What is character ?

Throughout our urban design practice at Deicke Richards, we have been asked to identify the character of places and demonstrate how new developments may respond to and express this character. Usually, the developments planned for are a response to changes in planning intent for localities and be different in use and scale, (and therefore character) hence the need for guidance. Issues often addressed are the densification of historic detached house residential areas or industrial areas with multi-level multiple dwellings, and medium to high-rise apartments or mixed-use buildings in or near low scale urban centres. An essential challenge is how to make bigger and lumpier buildings fit in with groupings of smaller buildings within a more fine grained urbanism.

My conclusion over many years is is that character is not easy to define. With one guidelines project many years ago, I began to think of the number of ways that character could be understood and I chose five as it seemed clear to me that character is not defined by one thing. All can contribute to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the nature of the place and each person's view of the world. These criteria recognise that character is partly informed by quantifiable and rational thinking, but is also nuanced and emotive, based on perceptions and community preferences. Additionally, the criteria are not mutually reinforcing.

Historical Context

Historical context often seen as the primary or only determinant of character, concerning the quantum of buildings from a particular time that exhibit similar characteristics of a well understood style. This can be a result of significant economic and population growth during a particular time, like a gold rush. This a useful proposition and good starting point. It is easy to record and quantify, and conclusions can be observed about patterns of scale and form, placement of buildings on the site, street and neighbour relationships, built form and landscape relationships, facade proportions and articulation, and materials and colours.

But historical 'styles' are not uniform and change over time creating a richness of the urban environments. So when defining character, how do you reconcile Edwardian buildings compared to Victorian or Art Deco buildings when they are all represented in a locality? Even the 'Queenslander' has a diverse range of 'styles' though time.

Urban Context

Often the proposed new and higher density development patterns are similar to other more urbanised parts of localities. The question is whether the character of houses can form the guidance for the new development, or whether the character of more urban buildings in the locality can inform new design responses. We have sometimes used examples of higher density buildings in the town centre to how what may be possible in a more densified residential areas. Brisbane has fine examples of traditional multiple dwellings in inner urban areas like New Farm and West End.

Design for Climate

Designers with a strong commitment to sustainability believe that character results from thoughtful and considered response to local climatic factors. Character is not something contrived or consciously envisaged, but arises unselfconsciously through this appropriate design approach. There are an emerging number of guidance documents on design for climate and I applaud them. But I do not think design for climate alone is enough to define character.

One issue with designing for climate is that some advocates are suspicious of urbanism and are transfixed with orientation of buildings. Rooms trump places as the primary determinant of design. A northern orientation of a long narrow building from is more important than western orientation, even if the street is on the west. A western orientation means that the street runs north south. These can be great urban streets, especially for main streets, with one side having morning sun and the other side afternoon sun and the street is always sunny throughout the year at lunchtime.

According to this logic, when the grid is rotated from north, like Brisbane or Darwin (below), buildings are just is angled to the street. A sustainable building then does not need to define and activate the public realm, a fundamental characteristic of responsible urban buildings (and urban sustainability).

Cultural Context

Within the field of landscape architecture, constructed landscapes in all urban and non urban areas are referred to as cultural landscapes. I find this to be an insightful observation and a profound idea. The making of historic landscapes is a process of decision making based on cultural preferences and actions, not necessarily trying to recreate a natural landscape, with endemic vegetation.

One of the most interesting examples of a cultural landscape for me are jacaranda trees, a tree that helps define the distinct character of Brisbane. However jacaranda trees are extensively grown in Sydney. The regional NSW town of Grafton has jacaranda tree lined streets (planted by a german) with a Jacaranda Festival each year. There are jacarandas throughout Southern California in San Diego and Los Angeles, and Florida, and they can also be found in Bhutan. But jacarandas are not native to any of these places, but to Brazil. This strikes me as an important aspect of character. It is not the jacaranda itself that defines the character, but the fact our collective conscious believes it does. We own it, but it is not unique to us.

Similarly, the Australian flag is the flag as there is community understanding and agreement that this is so, despite the Ausflag campaign to change it. I like to use one of the Ausflag alternates on the graphic, wondering if I presented this work in the USA, they would pick this up.

Cultural context and community choices overlay with the historical context. Personal or community preferences can deem some historical styles to be more important than other historical styles. Are Edwardian buildings, Victorian or Art Deco buildings the most important and why are post war buildings usually held in little regard? Some historical buildings can capture the imagination of a community and be seen as a representations of the character of the place, so consultation is an important spect of defining character. But this is choice and agreement, not based on rational evidence.

Many years ago at an urban design conference, I recall a presentation that argued that (neo) classicism was the architecture of urbanism and classical architecture is regularly assumed to be the architecture that best represents beauty. Indeed, a world renowned urban designer and architect has been quoted as saying that 'the orders are the genetic material of architecture' This is something based on personal preference rather than a more rational analysis. I have no issue with this so long as it is declared as such.

Natural Context

The forms, colours and textures of the landscape can be a source of significant design inspiration. I still remember the rationale for the remarkable Bagsvaard Church in Copenhagen by Joern Utzon. In a beautiful drawing, he explained the curved concrete ceiling was a metaphor of the clouds in the sky over the flat Danish landscape. I still find this profound.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagsv%C3%A6rd_Church)

Colours of the earth, rocks shells, distinctive local land forms and vegetation, bracing against the wind, can be strong design influences. In one mining town, I suggested that the shapes of the machinery in local industries could be important for local character.

So, character for me is a rich and nuanced concept, that requires ongoing conversations and agreements. These five criteria have been a useful for me to inform these discussions in my work at Deicke Richards.