Reply To: Another Failed Landscape – When Ideology Trumps User Needs

Looks like it is in the wrong location to draw people. If this was located within a neighborhood I would imagine they would have had a greater likelihood of attracting users. I think some of these ideas are pretty stupid…the last thing I do when out and about is to read a huge paragraph on a sign designed to teach me something. I am more of the mindset that allows people to fall in love with nature, offer that…and they will have something invested in the care of the environment. Why are people the most important reason to design parks for? We are the caretakers of nature. If we truly want to show people why these places are important they actually have to want to go, then they are willing to spend money on conservation, etc. Much like the partnership with Ducks Unlimited and conservation groups, people will make the effort to preserve the things that they want out of life even if that just means preserving a space to play frisbee golf…which is probably NOT allowed here. 😉

Also, I don’t hate the idea…just responding to the article that was posted. I don’t agree with half of what the guy that wrote the article shared…but since I think landscape architects are deeply involved in creating connections with human and their environments, I would of course, take notice of the low usage of the park. When we discussed the memorial park in NYC what it ultimately came down to was how was the park used. I like to think that is the difference b/w an LA/LD and other designers…we shouldn’t be happy with the plan view appearance of a design more then then with how humans  interface with the landscape. The very thing I LOVE about landscape architecture is that it sets about to create places where history can take place, where people have picnics with their families and where people have a chance to commune with nature.

Off topic: It is super interesting to see how the public spaces in NY are being used by protestors. Could the designers of Zucotti Park imagined that?