Finding the Right Combination : Design: San Diego’s two newest downtown residential projects show much promise but still have shortcomings. Developers and architects have more homework to do.

Two new downtown residential projects show that the architecture and planning of recent downtown housing is improving, but developers and architects still have a long way to go.

Greystone (the name was recently changed from Marina Court) is a seven-story, $4-million mixed-use project that opened last month at the southeast corner of Market Street and 3rd Avenue. The building includes 37 single- and multilevel loft-style units, with rents ranging from $775 to $1,690 a month.

Watermark, a $35-million, 96-unit project that opened last weekend, is the newest downtown condominium project, situated on a block bounded by Market, G, India and Columbia Streets. At four stories, it’s not a high-rise, but the prices are tall: $195,000 to $615,000 for 1,056 to 1,782 square feet.

The best thing about Greystone, designed by San Diego-based Austin Hansen Group, is that the first floor will be occupied by businesses, including a Cajun restaurant, a real estate office, an antique shop and a clothing store.

Centre City Development Corp., the city of San Diego’s downtown redevelopment division, has been promoting such mixed-use projects since the early 1980s as a means of increasing pedestrian traffic. Developers are allowed to dedicate up to 20% of a residential building’s space to commercial uses.

But in the Marina district south of Broadway, where most of the newest downtown housing has been built, few businesses are established and pedestrian traffic is light, so developers have been slow to take a chance with business space in their residential buildings.

In many cases, developers’ fears were justified. The Meridian, a 172-unit luxury condo tower on Front Street, opened in 1985 but still has empty ground-floor commercial space. Market Street Square, a 192-unit apartment complex at G Street and 3rd Avenue, completed in 1987, also has empty street-level commercial space. And 600 Front, a 180-unit apartment project that opened at G and Front streets in 1988, was to include ground-floor retail, but developers changed their minds and used the entire building for residences.

The fact that Greystone has already been able to lease most of its ground-level space is encouraging. Four storefronts along a courtyard behind the building are zoned for live-work, intended for artists and others who want to run businesses out of their urban homes. For the moment, these spaces are leased to businesses, but the flexible live-work option is a tool that could attract more activity to the ground floors of buildings.

Although Greystone is conceptually exciting, its design leaves much to be desired. The shops along Market Street are difficult to see. The display windows are set back from the street, partly hidden behind wide brick pilasters. Also, the shops are a few feet below street level, which makes them even less visible.

Greystone’s exterior is an awkward blend of stucco over concrete, glass, brick and harsh steel-framed balconies that look like cages or fire escapes.

This building’s most exciting architectural event is the corner at 3rd and Market. Pale gray stucco walls wrap this corner with bold curves. Corner balconies thrust out at aggressive angles, heightening the visual drama.

But, after calling attention to this important corner with design gestures, the architects didn’t follow through with an inviting street-level entry. Instead, a small, plain glass door leads to an elevator lobby.

Inside, too, Greystone is a big disappointment. The idea of loft living on two or three levels sounds exciting, but the spaces within Greystone are basic boxes, with nothing special in the way of window treatments, nice hardware or finish details. There is no air conditioning, and, since some floors have only small operable windows, tenants may be in for long, hot summers.

The developers might argue that these spaces are lofts, not luxury condos. They are intended to be blank canvasses that tenants will use to splash excitement and color by their own interior designs. But, with most units renting for more than $1,000 per month, you would expect to find more thoughtful detailing.

Perhaps most annoying for a building with such lofty rents is the fact that Greystone is poorly constructed. Overhead pipes are exposed within the lofts and hallways--an acceptably funky idea in old downtown loft buildings, but unnecessary clutter for a new building. The edges of the concrete slabs that support the building’s balconies are already pitted and crumbly. Cheap-looking sheet-metal vent covers give a scrap yard look to the building’s south side.

By contrast, details are the strong suit at Watermark. Designed by Lorimer Case Architects of San Diego, the building is urbane, capturing much of the flavor of old brownstone apartments in New York and other older cities.

Compared with the Park Row and Marina Park condominiums just across G Street, completed in the early 1980s during the first wave of redevelopment housing downtown, Watermark is much friendlier to pedestrians.

Both earlier projects rest atop parking structures that heighten their isolation from nearby sidewalks. Watermark comes right to the sidewalk, creating a cozier urban streetscape.

Density is another significant difference between Watermark and its predecessors, noted Max Schmidt, CCDC’s vice president for planning and engineering.

Park Row was built at a density of 35 units per acre and Marina Park at 50; Watermark came in at 100 units. While the word “density” carries negative connotations for some people, it is a plus in this case. The greater the concentration of people living downtown in any area, the greater will be the level of pedestrian activity on nearby streets. And increased pedestrian activity leads to a greater sense of security, which makes downtown a better place for everyone.

However, Watermark’s security-conscious design is a disappointment. There are two main entrances, on Columbia and India, plus two entrances for the exclusive use of first-floor homeowners on G and Market. Most of the homes at Watermark are reached by conventional interior corridors.

Direct access to first-floor homes might seem a security risk, but such increased pedestrian traffic might actually make the building more secure.

In lieu of such access, the developers might have incorporated some first-floor businesses, but they elected to go 100% residential.

Yet Watermark still does a better job than earlier projects at creating visual links to the surrounding sidewalks.

A sizeable landscaped courtyard facing G Street offers a pleasant vignette to outsiders. Balconies all around the building heighten the interplay between residents and pedestrians, allowing them, at least sometimes, to see each other. And the building’s well-designed peripheral public spaces help it mesh with the adjacent linear park, King Promenade, the elaborate urban design/landscape project being constructed along Harbor Drive.

By CCDC estimates, downtown’s resident population now stands at about 12,000. The point at which there will be sufficient foot traffic, especially on week nights, to support a much greater array of businesses, is considered to be about 50,000. For the foreseeable future, developers may be expected to be cautious when it comes to incorporating street-level access to apartments and condominiums, and street-level businesses on the ground floor of residential projects.

But developers and architects can make an important contribution to the revitalization of downtown through more thoughtful, inventive design of new residential buildings, especially at the street level.