The High Line, sui generis

The High Line may be a landscaping project, but a good part of its success is due to its architectural setting, which, like the 12th Arrondissement, is crowded with interesting old and new buildings. The park courses through the meatpacking district and Chelsea, heavily populated, high-energy residential neighborhoods. Very few American cities — and Manhattan is the densest urban area in the country — can offer the same combination of history and density.

In other words, while the High Line’s success may seem to be an instance of “build it and they will come,” in New York, as in Paris, “they” are already there — living in the surrounding neighborhoods, working in the close-packed office buildings, touristing. Witold Rybczynski at the NYT

Of course I agree completely. Every now and then someone in Seattle says that we should use the Viaduct as a pedestrian park —  High time for a High Line? in Seattle— but there's been no political traction and mostly cat-calls. The big push among some urbanists is to tear down the Viaduct since it acts (claimed anyway) as a barrier to the waterfront from downtown. So it would be a bit at odds to say "Let's shut down the Viaduct for cars and use it for people." A certain dissonance. See citycomfortsblog.typepad.com

However I was puzzled, and a minor point certainly, that Rybczynski referred to the High Line as reflecting "landscape urbanism."

While well-known "landscape urbanist" James Corner was involved in the High Line design as to paving, lighting, planting and maybe even access, the genesis of the project and its genius — recognizing that the derelict train line could and should be saved as a park — long predated Corner's involvement. The High Line, so far as I see it, had nothing to do with "landscape urbanism" and should not get any credit for it.