Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb
I get the reasoning behind having the gravel/sand in the courtyard. They want it to be an authentic experience. But I agree with the poster that said it would not be good for it to blow into the chapel.
Couldn't they just use large pavers that look/feel like sand on the surface? You get the look without the dust storms.
|
I agree with you--when looking at this design, you can very much see the intent of the designers with the glass and the dirt. It's an interesting concept, but in my opinion, it shows a lack of understanding of the realities of Central Texas, day-to-day wear and tear and the connection with the overall neighborhood...
What I Like:
-NO MORE RIPLEY'S
-The in-ground glass showing the original walls underground. It gives a great sense of place to the original bounds of the Alamo in an authentic way
-ROOFTOP RESTAURANT!
What I Don't Like:
-Dirt Plaza--this will create a sandstorm and/or mud. Not practical.
-Glass barrier wall--unnecessary given the in-ground glass showing the original walls. To me, that is enough. The glass unnecessarily walls off the area instead of creating connectivity to the neighborhood. Plus, this will get dirty as heck with grubby hands against it, said dirt/mud blowing, etc. Not practical
-Fake river--again, I get the intent, but it just feels manufactured to me and is another way to bar connectivity to the plaza.
-NO TREES!--no trees in the barren plaza tells me that these designers never visited San Antonio in the summer... It's going to become a sauna!
I did some research and did not realize the Alamo was so named because of a huge grove of cottonwood trees on the site. "Alamo" means cottonwood in Spanish (according to Google). If the aim of this redevelopment is to put back a sense of authenticity to the place, then making a tree-less, dirt plaza is not representative of that vision. Just my two cents!!!
It's definitely an improvement, but let's hope it's a work in progress!!!
Threaded Mode