The High Line NY

I have two comments on the Highl Line design – I think ‘feathered paving’ is a very weak design element, difficult to maintain, prone to construction problems, and something that looks better in plan than when walking with one’s grandmother.. Secondly, I think the big weird benches look uncomfortable and inappropriate..To me, these are signs that the design will not wear well, and in a city that has so many incredible classical, well-designed parks, this one overall looks weak.
Just my humble..
But asking for design criticism is red meat – or lets say, nice grilled vegetables, for me..Thanks!

I think that is a really important point, Jason, how high-maintenance his design is, just to appear natural.. This goes against the basic tenets of ecological design, sustainable design. He would have been better off creating some kind of matrix and letting volunteers be cultivated – the ‘tree that grew in brooklyn’ was an Ailanthus, after all..

As noted earlier, it’s interesting that the design strives to recapture the condition of the tracks after they had gone unused for decades, only with a veneer of “style”. Urban decay had given the raised platform a unique character that can only be achieved with time; hardy plants volunteered – taking root in unlikely places, metals developed patina, paint flaked and pealed, graffiti covered accessible walls. It was a unique place that reflected its environment and was “sustainable” or “green”, as-is.

In order to create a park though, much of the steel-work had to be rebuilt in order to be structurally sound. This seems to contradict the original “sales pitch” of the park, that there would be a park created on the existing elevated track. If the elevated track is rebuilt, is it really the urban reclamation project it claims to be?

Random observation: The lounges that were custom designed for the site, besides being extremely wood-intensive, look incredibly uncomfortable (hard, flat, wrong scale, oddly angled back rest).

Something that has been on my mind for a while: The benches for the site, the ones that angle up out of the ground plane and cantilever or “float”, were first used at the 911 Pentagon Memorial. There were several of these benches, their form taken from the tail of a plane, oriented to indicate the flight path the plane took before crashing into the Pentagon. These benches are so unique and particular to the Pentagon site that it begs the question; Is it appropriate to reuse the design elsewhere?

Their design was informed by a terrible event in American history. While many people who visit High Line would be unaware of the connection, the potential exists to trigger unpleasant memories, anxiety or “flash-backs”. What are the psychological impacts of reusing design elements, in our everyday lives, that are rooted in traumatizing events or memorials to those events? I.E. How can a landscape element that is specific to a place/event/memory (trigger) be re-purposed, creating regular exposure to the trigger and in turn causing the user to frequently re-experience the event, consciously or not… Cue evil genius laughter…

The Pentagon

High Line Park

ps, good point about the Memorial benches inappropriate use, also , Thomas, but I hate that design in the memorial and hate it in the High Line..What exactly is that design good for? And the people who worked on the Memorial wanted to commemorate the FLIGHT OF THE PLANES? Too weird for me..Let’s see – my parents were crushed by a semi, so I think I will put a huge semi engine on their grave..It’s just wrong, as they say..(my parents were N OT crushed by a semi, just an analogy, if that is the correct term..)