A Rolling Prairie Skyline: BNIM’s City Centre Redevelopment Proposal
Today I’m going to take a look at the design proposed for the City Centre Redevelopment by BNIM of Kansas City, Missouri. Their website features a portfolio of their past work for your perusal. Unfortunately, the design teams are not talking to the media during the selection process, so there’s not much for us to go on beyond the short video and eight display boards made public. With that in mind let’s take a look.
Overview of BNIM Proposal. Click for large version.
Like many of the other designs, you’ll notice that the shape of the runways is incorporated into the design’s form. Part of the selection committee’s criteria includes a respect for history, and some of the teams have taken this to include the very form of the site.
BNIM has taken a very monolithic approach to the design of this site. All of the building rooftops are sloped to evoke the rolling plains of Alberta. The method by which this design is created seems arbitrary, and to be frank, like so much urban design buzzword nonsense. I have no idea what “extensive mixed wood understory” means, and if you could explain to me what “by extruding the formerly hidden topography, the invisible is made visible” is talking about I’d appreciate it.
“Finally we considered the natural implications of runways: as migratory path for native bird species and land animals.” NO. STOP IT. Runways are for planes to land.
Apparently urban renewal is also a twelve step program.
The result is pretty striking, but I question the feasibility of it. It would require a degree of architectural control that could be stifling when it comes to designing each building on its own.
Aside from the tight control required to pull off such a design, what concerns me most is the lack of detail given to technical aspects, and claims made that are downright unlikely to actually happen. You want to “reduce building emissions by 100% and create a national model for climate change adaptation in cities.” Okay, how are you going to do that? “Achieve a minimum of 40% of food consumed from local farms and onsite gardens (<200 miles). Reduce carbon impact of meat and dairy consumption by 70%.” Again, how? One of the maps has an icon for a rail link and says, “to Jasper, 1 hour”. We’re nowhere near having a high speed link between the two largest cities in the province and you think we’re going to get a train capable of going 300km/h so some people can ski? Not anytime soon.
There’s some great aspects of this design. The concept of the Delta, an east-west corridor with trolley line and commercial space, almost seems like an ultra-modernized Whyte 2.0, and could turn out great. An expansion of the NAIT campus makes total sense, and an Aviation Heritage District could bring those still sour about ECCA’s closure on board while adding yet another attraction to the city’s repertoire.
The principle conceit of this design—the resemblance to the rolling prairie—is interesting, but is it just a novelty? As much as I’d love to be able to sled off of a building and into the park—and yes, this possibility is specifically mentioned in the proposal—at some point this may end up being a case of form defeating function.
Let me know what you think in the comments, and stay tuned for a look at the other designs in the coming days.
Thanks for your perspective.
Well, I think I need to clarify a few things in your review.
Much of the detail of how our team would “Achieve a minimum of 40% of food consumed from local farms and onsite gardens (<200 miles), reduce carbon impact of meat and dairy consumption by 70%, etc.” is explained in the written proposal provided to the City and not possible, due to space limitations, to put on our display boards. Basically, we would use the "One Planet Living" framework to achieve these goals. See: http://www.oneplanetliving.org for how this has been achieved in many communities across the globe already, particularly BedZED in England.
An "extensive mixed wood understorey" is landscape architect-speak for a dense, boreal forest with shrubs, and associated flora/fauna.
"Making the Invisible- visible" and how that relates to our undulating design refers to how we used the Airport height restriction Overlay to create our "forms" for buildings/ neighbourhood blocks. So, what was once an invisible overlay that restricted city buildings now creates the forms to be built on this site. And these forms are not to be taken literally- but a guide to how the architecture should allow a maximum building pocket- with green roofs!
And finally, when we really asked what would it take for you to move here- rather than living in the downtown core, or on top of the river valley with a view, or near Whyte Ave, is the idea that you could get to Jasper in 90 minutes. Yes, we don't have a high-speed rail link to Calgary yet- but this is a 30 year vision. Why not think big? Wouldn't you move here if you can walk out your front door and in 90 minutes be skiing Marmot, or hiking Athabasca Falls, all without the use of a car?
