Traditional neighborhoods and modern architecture

April 26, 2008 at 6:11 pm 5 comments

Scott Greider, over on his personal blog, quotes a portion of the San Jose historic design guidelines that addresses the role of modern architecture in older neighborhoods. (If you’re adventurous, you can download the entire 95-page PDF.)

What does San Jose say? It says, “Bring it on”:

Rather than imitating older buildings, a new design should relate to the traditional design characteristics of a neighborhood while also conveying the stylistic trends of today. New construction may do so by drawing upon some basic building features — such as the way in which a building is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street and its basic mass, form and materials — rather than applying detailing which may or may not have been historically appropriate. When these design variables are arranged in a new building to be similar to those seen traditionally in the area, visual compatibility results. Therefore, it is possible to be compatible with the historic context while also producing a design that is distinguishable as being newer.

A modern-style home can be a wonderfully contrasting complement to a historic neighborhood. It certainly beats decay and vacant lots, and it also beats a hundred suburban neo-Colonials with three-car garages in front.

I can’t say the modern home above is my style, but frankly, plenty of older, classical homes aren’t my style, either.

The style of the structure is not the main point. Urbanism is site plan more than architecture. If you bring the house close to the sidewalk, put the parking or garage in the back and make the front wall permeable (that is, not a blank wall), you are strengthening a neighborhood, no matter the style of architecture.

— photo of modern townhouse in Lincoln Park, Ill., by Scott Greider on Flickr


Entry filed under: Architecture, city culture, Jon Swerens, Neighborhoods, Urbanism. Tags: , , .

10 reasons cities are works of art “WHO-O-O is it?”


  • 1. David Sucher  |  April 26, 2008 at 7:16 pm


  • 2. john b. kalb  |  April 28, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    Jon and Scott – The photo could be a “future shot” of the southern end buildings on the Broadway block – with some work. It sure would fit in.

  • 3. Michael Bates  |  April 30, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    So this is really more of a conservation district, where the focus is consistency of building plan, than a historic preservation district, where the focus is on consistency of exterior appearance and detail.

  • 4. Fitness is about symmetry « Emergent Urbanism  |  May 2, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    […] could be made to fit with the museum and South Kensington in general. To support this they link to this Good City post on traditional neighborhoods and modern architecture, which argues that the only thing necessary […]

  • 5. jerremy scots  |  May 14, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    but if you follow the neighborhood architecture and not be allowed to create “new” homes, how will you define 21st century architecture?


But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. Jeremiah 29:7

Proprietor: Jon Swerens. Contact TGC. Read the comments policy.

Recent Comments

Story feed


%d bloggers like this: