|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on March 12, 2008, 8:56 am
>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>> > Warm Worm wrote:
>> >> RicodJour wrote:
>> >>>> "Warm Worm"> wrote
>>
>> >>>>> I might have mentioned this on here before, but why is it that a
>> >>>>> lot of "inward-looking-use" architecture seems to be situated
>> >>>>> right on the waterfronts-- areas that would otherwise be put to
>> >>>>> better advantage for their views?
>> >>>>> For examples, in Halifax and Vancouver (Sydney's Opera House?),
>> >>>>> they have their casino and trade/convention centre, respectively,
>> >>>>> right on the waterfronts.
>> >>>>> There just seems to be a kind of counter-intuitiveness and/or
>> >>>>> inward-looking way, as to how a lot of urban waterfronts are
>> >>>>> designed/developed.
>> >>>> Good point.
>> >>>> Most residential applications emphasize the view *toward* the water
>> >>>> but commercial projects focus attention *from* the water.
>> >>>> If you're in a stadium watching a game you aren't looking at the
>> >>>> view of the water.
>> >>>> So, the greatest feature, waterview, is not being exploited.
>> >>>> Perhaps the city planners have this all wrong?
>> >>> Not really. Not everyone is at the stadium or opera house. The
>> >>> majority of people look past it as they view the water, and that's
>> >>> every hour of every day, not just when an event is taking place.
>> >> Ok, but they're blocking the view and with an inward-looking event no
>> >> less. Here in Vancouver, when you look out over the water, depending
>> >> on which way you're looking, you can also see the mountains, the
>> >> opposite shoreline, and/or far off into the distance. You also can
>> >> get far more of the sky and sun, including its rises and sets.
>> >> I guess part of my point is that the main cafe/pedestrian strips where
>> >> you can hang out and "enjoy" the view are in the middle of the city
>> >> that, without the above views, make it feel like any other city, with
>> >> cars and another building and Starbucks across from the ones you're
>> >> at-- yet more of that inward-looking feel.
>>
>> >>> People on the water don't think the water is the most interesting
>> >>> view - it's the shoreline.
>> >> Of course the shoreline is also viewable from across the water on the
>> >> opposite shoreline and there's interesting activity on the water, too.
>>
>> > ...and the juxtaposition of building types makes for an image that has
>> > some
>> > dynamism. A wall of glass condo towers can get pretty dull pretty fast,
>> > and
>> > turns into a ground without a figure.
>>
>> That's indeed what they have out here along the water, too-- glass condo
>> towers-- and many of them. It's quite dense in some areas.
>> However, in some places, they seem to be set more back from the water.
>>
>> Ideally, I was thinking of some sort of progressive heightening of
>> buildings from short at the water's edge to gradually higher the further
>> inland.
>
> Well, air rights go up, and water rights go out and own, not in, so
> you're creating what? - air-water-shore-view rights? Maybe you should
> just take some time out from the photography and sketch out where it's
> okay for people to build. Start with a small city until you find your
> feet. It'd save a lot of time. :)~
The city of Vancouver has already incorporated something along these lines
into thier urban design guideline. They have even protected view corridors
to a couple of bumps in the mountains known as the 'two lions'. WW is not
breaking new ground or being silly, but his musings are quite preliminary
compared to those of people in the business. The trick is to balance many
competing imperatives, after you've appreciated them all....and even that
you'll probably get some of it wrong. Take solace in the fact that it's
always changing...
>
> R
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap