HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-17 Public Comment - B. Caldwell, ThinkTank Architects - UDC Update, Design GuidelinesFrom:Jeff Krauss
To:Agenda; Robin Crough
Subject:Fwd: Chapter 5 / Why the Lark would not satisfy the proposed guidelines
Date:Thursday, August 24, 2017 2:44:26 PM
Attachments:grand view_design by code is a bust.pdfATT00001.htmeast side_design by code is a bust.pdfATT00002.htmentry_design by code is a bust.pdfATT00003.htm
Please print this out
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Brian Caldwell" <brian@thinktankarchitects.com>To: "Jeff Krauss" <Jkrauss@BOZEMAN.NET>, "Chris Mehl" <CMehl@BOZEMAN.NET>, "Carson Taylor"<CTaylor@BOZEMAN.NET>, "Cyndy Andrus" <CAndrus@BOZEMAN.NET>, "I-Ho Pomeroy"<IPomeroy@BOZEMAN.NET>Cc: "Tom Rogers" <TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET>, "Martin Matsen" <MMatsen@BOZEMAN.NET>Subject: Chapter 5 / Why the Lark would not satisfy the proposed guidelines
Greetings All,
I would like to write the commission in regard to the design guidelines proposed for the city of Bozeman as a whole. I
believe with each project we have designed the best building we can financially afford while trying to be a leader in
sustainability, design merit, and creating vitality to downtown.
The bland results of the prescriptive design standards proposed in chapter 5 are misplaced and are trying to solve a
problem that does not exist.
Why do we need to have 13 foot floor heights? So a future uses can have heating and cooling? What about flexible
crawl space to allow for change in use. It does not always have to come from the top.
We need to focus on the intent of this document and add additional departures so we are not left with boring buildings
that might someday get the attention and remodeling that could have been included in the first place.
The intent and the ability to provide alternate designs should be included in the document. Please add more arrows
throughout the document.
If you push a bad idea back and forth every 30-40’ ,it’s still a bad idea. The design standards are intended to create a
false historicism that is not what your community visioning documents call for.
Adorning a bad idea with a window every 15;’ is still a bad idea. The blank wall standard is redundant and should be
removed. Sometimes a wall can be the best on its own. Trying to provide a set standard will preclude almost all of the
designs of the best architects in this town.
This will result in less interesting buildings and make future Bozeman more like any ware USA / Boise. I welcome the
opportunity to provide a tour of our current projects and show you all first had how design does not exist in a paint by
numbers planning document.
The Lark Addition will be recognized nationally for the design merits and how it is made. Just wait and see.
Sincerely,
Brian Caldwell
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I have provided the reason why the Lark would not be allowable under the proposed design guidelines.
The Lark Addition:
Entry way to the lark is not recessed. It sticks out to mark entry. The intent is the same, the code would not allow the
design .
The materials for the entire project would not conform with the provisions of the code. We wanted to celebrate the use
of wood. Not allowed.
The attached images have a number key that highlights how this project would be critiqued under the proposed design
standards in chapter 5.
1. The use of wood
2. The use of metal
3. The blank wall issue is a bust.
4. The percentage of glass
5. Having rooms on the ground floor
6. Patio spaces on the ground floor
7. The plaza on the front of the building
8. the floor heights of the building
9. The length of walls without articulation
10. landscaping design
11. the roof line would be a bust
12. entry not recessed-
13. pedestrian experience
Thank you for taking the time to consider these concerns that I have regarding the proposed design standards.
Sincerely,
Brian Caldwell
www.thinktankarchitects.com
The information contained in this e-mail transmittal is confidential, may be subject to the thinktank-clientprivilege and is intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the reader is not the intendedrecipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this information to the intended recipient,you are notified that this is not a waiver of privilege and any dissemination, distribution or copying of thisinformation is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmittal in error, please immediately notifythe sender by telephone, and return this transmittal to the sender, by U. S. Postal Service, at the addressabove. Thank you.
5
11 2
1
2
5
12
3
8 9
7
12
3
4
3
11
2
1
85
9 11
10
412
13
63
47
1
2
3