North American examples of midrise and street width-heigh ratios / angular planes

[sparklite]

Hello everyone!

A colleague of mine directed me to this wonderful forum as he thought it might help me find answers to a question I have. I'm happy to be here, it is quite the community!

I'm doing some research into mid-rise buildings and I'm looking to find good North American examples (photos, reports, theory) of mid rise implementations -- say from five to eight storeys. If anyone has any thoughts or advice I'd very much apprecite it!

Also, beyond Allan Jacobs, is there any good theory out there about street width-to-heigh ratios? I'm trying to come up with some suggestions for a street that is 35m wide in regards to building height/massing.

Many thanks in advance,
Iain.

[Luca]

Most theories I've seen relate to minimal sunlight during winter but they seldom seem to take into account the climate/latitude of the place.

Also, I would argue that the more barren the streescape, the narrower, ceteris paribus, you'd want the spacing.

Lastly, it obvioudly depends on the nature of the building. Is it purely residential? is it a mixed-use or business district?

As for examples, I think there are a lot attractive historical precedents for mid-rise buildings in most Easter Seaboard US towns.

[sparklite]

Picture a mainstreet that has been taken over by strip malls with parking in front of buildings, building facades perpendicular to the road, etc. The idea is to find a way to introduce new development at a larger scale that keeps the retailing on the lower floor(s) and has residential uses above.

[Plan Man]

Not sure if you saw this re: mid-rise buildings from the City of Toronto:

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/midri...um.htm#summary

It has useful information particularly for implementation and the reality of mid-rise buildings.

In regard to building height to ROW width, 1:1 ratio (35 metre building for a 35 metre ROW) is typically the desired "urban" form. Anything between 1:1 and 1:2 is pretty good for urban areas. Suburban strip type development is typically in the 1:4 and above range. Obviously depends on the context in which one is working.

Hope this helps.

[Luca]

Given the plentiful sunlight and often hot weather in most of N. America, south of Canada/northernmost states, a Height to RoW ratio of 1.5:1 or even 2:1 should be acceptable. If you go on websites such as:

http://www.doverkohl.com/

http://www.dpz.com/projects.aspx

you'll find lots of proposals/projects that changed strip malls into somethig gapproaching civilization

[Monamogolo]

The standard in Egypt, which gets loads of (hot) sun is 1.5:1 as the ratio of building height to road width. On corners there can be complications - the ratio applies to the road onto which the building faces.

It can be varied depending on other circumstances - such as a park, open or permanently vacant area across the road. A storey here is considered to be 3 metres from florr to florr here.

Given the enormous pressure on built-up land here, the standard is frequently ignored, or varied, legally or illegally. Mixed use is the general rule - though not by "rule" (regulation).

[Streck]

I like the ratio 1 : 1.

It keeps the "topple-over" effect on one's property, and helps control inner city density (which we have obviously lost control of).

If your property is 310 feet square you could have a 10 foot square shaft 150 feet high.

Our stories are typically figured at 12 feet. Considering structure, air conditioning ducts, slope for drains, computer and power wiring duct requirements and working space around them.

[Luca]

Some rreally very attractive an avaluable lcoatiosn on the Mediterranean shoreline have much anrrower streets vs. buildign heights than that, close to 3:1 - 4:1.

Ax example of building taller than street is wide.



Also, it should depend on the street's orientation, for instance, Broadway's roughly N/S axis at the bottom of Mahattan means it gets plenty of light even with tall buildings