Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
What's labeled Street 3 used to continue the whole length of the development, and now is only accessible to cars for one block.
|
I believe that is a grade issue: that upper northeast corner is on a really pretty severe slope overall, because the site is rising up significantly both eastwise and northwise there. In fact the grade on Crawford shifts up notably as you move along Centre north past Wylie, and again past Webster. So personally, I have no problem with cars not being able to bisect that particular area along the path of Street 3, since it isn't really necessary for greater connectivity (Street 3 would terminate anyway at Centre and Bedford).
Quote:
|
And the pedestrian pathway at A replaced a former road connection. I'm not sure why Webster Avenue couldn't have been continued through Street 4 as well.
|
Same basic answer, I believe. There is a big drop in elevation between Crawford and Street 2. I think they are already going to have carve Street 3 a bit into the hill, and I think the path marked A is going to have a pretty big drop from the alley portion accessible from Crawford down to Street 3. I think that transition is likely going to be steps/ramps--that was indicated in the application for a TIGER grant, and it looks to me like those sections with two brown paths on either side of a green median are representative of steps/ramps areas.
And I believe it is again the same issue with Path C between the alley portion across from Webster and Street 4. That is going to be a big elevation drop, with steps/ramps. In fact I think that little square at the end of Street 4 will have steps coming up from Wylie, and then steps coming down from both Bedford and Webster. It looks like there is again an alley off Bedford (for parking under the northeasternmost apartment block I would guess), then alleys from the square for access to the lower portions of the townhouse complex (the upper portions getting access from the Crawford alley).
Quote:
|
Overall the plan has a lot of green space - IMHO a bit too much given the location close to downtown. I can understand the appeal of central green courtyards coupled with apartment complexes, and I can understand the three different blocks reserved for green space, but together they seem like a bit of an overkill.
|
The central open spaces are more or less inevitable given the size of the blocks, but it could be something more like Sky Vue where those are elevated openings on top of a base.
And I actually wonder if that is the plan--trying to figure out parking, I think it basically has to have more parking we are not seeing under D and B, either side of A, and either side of Street 4. And it looks to me like there is possible access to such parking off Street 1 for D, off Street 2 for B, off Street 3 for south of A, off the alley for north of A, off Street 2 for north of Street 4, and off Street 4 for south of Street 4. So many or all of those may be more like green roofs over parking than surface-level open spaces. For that matter, maybe E too--there is a garage above grade, but also what could be access to some underground parking off Street 1 and Street 2.
The cap park has to be mostly open space, since that is not going to support the weight of buildings (at least not without a MUCH higher cost than just a cap park). So I think the remaining question is whether they really need both a "civic open space" and a "community open space". That's sort of a judgment call in urban design.
Personally, I'd probably give up the "civic open space" for another mixed-use block. And maybe that can in fact be revisited down the road when they get around to that portion of the development.
Prev
Linear Mode
