As Iām not a planner by profession, I would not presume to suggest how a developer should be approached in a way consistent with you keeping your job š.
However, Iāve spent (wasted?) a lot of time reading, researching and thinking about the objective aspects of aesthetics, especially as they apply to the built environment. These are my humble thoughts about some considerations that could be adduced in your (or any) case.
- Scale
- Relief of mass (Danās shadow lines, IMO< fall within this category)
- Legibility
- Regularity
- Fenestration
- Exterior material
- Civility
I donāt want to burden the forum with a massive post, though Iād be happy to comment as to each of these characteristics.
Instead, Iāll run through two examples of buildings I would categorise as UGLY and BEAUTIFUL.
UGLY (courtesy of āEyesore of the Monthā
The scale of this building is moderate and domestic, overall (5/5). The flattish, undistinguished surface of the street aspect offers no relief of mass, the only effect being achieved through the steepish stairs with lumpy ābalustradeā (1/5). The front door is legible only from rather near, thanks to devices like the number, post-box, etc. (all reduced by the apparent desire to camouflage them all in beige). The weird bunker-slit band window and equally odd mini-window(on the first floor) with accompanying, inexplicable panelling, plus those thin channels that do not mark the bottom of the raised first floor as well as the very high concrete basement make this building look like it was designed by someone on LSD trying to draw a normal house (1/5). The aforementioned elements negate regularity and the amount of fenestration appears to minimise natural light (1/5). The exterior material appears quite cheap but one canāt be sure (2/5). This house presents to the street an aspect that would be shameful in a hidden, rear court, a gas meter waiting to be driven into, etc. 0/5).
BEAUTIFUL
Though smaller than adjacent buildings, this edifice is not dwarfed by them and as such introduces graceful variation. Further, the proportions are close to golden ratios (5/5). Despite being essentially a box with no grand articulation, the relief of mass is exemplary including a clear ground vs. 1st floor difference in cladding, arched and framed windows, a very demure cornice, etc. (5/5). The asymmetric entrance (often programmatically useful in such small buildings) is clearly eligible. However, if you were approaching from the East) left of the picture) it might not be immediately evident that this is a separate building as opposed to the gothic courts one next door (4/5). There is great regularity in the vertical module albeit with the graceful but not distracting variation of the treble window in the middle of the North aspect (5/5). Fenestration is plentiful, suitable for this site and location (5/5). The exterior materials are London stock brick and Portland stone, which are pleasant, durable, matching the vernacular, etc. (5/5). What a pretty building, with an open, frank face to the outside, nice planting and an old gaslight. Domestic in scale despite its institutional purpose (5/5).
