Given the size of the area they had to work with, I think they did good job on the design of the park... except for one thing. One expensive thing to fix, however. I feel the streets cutting through the park are a huge negative. Besides chopping up the park, disrupting the continuity of the design, and safety issues; a lot of park space is lost. And it's more space than just the width of the street. Except for jogging, think of an activity you would do at the park. Now, how far away from the street are you going to situate yourself. Most people are not going to locate themselves near a street, so in effect there is this no-mans land that borders the streets. And if you have buses and trucks coming through, it could become a good size no-mans land.
I think ladowntowner hit the nail on the head here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladowntowner
OK. First, I'd use the grade changes to my advantage. Streets traversing the park would go below grade, and the grade changes could be used to minimize the depth to which they might have to be dug, whilst the park above would not have to rise over the street much, if at all, keeping sight lines and sense of continuity intact.
...
|
If the streets are covered, and the park becomes one continuous swath of land, then maybe the design elements start at different locations in the park and their size appropriately change because they are no longer forced to fit within the blocks. IOW, the hardscaped Court of Flags area could be reduced in size to allow for more green area. It's only the size it is in the design because it needs to fill the whole block.
Question for those that attended the meeting: Was "covering the streets" discussed in the meeting? No doubt it is probably a budget buster, but I would be curious to know if it was considered.
Oh, I guess there is one more thing. As a dog owner, it would be great if there was a "dog park" section.
Prev
Linear Mode
