Same old tune?

More on the East River site: "...what's planned seems to be towers in a park.".

Comments

[Benjamin Hemric]

"Same old tune?"

When I looked at the "Times" article (which I didn't read, but only skimmed), I was thinking more or less the same thing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the blog that is linked to, JRoth wrote:

"The main thing that's unclear to me is where the park is relative to the river. If the buildings front the river (actually, FDR Drive, which may be dropped to reduce its barrier-hood), and the park is nothing more than a lawn between 1,000 foot towers, then it's likely to be just as unpleasant and unwelcoming as the old WTC plaza was. But if the rink is in the midst of the buildings (a la Rockefeller Center, an explicit referent) and the park is between the river and the towers, then I could see it working, and I could see the park becoming a neighborhood amenity that draws foot traffic down those sidewalks (why not streets?)."

Benjamin writes:

1) My guess is that the FDR Drive will be below either the residential towers (unlikely, though, because of security reasons?) or the park (more likely?), as it's hard to imagine the FDR Drive being lowered further enough to do this without making the Drive into an outrageously expensive tunnel. But I disagree that a "park" over the FDR Drive (e.g., like the park around Gracie Mansion, or the park around UN itself) would necessarily be a more urbane approach than residential towers over the FDR Drive (e.g., like the residential towers pearched above the FDR Drive and fronting on Sutton Place).

In my opinion, one of the least appreciated portions of Jane Jacobs, "Death and Life of Great American Cities," is the chapter on city parks. Like Jacobs, I believe city parks (and "open space") are way overdone and are oftentimes more harmful (de-urbanizing a neighborhood) than helpful. In my opinion, what this part of the city needs to draw people to it is more "city" -- not more parks and open space. (I rarely walk down First Ave., but last summer I walked all the way down from about 45th St. and it really drove home what an appalling 1950s urban renewal wasteland this part of the East Side is -- until one gets to 14th St. and is welcomed into the real city once again!)

2) Also, the problem with the WTC plaza was not so much its location in the site plan, but the fact that the site plan did not integrate with the rest of the city -- in other words, the entrances to the plaza were out of the way and hard to find. Plus, some entrances (like the one from the World Financial Center) were occassionally locked(!) even during business hours! (I know, because a number of times I tried to use the Plaza as an alternative route to/from the WFC and found that the door to the North Bridge was locked. When I was going to the WFC, this meant I had to retrace my steps all that way back to Vesey St. again.)

- - - - - - -

JRoth writes:

"The ideal process, of course, would have been some sort of charette involving, if not the general public, then at least community representatives and city planners, so that input could come from someone other than the developer and his (non-planner) architects. It's interesting to note that, even in a city as famous for both its planning and its intrusive regulation of development, there seems to have been little useful intrusion on the process."

Benjamin writes:

1) Although I've been to a number of community board meetings in the last three years, I haven't been to the community board meetings for this project. But, it's hard to imagine that this community board will not have a great deal to say (and a surprising amount of influence) on the final outcome.

2) Sadly, though, from my perspective, it seems to me that many well-intentioned community activists in Manhattan basically share the same ideological viewpoint as the architectural critics for the "Times" and, thus, wind up pushing for the same "mistakes" as those pushed for by civic groups and "sophisticated" Manhattan developers, who also share this ideological viewpoint -- that the "radiant city" approach was never really all that bad to begin with; and besides the new "improved" versions have much "better" architecture (i.e., less minimalist and, thus, more engaging) and are supposedly now "mixed use."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JRoth wrote:

"I found an old 'Times' article in which Muschamp suggested that the original architecture competition was intended to gain the developer leeway from the city -- 'you don't have to regulate us, look at our fancy team' -- and if so, it was a complete failure as a process."

Benjamin writes:

I think it is a failure of a process too, but perhaps for different reasons.

In my opinion the best urbanism results from the city laying down some very basic ground rules (e.g., height and setback regulations) and letting the developers develop (e.g., Grand Central Terminal "City," Rockefeller Center, etc.). I think the worst urbanism results from overly intrusive governement oversight (e.g., the current WTC redevelopment ["too many cooks spoiling the broth"] and the many urban renewal projects that already surround this proposed new development).

So for me the process is a failure because the City is already exerting too much control over the process. And the fact that the city is willing to relent a bit if a developer hires some "big name" modernist architects eager to "trash" the city in the name of "Architecture" doesn't really improve the process, in my opinion.

# # #

[JRoth]

First of all, Benjamin, thanks for all the words - bring 'em over to anarchitect!

To the substance, I'll just make a couple general responses:

I agree that parks can be very dangerous to urban continuity - as America has grown more suburban, I think a lot of people simply can't see green areas as threats, but they are. Unless placed judiciously, parks are missing teeth just the same as vacant lots. It's one of the reasons I'd prefer to see the park at the river's edge - it's not interrupting the city there, but rather mediating between the occupied urban fabric and unoccupied water.

Part of the reason I support community input here is simply to add viewpoints to the mix. Developers can be very narrow-minded and set in their ways. I know nothing about this developer's record, but I've certainly known developers who, having been forced into unanticipated directions by community/planning input, are subsequently thankful. Building projects are very expensive, and with all that money comes a lot of conservatism - better to replicate something that's worked elsewhere than to try something "new" - like building within the historic urban framework.

And that gets me to the final, and key point: in my experience, the time for significant public input is at the outset of a major project (one, like this, that will have a huge impact beyond its site), establishing guidelines and concepts, such as locating the park at the river and establishing auto, not exclusively foot, traffic through the site. Then there may or may not be a role for design review relatively late in the game, but review by well-defined, qualified people, not just public meetings with people offeirng random observations. Obviously, the level of review - if any - is established by the public interest in a project. If taxpayers are footing infrastructure, site cleanup, or other chunks of development costs, then they have a right to make sure that the design meets some standards of urbanity - 3 Rules - and quality - no EIFS that puts extra cash in the developer's pocket while lowering its ultimate value to the community.

At the WTC site, you've got the worst of all worlds, with constantly evolving base assumptions about site rules (50' setbacks form the street or whatever) and idiots like Pataki offering their uninformed opinions as gospel. Set the rules and get out of the way.