Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel
Small parcels? Smaller blocks? Save that for other parts of the city which currently have less than average density due to a multitude of reasons. For a parcel of land that is literally 1 mile from the Loop AND is considered part of the same, primary CDB, there is no compelling argument that can be made to justify downsizing 62 acres to something other than what was presented. The 'kit of parts...from traditional Chicago urbanism,' may have worked decades ago, but times change, urban design changes and good urban design responds to specific societal, demographic and spatial needs for each specific location - the 'kit of parts' mentality ignores those criteria and assumes a one-size-fits-all philosophy that just doesn't work. If it didn't work for Dearborn Park, what on Earth makes you think that type of philosophy would work here, literally next door to that urban planning disaster?
|
I don't think Mr D. is suggesting a density reduction at all. In fact, it should logically follow that the more dense an area is, the smaller the blocks have to be (up to a limit, of course).