More trendy copy-catting

High time for a High Line? in Seattle? I hope not.

I agree that it would be unwise to save the Seattle Viaduct for use as a linear park. It is far more valuable for movement of vehicles — and will continue as a vehicle transportation corridor for many decades to come. But the Promenade Plantee does have something to offer by way of example -- use of the space beneath the Viaduct for shops, artists spaces, or whatever. Chopp's plan astutely incorporates that element. And to the larger picture no one (I think) with any sense of urban street dynamics and security would suggest building a new "elevated linear park." It's a Robert Moses thing -- you are dating yourself. :) The High Line (which may work -- the evidence is not in) and the Promenade Plantee are examples of "discovered spaces" and were not purpose-built. They are unique, sui generis and not easy or perhaps possible to copy. The money is (thankfully) not there for "elevated linear parks" when we don't have sidewalks throughout the city; a sense of proportion and priority, please.

UPDATE:

There have been some additional comments on the post I link to above. My own response:

David Brewster writes "As for Freeway Park's design, it happens to be celebrated around the world and is a master work by America's finest landscape architect, Lawrence Halprin."

We must each judge Freeway Park for ourselves. Reliance on authority such as "celebrated around the world" much less the conclusory "master work by America's finest landscape architect..." avoids analyzing the issue. Judged by contemporary urbanism, which values "place-making for human interaction," Freeway Park was and is a very poor design.

Several important points to consider:

* In judging Freeway Park you need to distinguish between 
1. the initial and very brilliant concept for bridging I-5 and using its airspace to re-connect two neighborhoods 
versus
2. the implementation of that concept (by Halprin and his design team) which was motivated by the entirely foolish, wrong-headed and inappropriate conceit of "creating a little bit of wilderness" in the middle of a major central business district.

* Brewster is dead-on accurate in your analysis of what is (or was) wrong with Freeway Park — the design indeed lacked of a "sense of connection to other places" i.e. the park is inward-looking and attempts to isolate itself and its users. But that lack is not accidental but stems from the initial design. The thought way back then in the 1970s was to create a park where an individual could get away from other people and the presumed annoying "hustle-bustle" of a city: hence the wilderness motif. The correct motif for such an urban park should have been one which promotes human interaction, conversation, communication — not one which further isolates people.

Maybe the recent improvements he mentioned elsewhere in his comments have changed the character of the park and the "new Freeway Park" is entirely rethought. I would be pleased to hear that. But that doesn't change the fact that the original design implementation by Halprin's firm was deeply flawed.