The perils of contextual design: Sad looking rowhouse facades

Baltimore has always been pretty conservative when it comes to style and taste and its architecture is no exception. Even the new zoning code repeats those requirements for being "contextual" and has a bunch of pictures that shows what that is supposed to mean, mostly based on a classical order of facades "with a base, a middle and a top". (The Baltimore AIA is trying to get those prescriptive guidelines as exhibits into an appendix of tyhe code instead of being part of the code itself). The Planning Department argued for those rules not as a measure to prevent creative architecture but to ensure that the bad architects can't do anything terrible.

the new "townhomes" at 1500 S. Charles Street

I believe the real terrible things happen in the guise of contextualism. One example was sent to me by a developer who was really upset about this example of what he considered particularly bad rowhouse facades located prominently at the corner of S. Charles Street and Fort Avenue. I am happy to put his case up for debate. On the face of it the architect was very contextual: There is use of the obligatory brick, the choice of brick even varies from house to house, the windows have mutins, the roof has some kind of cornice, what could possibly be wrong?

the new homes include the two story house in the foreground

Well, it turns out a lot. 

Windows that are too low relative to the height of the facade and look the same on all three levels, a front door that sits too low, lacking the typical Baltimore stoops and the elevated first floor that removes residents a bit from the sidewalk, an extremely skimpy cornice that carries straight across the three houses negating the variation suggested by the brick differences. The low first floor results in odd spacing that creates these massive areas of brick between the first and second floor on the two story house and between the third floor and the cornice on the three story houses. Then there is the total disrespect for the corner. At an end unit the typical Baltimore rowhouse wraps the cornice around the corner for a few feet at least, possibly places even a turret or other means to make the side facade more than a firewall with a few openings in it. The fixed, fake exterior shutters and the mutins (the fake glass dividers on the window sashes) are the final straws indicating suburban rather than urban design roots. 

(article continues below the images)

Proper rowhouse proportions and window sizes (Butchers Hill)

typical entry door treatment of the Baltimore rowhouse

corner rowhouse on McCulloh Ave. The cornice turns

Even this modest small two story rowhouse in East Baltimore shows the typical proportions of windows, brick, and cornice

another example of a proper cornice and how it turns at a corner

Everything above the designers could have discovered easily by looking up and down the same street and by taking contextual much more seriously. For a sales price just slight under a half million dollars one could expect special care in the design that goes beyond the obilagtory granite kitchen counters. Personally, I think that a new rowhouse should better not emulate the historic houses and be of its own time. It can still be contextual in shape, massing and scale.

Klaus Philipsen, FAIA

Below some of the design guideline language included in the New Baltimore City Zoning Code still under review by the City Council:

DESIGN STANDARDS
2 § 8-501. IN GENERAL.
3 (A) SCOPE.
4 DETACHED DWELLINGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF THIS SUBTITLE.
5 (B) ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS.
6 AN ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTION TO THESE STANDARDS CAN BE GRANTED AS
7 PROVIDED IN § 4-406 {“ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS”} OF THIS CODE.
8 § 8-502. FRONT FACADE.
9 THE FRONT ENTRY MUST BE A DOMINANT FEATURE ON THE FRONT ELEVATION OF A HOME. THE FRONT
10 ENTRY SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE STRUCTURE, USING FEATURES SUCH AS
11 PORCHES AND RAISED STEPS AND STOOPS WITH ROOF OVERHANGS OR DECORATIVE RAILINGS, TO
12 CREATE A PROTECTED ENTRY AREA AND ARTICULATE THE FRONT FACADE. WINDOWS AND OTHER
13 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE REQUIRED TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF BLANK WALLS FACING THE
14 STREET. {SEE FIGURE 8-502: ARTICULATED FRONT FACADE.}
15 § 8-503. SIDE FACADES.
16 SIDE FACADES DESIGNED AS BLANK WALLS ARE PROHIBITED. WINDOWS, SIDE ENTRANCES, OR OTHER
17 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE REQUIRED TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF BLANK WALLS FACING
18 NEIGHBORING HOMES. {SEE FIGURE 8-503: ARTICULATED SIDE FACADE.}
19 § 8-504. CORNER LOT FACADES.
20 HOUSES ON CORNER LOTS MUST VISUALLY ADDRESS BOTH STREET FRONTAGES. THE PRIMARY
FACADE
21 ON WHICH THE ENTRANCE TO THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED MUST INCLUDE THE FRONT ENTRY AS A
22 DOMINANT FEATURE AND BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 8-502 {“FRONT FACADE”} OF THIS
23 SUBTITLE. THE SECONDARY STREET-FACING FACADE MUST INCLUDE ARTICULATION, SUCH AS
24 WINDOWS, PORCHES, AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF A
BLANK

24 ROWHOUSE INFILL DEVELOPMENT MUST MATCH THE WINDOW PATTERN OF THE GROUP. {SEE
25 FIGURE 9-502(G): FRONT FACADE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.}
26 (I) FRONT ENTRANCE.
27 ROWHOUSE INFILL DEVELOPMENT MUST MAINTAIN THE RHYTHM OF FRONT ENTRANCES IN TERMS
28 OF SPACING WITHIN THE GROUP. {SEE FIGURE 9-502(G): FRONT FACADE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.}
29 (J) ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
30 (1) ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, SUCH AS PORCHES, STEPS AND STOOPS, CORNICES, AND BAY
31 WINDOWS, THAT ARE COMMON TO THE GROUP MUST BE INCLUDED AND MUST MATCH OR
32 COMPLEMENT THE DESIGN AND PLACEMENT OF THE GROUP.