Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown
Initially I was quite positive (about everything except the name). Now I'm having second thoughts about the urban design aspects. We know that urbanism works best when big sites are broken into small parcels with a traditional street-and-building framework. What these renderings show is an architectural free-fire zone of objects in an overscaled landscape, à la Pudong or Isle of Dogs. Of course, no buildings have actually been designed, but the master plan should impose more discipline than this one does.
If we want a new Chicago neighborhood, we have to cook with the right ingredients. I think the site needs smaller blocks, and a kit of parts or pattern-book drawn from traditional Chicago urbanism that would guide designers of the buildings.
|
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?