May 20, 2011 at 8:33 pm #162817May 20, 2011 at 8:46 pm #162840Jon QuackenbushParticipantMay 20, 2011 at 10:35 pm #162839Adam TrujilloParticipant
I know if conceptual but….where are the trees!?! I’m so tired of shifting and folding ground planes to “create space.” Not everyone wants to walk up slopes of turf….May 20, 2011 at 10:43 pm #162838mauiBobParticipant
Give me a break! The concept plan will NEVER be built that way. When value engineering and the question “How we pay for it?” comes in to play…many of these grand ole’ ideas will be on the chopping block or phased in 20 year increments. Its a lot like school projects. A complete fantasy. Yeah…like a turf bridge or platform over water is really going to happen!May 20, 2011 at 10:55 pm #162837Jason T. RadiceParticipant
Ugg. Lee.May 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm #162836
I am from just north of Seattle and can attest…that SOMETHING needs to be done…I kind of like it! I like big ideas. In many ways this idea would meld very well with the SAM park just north of this location…I wonder if they were attempting to tie it in.May 21, 2011 at 4:20 pm #162835AnonymousInactive
I think it looks cool, but why would anyone want to spend any time there? I would make a special trip to use the bikeway though. I guess it’s the landscape equivalent to freeway architecture. Is that grade cantilevering over what looks like a vehicle line-up area for a ferry? How do you do that?May 21, 2011 at 4:22 pm #162834
People do hang out there…a lot of people live on the islands and ride the ferry over…they work in the City, shop at Pikes Place and I imagine would lunch out in this area. Right now, there are big piers that no one sits in at all…but you do see tons of people sitting on the lawn up by Pikes Place. Seattle has very little green space ironically. There is no Central Park here…or anything remotely close to that…aside from a few pocket parks near Pioneer Square the City does not have much public space.May 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm #162833AnonymousInactive
I can relate to what your saying Heather, but it’s like a one liner. Once you get past the “coolness” of the engineering gymnastics that would have to take place to build it, what’s left? I would prefer the funds be used creating a place that’s a little more versatile. Where are the shady bench areas for elderly people to take a rest and enjoy the waterfront? How about the nice gathering area for musicians and street performers or simply a flat area to toss a Frisbee?
That comfortable edge between the openness of the lawn area and sheltering trees just doesn’t exist. I think the people who would benefit the most from this project would be the fat cats with the plush offices overlooking it. It seems like it was designed from that perspective. If a city is lacking green space this is definitely not what it needs.
I’m open to a good explanation because I realize I could be looking at it from a northeastern point of view. It just seems like the designer forgot that the real stars of the show…the city and the waterfront.May 21, 2011 at 6:59 pm #162832
Yes, I see what you mean. However, in an area that is rarely sunny…people generally seek out any bit of sun they can find. haha. Also, I think they were trying to include the uses of the area which are heavily used by the ferry system, cruise ships and cargo ships. I would LOVE to go lounge on one of those slopes out over the water in the Seattle sun (when it exists) haha.
I am trying to remember the building design I think it is that this reminds me of? I would be interested to see how much of the space is flat for playing frisbee…etc. My studio visited the SAM park and students were stopped by security for playing frisbee! The park was not developed for that sort of use…just walking through…I wonder if there would be areas in this design for fun. 🙂
Much of what a design like this would offer would be solar access and beautiful views across Puget Sound to the Olympic Peninsula. I see tourists and families visiting and picnicking out on these after visiting the Aquarium or Pike Street.May 21, 2011 at 8:45 pm #162831AnonymousInactive
Fair enough but what about elderly people who would have a problem sitting and getting up off the ground or the poor guy in a wheel chair trying to join his friends at the end of the pier on the rain dampened turf. If I lived there, I would rather have my tax dollars go elsewhere.May 21, 2011 at 8:46 pm #162830Rob HalpernParticipant
“They’re too big, too out of scale for the city. There’s too much space under them for vermin to hide,”May 21, 2011 at 9:33 pm #162829
I didn’t read where it said there wasn’t flat areas…or even benches?May 22, 2011 at 1:35 am #162828Jason T. RadiceParticipant
The wind…won’t somebody PLEASE think of the WIND! Whenever you get near large expanses of water you very often get pretty heinous winds much of the year. Add in all the grass open space with no trees or anything else to break up the wind and you have just made it uninhabitable. Plus, having such steep slopes kind of defeats the purpose of having a lawn, because you can’t really do anything on it. Picnic? Nope, wine would spill. Bocce? Forgeddaboutit. Try mowing these suckers, and keeping grass from sliding off the structure. This gimmick works (not very well) on some green roofs, and in the confines of Lincoln Center, but as a major public park..build what people want, what they can actually USE.
It would be interesting to see of the the wedges will act like wings. Hope they do the wind load calcs on the cantalevers properly!May 22, 2011 at 4:07 am #162827Alan Ray, RLAParticipant
I’m with you maui, this is absurd….almost as bad as the Hargreaves design for Nashville’s riverfront that we paid over $400K for an unbuildable plan….unless you have about a Billion or two or five lying around…..How much did Seattle shell out for this expert from out of town??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.