It seems like this most recent discussion came about because of the recent CDRC results/non-results and the general lack of any enthusiasm for the present plans. I have often dismissed the CDRC process as useless and have wondered how the City could ever constitute a meaningful design oversight process, but this discussion got me thinking-----maybe a even less then perfect process might be able to raise the design bar by even a couple points, maybe it could help create an environment where good design was regularly talked about and bad design or just a lack of even caring (such as PMC) would be harder to just ignore. (I agree that the idea that a small panel can decide what is good design for the whole City seems like an impossible dream. But I would guess that other large cities have tried to deal with this)
By the way, I don't agree that good design always has to costs more, no more then I believe that any building that costs more then average means its a good design. Friends I have who are architects have told me in the past that having a client who cares and is active is the design process and having a reasonable time to come up with different concepts is just as important as the budget.
Personally, I'd take the existing parking lot over what PMC is going to build. Once its built its going to be there for a long time and there's very little that can ever be done to improve it (think 2400 Chestnut St.). But as long as it remains a undeveloped site, its got potential to be something very good. For some, any really tall building is going to be a plus, for others its just any building is better then no building, where I'm the opposite, no building is usually better then just any building, whatever its height.
Last edited by City Wide; Nov 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM.
|
Threaded Mode