… but if it is, I’m pretty sure this isn’t the way to fix it.
Whether it’s the roller coaster-style pedestrian walk-way, the drought-unfriendly expansion of the water features, or just the urge to break everything as far away from the neo-classical style of the place as possible (“Glass! Angles! Cantilevers! Stuff! Nonsense!”), the Libeskind design seems to want to assuage the traditionalists (cough) and the modernists at the same time, and will probably end up satisfying nobody.
I find Civic Center park, from the times I’ve commuted past it or driven around it or even gone to events there, to be pleasant and classic in form. Is there a desire to make it better attended, more vibrant and alive? It’s not clear to me that the barrier to this is the decoration or the style or anything else that Libeskind has proposed. Instead, it’s all just …
… well, not something anyone would be pleased with a decade or four from now. Nor something that would attract the crowds and vibrant (non-vagrant) foot traffic some folks are looking for, no matter how much they might want a legacy.
(via BD)
I think there is a ‘stupid’ gene that surfaces in civic planners when they get the urge to start digging things up. Like a homing instinct for pigeons, only with less class.
In our twin city, the voters clearly told city council not to build an arena, so they built it. In our little town, the voters clearly told city council not to finance a downtown hotel, so they did it anyway. Of course, come election time, you can’t change horses asses in the middle of the stream…
Any chance of this plan not happening? Or are they committed? Or should they be committed, someplace where they’ll receive the proper care?
Well, all the folks hasten to add that this is only a proposal, a talking point, a beginning spot for public discussion.
But, of course, it now has the, “Wow, that’s exciting, audacious, who could settle for less?!” panache, and a line drawn that some folks will feel the need to fight for.