Press enter after choosing selection

Architects Favor Design Review-but Not City Ordinance

Architects Favor Design Review-but Not City Ordinance image
Parent Issue
Day
5
Month
February
Year
1973
Copyright
Copyright Protected
Rights Held By
Donated by the Ann Arbor News. © The Ann Arbor News.
OCR Text

Unanimous opposition to the proposed design review ordinance has been expressedi by 25 architects who attended a special meeting of the Huron Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. But local architects said they are strongly in favor of effective implementation of the design review process in Ann Arbor. The design review ordinance has been approved at first reading by City Council, and will be up for final action probably in March, after undergoing further review by city officials. A review of all city ordinances to simplify the city's legal framework was called for by U-M Architecture Prof. Harold Himes. "There are far too many. I am appalledi at 'the compiling of law uppn law." A similar idea was expressed by a representative of the Washtenaw Contractors Assoeiation. Contractors are opposed to passing any legislation until all groups concerned can sit down with the city officials and discuss the whole framework of planning and development, said Richard Brunvand, executive secretary. The assoeiation is not opposed to the concept of design review, he said. A letter has been sent to the mayor by Joseph O'Neal of the contractors assoeiation asking that a commission be formed to overhaul all the laws relating to building. Before any ordinance is passed a look should be taken at what planning ' means in the whole scheme of things, several architects said. They said they did not want another layer of government. A fear was expressed that the time for approval of a project would be lengthened further beyond a point which some already consider too long and discouraging to developers. This will just mean more development in the townships and less in the city, according to several irchitects. It was stated that City Council should also consider w h e t h e r effective implementation of the design review process requires the establishment of a separate review board or whether the intent. standaards and procedureoutlined in thei proposed ordinance should be built into the normal operations of the city Planning Department; The intent of design review, as stated in the proposed ordinance, was called laudable by William Werner, a member of an AIA study committee. But Werner said architects do not agree that the creation of a separate dei sign review board, advisory to the ning Commission and concerned primarily with qualitative and aesthetic aspects of design, is an effective method for implementing the design review process. "The creative design of buildings cannot logically and neatly be fragmented into two ddstinct packages: "1) A functional package concerned with land coverage, setbacks and building height, which is reviewed by the planning staff ; and "2) An aesthetic package concerned with all aspects of the qualitative impact of the proposed building on its occupants, the public, surrounding buildings and open spaces, to be reviewed by a separate design review board. "Such fragmentation of the design process is illogical and would be totally foreign to competent design professionals. The functional and ' qualitative aspects of design are inseparable," according to Werner, who has been working on a study committee of AIA on the ordinance. Werner recommended that the review process already existing in the city Planning Department be expanded to include i those facets of design mentioned in the proposed ordinance under design standards and criteria. "We believe that complete review by members of the professional planning staff, competent in the area of design, is ' a more logical and effective assignment of the design review function. "The Huron Valley Chapter of the AIA is strongly in favor of effective implementation of the design review process in Ann Arbor. We would not like to see this process complicated and weakened by assigning the responsibility for review to a separate board which would be created by this proposed ordinance."

Article

Subjects
Ann Arbor News
Old News