I'm open to more questions/clarifications if you like.
Edit by Mike Feb 23 11:25am
Full disclosure—this commenter is an employee of Manasc Isaac, a local architecture firm that worked with BNIM on their proposal.
Your review made me think only one thing: You’re old, dude.
“those still sour about ECCA’s closure on board while adding yet another attraction to the city’s repertoire.”
a. ECCA isn’t closed yet.
b. lip service and migration corridors for birds do nothing to eliminate the 32km trip to the Leduc International Airport (and the associated traffic and pollution)
c. the sunken courtyards are wildly inappropriate for Edmonton’s climate. Looking at this year’s snowfall what would be the outcome there? how would snow removal be accomplished?
d. terrible walkability. moving from ‘living pit’ to ‘living pit’ requires a lot more walking than necessary.
e. I don’t see much opportunity for mixed res/comm, it’s basically another strip-mall-centric hub-and-spoke type development. (living pits unconnected to anything else which needs doing in the average day)
on a scale of ‘Tire-Fire’ to ‘Portlandia’, I give it a rusty bike frame locked to a bus bench.
None of the proposals is likely to overcome the ‘concrete island’ nature of ECCA; it is surrounded by light industrial / highway / railway which will always limit access to the area to automotive traffic (car / bus / rail) and will never acheive the walkable city we need to be truly sustainable. Any development at ECCA before Downtown is a serious misallocation of resources and nothing but lipstick on a pig. ECCA is best left as an airport until we truly need the space (probably 30-50 years hence).
The connection between runways and bird migration is wind.
… or an Airbus in the Hudson River.
Lesoteric, my friend, a rebuttal –
a. No ECCA is not closed yet, but it will be. How is this relevant?
b. There is a need for an airport in the region that is large enough to handle both passenger and cargo movement. You seem to think we should try to accommodate both from the ECCA, which is infeasible to say the least, or that these two streams should be served by separate airports, which is both expensive and wildly inefficient (not to mention environmentally unsound).
c. Why do we have to care about snow *removal* inside a building courtyard, as opposed to some basic clearing? I don’t remove snow from my back yard, I shovel the walks and let it melt.
d. I’m going to guess that these buildings might have multiple entryways allowing for pedestrian access “within” the grid. Even if they don’t, I haven’t heard too much complaining from, say, New Yorkers who seem to have no issues navigating a grid system.
e. On this I can’t really argue. Unless the buildings are live/work spaces.
ECCA is currently disconnected from the surrounding grid because of its function; by changing its function we can change its form. There is residential to the west and southwest, park to the south, shopping to the southeast, and a campus (which, over time, and with higher pedestrian demand, can become lovely and walkable) to the east. The only real connective challenge is to the north, with the rail yards. To offset, I see an extension of 109 St and LRT. Can’t comment on your “misallocation” comment except to argue that densification is a battle waged and won on many fronts, over decades not years, and that sticking all our eggs in the downtown basket at the planning stage (which, let’s remember, this is ) is maybe not the most appropriate way to urge densification.
a. No ECCA is not closed yet, but it will be. How is this relevant?
not closed, no guarantee that it will be anytime soon either (pending litigation, federal approval not secured)
b. There is a need for an airport in the region that is large enough to handle both passenger and cargo movement. You seem to think we should try to accommodate both from the ECCA, which is infeasible to say the least, or that these two streams should be served by separate airports, which is both expensive and wildly inefficient (not to mention environmentally unsound).
let me clarify, for once and for all, I see no need for one airport in Edmonton and one in Leduc. The ‘International’ is a glorified regional airport (no direct flights to anywhere but US / int’l hubs and / or sun-destinations). the ‘international’ will only get more regional in the future. we need to accept that YYC is the international airport for Alberta, maybe only YVR in the future for western Canada. We could save tons of money by abandoning YEG in favor of mild YXD development and high speed rail to a real international airport.
c. Why do we have to care about snow *removal* inside a building courtyard, as opposed to some basic clearing? I don’t remove snow from my back yard, I
shovel the walks and let it melt.
