Weigh in on architecture decisions for our city
Original post made by Tom DuBois on Sep 3, 2013
Check out www.surveymonkey.com/s/paloaltoarchitecture
If you have comments and suggestions, submit them at the end of the survey.
on Sep 4, 2013 at 10:11 am
Thanks for doing this - we really need some consistency in the architecture of new developments.
Perhaps agreeing on a model for Palo Alto is a start - the example of Santa Barbara is a good one.
on Sep 4, 2013 at 7:02 pm
LOL, I did the survey out of curiosity, but come on, this survey really means nothing. You cannot compare a Walgreens to the Notre Dame Cathedral ... the buildings pitted against each other were not appropriate and did not really prove anything.
Cost, functionality, maintainability are important factors to consider too. If we have the Notre Dame Cathedral in Palo Alto it would bankrupt us as the maintenance costs of continual vandalism and graffiti clean-up would be staggering.
Glass designs like the new Apple store are not terrible looking per se, they can be interesting, but the functionality of that building is terrible, it is a noise trap, and not to mention a step back for the public because it has no public restroom. When Apple has classes going and someone has to go to the restroom it is ridiculous that they have to go outside and down the street. How did that decision get made? Talk about not caring about your customers!
I don't mind some of the new buildings, and some of the old buildings are not so great either, particularly when they are very very old or not well maintained. There is no hard and fast set rule as to what looks good, and what looks good is not always best building either. I don't mind the new Mitchell Park Library, the boxy look gives it much more light and space, and with some time and landscaping I think it will work out fine.
Compared for example to the Newell Library which I've always liked, but is so old and too small anymore. It is small, loud and inadequate these days.
A building by building approach is good, maybe a combination of the people and the planning committee, but I think our current planning committee have proven they do not get Palo Alto or our people ... they should all be terminated, and a completely new group should be brought in - at least that would do something.