on.
that poster should make more frequent “guest” appearances!
6 The MD // Jun 22, 2009 at 8:10 pm
I AGREE! That “guest” poster was AWESOME and spot on!
7 Nick // Jun 23, 2009 at 9:22 am
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ last two comments = guest poster…..haha jk
i agree with him/her….how is the bank gonna foreclose on an entire church when these don't sell?
8 Dorothy // Jun 23, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Hi Admin,
I am Dorothy Parker. I have visited your website and I would like to congratulate you on building such a valuable online resource. I am sure your visitors find your site as useful as I did.
My site also has relevant information in the same context, which I am sure your visitors will really appreciate. It would be great if we exchange links with each other. It would boost your search engine rankings, as relevant inbound links is the most important criteria for ranking on most search engines. It would also help bring targeted traffic to your site and reach out to a valuable, relevant audience.
So, I think it would be beneficial for both of us if we will join in a community and become link partners to each other which will help your blog/site in getting more Google values. If you are interested then please contact me at my email-id.
Have a great day.
Thanks and regards
Dorothy
Contact: dorothy786@gmail.com
9 EconE // Jun 24, 2009 at 5:34 am
Exactly. I was never able to wrap my head around that one from the first time Matt Blogged about it.
10 EconE // Jun 24, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Exactly. I was never able to wrap my head around that one from the first time Matt Blogged about it.
11 Babbs Weissman // May 25, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Wish I could rhyme this all for you to keep the flow going — but maybe I will be excused because I am so late to the party.
I am Babbs Weissman and Erica Clibborn and I are currently listing The Sanctuary. We have received the same feedback about the atrium area from both Agents and potential Buyers alike and are currently working with a local designer to spruce up the joint. We are in the beginning stages, but are hoping for big improvements upon what is already a pretty glorious lobby. (ok — I am obviously biased, but before I was ever the Agent, that dome knocked my socks off). We all agree, Developers included, that the atrium area needs some love. It is currently our focus and will be better soon.
Once we have followed the direction of our trusted designer (to be named later), I will let you all know. We are showing the project by appointment now and I would love to personally show you how it turns out if you are interested. We are also finishing staging one of the homes and are going to be doing two more, so there will be plenty to see.
Your feedback is helpful and appreciated. Keep it coming.
12 Justin Bowers // May 25, 2010 at 3:50 pm
no need to not ryhme cause ur late.
the place is pretty cool and i'm certainly interested in an update.
13 Max // May 25, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I saw Moira (the previous agent) delisted these in Feb and now one has reappeared on the MLS at a different street address.
Does the new strategy include price adjustments? The previous listing prices were unsustainable given the limitations of this project and lack of light inside the units.
I thought I might be interested until I googled 'Sacotte Construction' and saw the homeowner and developer lawsuits the builder has been involved with.
Leave a Comment