Arcades vs Awnings

BostonUrbEx

BostonUrbEx

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
4,340
Reaction score
127
For a good urbanism point of view, are arcades better than awnings over a sidewalk? Awnings tend to be interrupted with gaps, or perhaps don't reach very far over a sidewalk. It seems many places also remove them in the winter. However, arcades may not allow for trees. I'm not sure if the average person would feel that an arcade would be overbearing, or "trapping" them in.

Of course, for a developer, an arcade means they can have even more square footage as they can bump the upper levels out over the sidewalk, but I just want to know what is generally regarded as best for the pedestrian.
 
From my personal view point, I would walk under awnings and trees rather than arcades. More DTX less Gov't Center. I also find that I tend to walk on the outside of arcades when given the option. Arcades also seem to hide the retail/restaurants. Awnings seem to push them out to you, and announce the places.

What we don't have more of, is atriums. What are your thoughts on those? When I say atrium, I mean like a covering over DTX, but rather than making it indoors, the roof is 4-5 stories up and the entry ways are still very fluid.
 
They're both very common in Australia, the difference being that arcades often extend over the entire sidewalk and usually have very slim columns, making them seem less like part of a main facade. Awnings tend to be flat and line up with one another continuously. I'm surprised these methods haven't caught on elsewhere; it keeps pedestrians shielded almost completely from the elements (provided we're not talking about sideways rain or wind) along the entire length of a sidewalk. The only real downside is aesthetic:

smith-street_fitzroy-collingwood-border.jpg
 
The BPD HQ in Roxbury is the prime example of a decent arcade. It's just too bad that there are no public functions along the arcade.
 
^ Truth! Great exception.
 
From a pedestrian standpoint, there really isn’t any benefit to one or the other that is applicable across the board in every instance. And the same thing goes for urban design generally, usually there are no absolutes, just what works best in a particular context. However, that being said, my thoughts on this interesting issue are as follows:

American arcades in my experience are for whatever reason a product of the south, particularly New Orleans. They work well there, and are part of the brand in many respects. They exist in other areas, too, but I always think of New Orleans when I see them (that or a form-based codes presentation, where they also seem to pop up with some degree of regularity). In the north, you don’t see them that often. If you did, they might work, but I’m not sure they would ‘fit.’ People might associate their look with building construction or something. We usually associate great urban ways with broad and open sidewalks in the north. Are there exceptions? Probably, but I don’t know of any.

An arcade might keep the elements of one’s head in inclement weather, but the same is true of a mall. And they also keep the sun off of pedestrians (not appropriate in the north, perhaps appropriate in the deep south or Mediterranean atmospheres, etc.).

Then there is the issue of building over the sidewalk. I don’t think this is what occurs, instead I think the sidewalk is brought into the first floor footprint. Otherwise, the right to use the public right-of-way airspace would have to be acquired, which may occur in some instances and not in others, causing a punctuated arcade-way, which would be unattractive in my opinion.

Bottom line is both work well, in the right context. More important things for pedestrians are elements of structural design like fenestration, orientation, sidewalk width, street trees, street furniture, etc., also all dependent on context. It’s more of an art, less of a science.

Edit, after reading this I realized the question was more specific to arcades v. awnings. I think from a functional standpoint, arcades are better than awnings, but awnings are hardly ever used today for a functional purpose (to keep rain out); instead, they are the mark of a retail space. Very rarely are awnings actually used for a purpose other than aesthetics. (think of Applebees, where there are awnings over the windows fronting on the landscaped areas....). Bottom line is that urbanism requires people, and people go where they feel more comfortable....whether that's a place with awnings or arcades probably is anyone's guess and probably varies widely.
 
Keeping the sun off pedestrians is plenty appropriate here in the north. It does get quite hot in the summer, y'know.
 
Matthew said:
Keeping the sun off pedestrians is plenty appropriate here in the north. It does get quite hot in the summer, y'know.
Click to expand...

In that case, you've answered the question. If we presume the premise that keeping the sun off people is important in the north--but only in the "pretty hot" summer--is a correct one, then the logical conclusion is that awnings (which are retractable for the winters, which can get pretty cold y'know) are better. That way, the sun can shine when needed, and be avoided when appropriate. An arcade doesn't allow this flexibility.
 