Then why have a courtyard at all?
by all appearances a winter’s worth of snow in those courtyards would just about block the bottom floor windows / doors. assuming (you are assuming) that the suites have multiple entrances and the second entrance is on the opposite side of the courtyard. I have to assume (by the multi-storey layout) that there would be common entrances on the non-courtyard side, meaning that walkability is compromised by driving foot traffic a full block to enter/exit the complex.
d. I’m going to guess that these buildings might have multiple entryways allowing for pedestrian access “within” the grid. Even if they don’t, I haven’t heard too much complaining from, say, New Yorkers who seem to have no issues navigating a grid system.
Grid system is fine – on a certain scale. the residential blocks appear to be unbroken and unmixed – meaning that to go from your home to a business or transit stop requires more walking than required by truly dense housing. (this looks like suburban design forced into a box to look ‘green’)
e. On this I can’t really argue. Unless the buildings are live/work spaces.
ECCA is currently disconnected from the surrounding grid because of its function; by changing its function we can change its form. There is residential to the west and southwest, park to the south, shopping to the southeast, and a campus (which, over time, and with higher pedestrian demand, can become lovely and walkable) to the east. The only real connective challenge is to the north, with the rail yards. To offset, I see an extension of 109 St and LRT. Can’t comment on your “misallocation” comment except to argue that densification is a battle waged and won on many fronts, over decades not years, and that sticking all our eggs in the downtown basket at the planning stage (which, let’s remember, this is ) is maybe not the most appropriate way to urge densification.
Perhaps over time, but downtown is just being passed over again because it’s easier (read: cheaper and easier to develop) to waste what could be very, very valuable land (as an airport / rail hub) in favour of 30+ years of maybe/maybe not. There is almost as much space ready to go in downtown, if the city would show even a pinch of the desire they do for steamrolling YXD.
In any event, I still think that design sucks. You can’t build adequate pedestrian access to much of anything around YXD without seriously impacting the transportation corridors. So if you don’t build a self-contained community (the exact opposite of what should be going there) you end up with disconnected housing. If you build a self-contained community with a couple LRT stops, you might as well just send the LRT to Eaux Claires and Heritage Valley where two-a-day LRT trippers can have their subsidized transit and their cars too!
I think BNIM should get credit for being the only firm that dug deeper than the obvious historical connection to the airport and referenced the city’s much deeper Aboriginal roots. This kind of rich historical arc provides the project with a broader set of tools to work with (understanding of the city’s natural environment, past historical uses of the landscape, etc…), which inform a plan that will potentially be able to adapt to unpredictable future environmental and climate change scenarios more effectively than those that looked at a narrower time scale.
Yes, runways are for planes to land, but that’s a pretty shallow way to look at how we interact with the land around us. If the city is going to move forward in a manner that is as conscious of how to work with the existing environment as possible, we have to understand how the land functioned before we built the airport. So, I take exception with your dismissal of the project’s discussion of, and visual references to, the pre-existing natural environment. Business as usual has put us in an untenable position (ie: sprawl and design rooted in other landscapes and climates has built us a city that definitely cannot be sustained into a water and energy poor future).
z.
A big problem, as I saw it mentioned on another website and entirely agree with is that in a city like Edmonton that entire vista would be marred by handrails and “please stay on the path” signs that would take away much from the visual appeal of the designs.
The Charrette Photo Pool
The latest photos added to the Charrette Photo Pool:Want to add yours to the mix? Submit your best shots to the photo pool today!
The Charrette on Twitter
Upcoming Events
League Blogs
Edmonton Blogs
What We’ve Said
What You’ve Said
Tags
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Recent Comments