So I was reading through the above thread and decided it would make a good lunchtime design exercise. As always you learn a lot by putting pencil to paper(mouseclicks to aerial photography). I am certainly no landscape architect and my quick sketch solution isn't very refined, it did however get the wheels turning so to speak.
Observations:
+The current path pushes pedestrians north past the storefronts on the plaza, where a more direct path from bridge to bridge would align with the southern less desirable shaded sidewalk. This would also force another road crossing for the majority of users.
+Pushing people north creates a large flat open field for frisby, yoga, other yuppster activities, a more direct path would bisect this space and perhaps limit its ability to host more active uses. For the record, I think this is exactly wherethose types of activities were designed to go and exactly where you want those activities to occur.
Design Challenges:
+What becomes of the current path if a more direct one is added.
+Can active uses be accommodated elsewhere if the field is bisected.
+How does one balance shelter and safety, ex: by moving the path away from the hill one might want to create a sense of enclosure by planting trees/bosque etc however trees might make the area feel less safe(more rape-y)
+Does one continue hardscape for the entire width off the plaza, frankly that is just a ton of pavers/crushed gravel/whatever. A formally ordered landscape might conflict with the organic/natural feel oif the rest of the park. Anything less might just feel cheap and arbitrary.
+How is the space programmed, by who. For example the plaza often feels underutilized except when there are events(fashion show) etc. Even more so now that the water feature was removed.
Finally if all if the above is met with success your path will still run directly into the wall at the base of the bridge stairs, damn detour again.
I do think that a direct path is the way to go but it didn't take long working on the problem to see some oif the reasons that it ended up that way. Also in defense of the original designers, I would add that although my memory of the timeline is can bit fuzzy I think the bridges came after the park. Also, highland was not nearly the same place it is today.
Anyways, kinda fun, although I have now probably spent more time typing this up than I spent drawing at lunch. I wonder if anyone would sponsor a design competition, East West, Riverfront Park, PlatteForum, UC Denver SAP, etc as a way to create dialog and spur future change?
Wait, is this the transportation thread, sorry Cirrus
Prev
Nobody is saying he's wrong, I think we all agree with him. We just generally have no patience for folks -architects in particular - who go out of their way to try to sound smart and deep and sophisticated. It's part of the reason why the entire profession of architecture has become a bit of a joke - they try too hard. Even when being simple and pragmatic is in vogue, like it is these days, architect-types have to find the least pragmatic way to be pragmatic.
Linear Mode