I thought of that, but also you may have to keep the awnings open to protect against the rain and snow.
 
Matthew said:
I thought of that, but also you may have to keep the awnings open to protect against the rain and snow.
Click to expand...

In that case, what about spring and fall. In spring, you don't need awnings for snow (we hope), and you don't want them for sun, so retracting them is useful. In fall, you don't need them for snow, and you don't want them for shade. So there is half the year (at least), where being permanently shaded is not an important consideration. Of course, in the summer, shade is helpful and in the winter protection from snow is useful, and both purposes are better served by an arcade than an awning (arcades cover more area typically). However, it is my anecdotal observation that even in the hottest of summer days, people enjoy being in the sun, even if only for a brief time outside. Then again, we have long winters. I don't know the answer as to which is better for urbanism, and would go further and say that I don't think there is a right answer to this. I don't think the effect on people on the street would be anything large enough to detect, at least in a Boston climate.
 
I find that most people gravitate towards shaded areas, unless they're sunbathing, or not really walking. It's the difference between being mildly uncomfortable and being drenched in sweat.

I get a little leery of grand plans for broad, sunny boulevards and plazas for that reason. There seems to be an obsession in this town against the idea of buildings casting a shadow; watching the BRA force architects to do shadow studies is quite funny. Or seeing residents stand up and insist on large setbacks because "it encourages walking" (somehow).

But I agree there is no right answer for arcades vs awnings, and variety is the best anyway.
 
Matthew said:
I find that most people gravitate towards shaded areas, unless they're sunbathing, or not really walking. It's the difference between being mildly uncomfortable and being drenched in sweat.

I get a little leery of grand plans for broad, sunny boulevards and plazas for that reason. There seems to be an obsession in this town against the idea of buildings casting a shadow; watching the BRA force architects to do shadow studies is quite funny. Or seeing residents stand up and insist on large setbacks because "it encourages walking" (somehow).

But I agree there is no right answer for arcades vs awnings, and variety is the best anyway.
Click to expand...

You may be right, and the good things is that because we have been building cities for 6,000 years, someone somewhere has probably intentionally observed the walking habits of people. I don't personally tend toward shady areas, I avoid them--even on sunny days--but maybe others act differently. True, if I worked in construction, I would choose a shady area on my lunch break, but working inside an office all day makes me seek out the sun.

I share your discontent over the aggravation about shadows in Boston and everywhere, but what I've come to learn is that (1) this is just a product of development, and won't change absent some sort of upfront design based ordinance (form based code, or something that uses the same charrette process), and (2) it may be a good thing if people complain about shadows or any aspect of new development, because it means the place is worth caring about. They may not share your or my vision for the future of development projects, but they care about what's already there, and that matters most, even if it's less exciting because we know it. In places where NIMBYs don't exist, no one wants to be there. Would City Center in Las Vegas get built in Boston? Probably not. But would you want to reside in Las Vegas? And of the (many) people who do reside there, how many do so by choice versus by necessity (economic)? That's the real issue to examine.

I'm writing from Portland, which is just as bad if not worse than Boston when it comes to shadows and NIMBYs in general (and I'm on the planning board, so I know), but at the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and efforts should be focused on deciding what that opinion is BEFORE a project is proposed, so that consensus as to what is acceptable can be achieved, and meaningful projects proposed/built, instead of hassling everyone with back end review that results in a project less than satisfactory to all involved.

What does this have to do with awnings? Nothing really, I should have stopped I read that variety is best anyway, because you summed it up well with that point and not much further needed to be said. That's what cities are all about, and that's what makes them interesting. Now, had the question been which is better, awnings or video game arcades, I think there would be a definite answer.
 
For what it's worth, I tend to walk along Mass Ave. quite often on my commute and I've always appreciated the arcade along the Church Park apartment building in hot or rainy weather. Although that building itself is set back a ridiculous distance from the road (and that definitely does not encourage walking there).
 
Just wait for winter - everyone will be on the sunny side of the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top