Not sure any of the watercolors available online really do it justice. It's organized. It's formal. It's designed for people. It's wonderfully clever structurally, figuring out how to get trees on it without making them look like odd, potted lollipops. It adds enough structure to add verticality and (hopefully) help to block the serpentine like rising and falling of the freeway on both sides.
It's unfortunate though. I find it diametrically opposite to the two "gardens" also known as parks on Main Street. As I've pointed out in the convergence studies of downtown, those two parks are in the absolute perfect location. Perfect to build upon and bookend the success of Main Street. Perfect to revitalize the areas adjacent as they are the precise point where downtown begins to fall apart. However, the designs leave a lot to be desired. Particularly Belo Gardens. Yet another public open space downtown designed for "quiet contemplation."
On. Main. Street... Downtown. Where 100,000 people are everyday (give/take). This killed Thanksgiving Square and everything immediately around it.
As for Main Street Garden, I've made my points about it. Again, perfect location. Great buildings along it. Downtown badly needed some breathing room. A multi-purpose lawn, which bizarrely rises to fall, fighting natural topography. My bigger point is with the over-programming. Which, Burnett himself went out of his way to point out about his design. That he didn't want it cluttered with programming and wish lists that often accompany places/parks trying to be all things to all people. I don't know how coincidental that is given some of the consultants for Woodall Rogers Deck Park reached out to me some time ago to get my opinion of it after I squealed like a baby on an airplane about MSG.
So on Main Street, we've got great sites, perfect for economic development and to work as a centerpiece of neighborhoods in downtown, yet less than desirable designs.
At Woodall Rogers Deck Park, we have a tremendous design, but less than ideal location. I know, I know. Globally, it is supposed to seam together uptown and downtown, provide a new heart of the city as downtown has migrated north, and all of that. However, all the land is immediately spoken for (with the notable exception of the drive-thru (!) bank).. What is to leverage?
Developers I know have poked around on that site, but I'm guessing the bank (or whoever owns it) wants an absurd amount. Way too much given the spaghetti nonsense and non-neighborhood of LoMac to the north. There is no street life because of the suburban road dimensions. How are the new towers in this area supposed to hold value in urban sites without any urbanism? You tell me. I'm glad I didn't buy there. If I was to advise the homeowners associations, I'd suggest pooling money to get redesigns of all the streets in LoMac to protect their investments. But that's just me.
But back to the point, and you know where I'm going with this. It seems to make so much more sense to remove freeways and use the revenue generation from land sales to pay for amenities like parks to stitch areas back together than band-aids, like this one. It will be interesting to watch it going forward because it is impossible not to compare it to the big dig, which besides the absurd $20 billion price tag is both a design and functional disappointment (again, especially at the price). It made an area less bad. Not great. We need great great.
Posts
1 comments:
I understand where you're coming from but i think you underestimate the draw and need of this park.
Yes, it is definitely a bandaid. Don't disagree there. And the rising highway on either side is going to be very odd, but I have an intimate perspective on this area.
I office in the ugly building where you snapped that photo and I can confidently say that I will be out at that park almost every single day. LoMac, as you know, is completely draining. It's a sea of concrete and streets that offers no real human value unless you hike up McKinney or take a walk through state Thomas. Or you can snake your way over to the Katy trail at your own risk...
What I see day to day is a surprising number of residents (likely from 1900 McKinney) walking their sad, grass deprived dogs past our motor court. You can practically feel their anticipation for this thing.
Going back to what you said though...my experience and that of residents at 1900 McKinney is all gravy because we are practically on top of the park. What I believe you see is the problem is the connection for other residents and office tenants in the area. And that all comes back to the root problem of untangling the spaghetti in LoMac.
The buildings fronting the park will surely repurpose and be redeveloped in due time. I know that our building owner has a few ideas for his other lot next door, which is the credit union.
But let's face it, even the arts district side has a feel that is mostly "highway frontage chic".
Post a Comment