A parapet like that requires a stronger roof structure to account for the snow load, and I would guess wind load as well. I’m kind of surprised to see one that tall, but maybe in Washington DC snow loads aren’t a big concern.
I'm always torn about these types of facades. I know they have a long history, but something so exaggerated as faking a second story seems like it could be contrary to "real" place making.
In the absence of the conditions that would lead to the interesting urban element, this case, a two-story corner building, is faux place making (or maybe "performance-enhanced placemaking") better than nothing? Is it better to fake a second story than to make the most interesting one story building that would meet the needs of the tenants?
This is something I really struggle to endorse about New Urbanism, but I don't know that I have a good answer.
A parapet like that requires a stronger roof structure to account for the snow load, and I would guess wind load as well. I’m kind of surprised to see one that tall, but maybe in Washington DC snow loads aren’t a big concern.
I'm always torn about these types of facades. I know they have a long history, but something so exaggerated as faking a second story seems like it could be contrary to "real" place making.
In the absence of the conditions that would lead to the interesting urban element, this case, a two-story corner building, is faux place making (or maybe "performance-enhanced placemaking") better than nothing? Is it better to fake a second story than to make the most interesting one story building that would meet the needs of the tenants?
This is something I really struggle to endorse about New Urbanism, but I don't know that I have a good answer.