Comments on: More ideas for the Eco-City Beautiful http://www.alexblock.net/?p=1027 a work in progress... Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:41:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Low impact development near the Navy Yard « City Block http://www.alexblock.net/?p=1027&cpage=1#comment-810 Low impact development near the Navy Yard « City Block Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:53:09 +0000 http://www.alexblock.net/?p=1027#comment-810 [...] These bioretention areas should be a great example of the new kind of both urban and environmentally sustainable infrastructure can [...] [...] These bioretention areas should be a great example of the new kind of both urban and environmentally sustainable infrastructure can [...]

]]> By: Infrastructure + Networks + Security – City Block http://www.alexblock.net/?p=1027&cpage=1#comment-168 Infrastructure + Networks + Security – City Block Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:40:07 +0000 http://www.alexblock.net/?p=1027#comment-168 [...] also raises the issue I noted with some of the proposed Eco City Beautiful infrastructure – how does one visually convey the vision of urban development around a core infrastructure [...] [...] also raises the issue I noted with some of the proposed Eco City Beautiful infrastructure – how does one visually convey the vision of urban development around a core infrastructure [...]

]]> By: Alex Block http://www.alexblock.net/?p=1027&cpage=1#comment-159 Alex Block Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:36:50 +0000 http://www.alexblock.net/?p=1027#comment-159 Yes, I think you nailed my concern. I worry about the street because we don't get any information about how the street functions in this plan. The park aspect is fine, and I think there are some great ideas of how to fit this green infrastructure into an urban context - I just want to see more. For what its worth, a key princle of this plan is that the architecture not be proscriptive. So, the idea of adaptability is there. I guess I just want to see a little more in terms of relating these ideas to urban landscapes that aren't such blank canvasses. Yes, I think you nailed my concern. I worry about the street because we don’t get any information about how the street functions in this plan. The park aspect is fine, and I think there are some great ideas of how to fit this green infrastructure into an urban context – I just want to see more.

For what its worth, a key princle of this plan is that the architecture not be proscriptive. So, the idea of adaptability is there.

I guess I just want to see a little more in terms of relating these ideas to urban landscapes that aren’t such blank canvasses.

]]> By: Jarrett at HumanTransit.org http://www.alexblock.net/?p=1027&cpage=1#comment-158 Jarrett at HumanTransit.org Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:07:01 +0000 http://www.alexblock.net/?p=1027#comment-158 Interesting. I'd be curious to hear you explore further why massings "scare" you, and what this development is supposed to be like at ground level. At this distance it looks a lot like Corbusier's "towers in parks," and I assume that the greenspace is necessary for the needs of the river. If so, scary massings would seem unavoidable, but it would all depend on their conception of street and building face, no? Interesting. I’d be curious to hear you explore further why massings “scare” you, and what this development is supposed to be like at ground level. At this distance it looks a lot like Corbusier’s “towers in parks,” and I assume that the greenspace is necessary for the needs of the river. If so, scary massings would seem unavoidable, but it would all depend on their conception of street and building face, no?

]]>