Re: [UC] Another reason I dislike the parklet
On Aug 15, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Glenn wrote: The comparison to Europe doesn't ring true either. Outdoor seating is very popular but not at car traffic intersections. I felt bad for the Baltimore Ave businesses when it was revealed that they had such trouble putting a few tables on sidewalks in front of their businesses. European cities allow cafes to put out seating in pedestrian areas or plazas, but I've never seen parklet cafes in high car traffic areas. I think sidewalk seating would be popular here, but I think you need to be highly connected and have a business catering to good people. I can't comment on European sidewalk cafes since the UK doesn't really have any, and that's as far east as I've gotten…. But, speaking of east if you want to see the impact of sidewalk cafes on the Pedestrian Experience, just visit the eastern side of Rittenhouse Square. The last time I was down there, Pedestrians are forced to either walk on t he opposite side of the street or IN the street, as the diners block the entire sidewalk. So much for sidewalk seating being for a Positive Pedestrian Experience -- positive only if you want to sit and spend money, extremely negative if you simply want to walk. And heaven help you if you want to walk side-by-side with a friend! I would have no problem with the clubs along 18th street putting seating IN Rittenhouse Square -- -but then their servers would have severe problems dodging cars while crossing back and forth across 18th street. Starr would have to pay them hazardous duty pay :). (And I'm assuming that the Friends of Rittenhouse Square who pay for the Square's maintenance, would be willing to allow such a use… even if they charged Starr, et.al. a maintenance fee for using the space. (Yeah, I know the Friends tried to commercialize the Square a couple of years back.) But that is the entire problem, isn't it…. Cars Vs. Pedestrians Vs. Tables Vs. free movement Vs. being able to sit in a public space and smoke a cigar and generate lots of clouds of blue smoke. William H. Magill Block Captain 4400 Chestnut Street You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Another reason I dislike the parklet
I think your Rittenhouse example shows part of the problem. It is far too congested there. And wasn't that the place where the owner actually put seating in the street at first? I remember huge plant pots used as a barricade. Was that the spot? The problem is the connected people can openly push the limits and abuse public spaces like sidewalks, parks, etc. (That's been the problem with Clark Park for 10 years.) At the same time, the forces of the state are being aggressively used against other businesses asking for more reasonable use, like a few tables on a wide sidewalk like Balt Ave. Like Ray mentioned, this new centralized business planning is not capitalism at all. And I think the last 30 years has shown Marx was correct when he predicted that capitalism will destroy itself. The fusion of the state and the corporate oligarchy has a name which people have been trained to refuse, fascism. Our rulers like to call it public private partnerships in Washington, Wall St and city hall. Glenn On 8/16/2011 2:21 PM, William H. Magill wrote: On Aug 15, 2011, at 10:18 PM, Glenn wrote: The comparison to Europe doesn't ring true either. Outdoor seating is very popular but not at car traffic intersections. I felt bad for the Baltimore Ave businesses when it was revealed that they had such trouble putting a few tables on sidewalks in front of their businesses. European cities allow cafes to put out seating in pedestrian areas or plazas, but I've never seen parklet cafes in high car traffic areas. I think sidewalk seating would be popular here, but I think you need to be highly connected and have a business catering to good people. I can't comment on European sidewalk cafes since the UK doesn't really have any, and that's as far east as I've gotten But, speaking of east if you want to see the impact of sidewalk cafes on the Pedestrian Experience, just visit the eastern side of Rittenhouse Square. The last time I was down there, Pedestrians are forced to either walk on t he opposite side of the street or IN the street, as the diners block the entire sidewalk. So much for sidewalk seating being for a Positive Pedestrian Experience -- positive only if you want to sit and spend money, extremely negative if you simply want to walk. And heaven help you if you want to walk side-by-side with a friend! I would have no problem with the clubs along 18th street putting seating IN Rittenhouse Square -- -but then their servers would have severe problems dodging cars while crossing back and forth across 18th street. Starr would have to pay them hazardous duty pay :). (And I'm assuming that the Friends of Rittenhouse Square who pay for the Square's maintenance, would be willing to allow such a use... even if they charged Starr, et.al. a maintenance fee for using the space. (Yeah, I know the Friends tried to commercialize the Square a couple of years back.) But that is the entire problem, isn't it Cars Vs. Pedestrians Vs. Tables Vs. free movement Vs. being able to sit in a public space and smoke a cigar and generate lots of clouds of blue smoke. William H. Magill Block Captain 4400 Chestnut Street You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3837 - Release Date: 08/16/11 02:34:00
[UC] Another reason I dislike the parklet
I don't disagree with the maxim de gustabus non est disputandum. But I wonder how many neighbors would disagree with me that -- ignoring the other pros and cons of the parklet covered on this list -- a big reason for disliking it is its ugliness. Maybe a robot ambulating through the area would find the industrial design attractive. But for at least some of us humans, a park connotes a degree of rustication. When I first heard about it, but hadn't get gone down to see what the brouhaha was all about, I pictured something that had the appearance of a wooden deck, maybe even a pergola, with a floor elevated a few steps off the ground. Something like the illustration below, only longer and narrower, with one or two steps running the whole open length. More of a Leggo than an Erector Set construction, but still standardized for easy assembly and disassembly. Any thoughts (non-ad-hominem if possible) on this, one way or another? If we're going to have this sort of thing, maybe we can make some suggestions about not creating eyesores in the process. You read it here, first, on the ever-popular Popu-List Courtesy of Al Krigman
Re: [UC] Another reason I dislike the parklet
I agree with Al (and a few others), My biggest objection is that this is a corner that has traffic issues.I look at the set-up and think it is so close to a busy intersection that if is at risk from cars turning onto 43rd, from Baltimore.And that it could suffer collateral damage from the occasional confused driver turning right, (illegally), off of Larchwood into oncoming one-way traffic.I've seen accidents prevented as a driver slipped into the spots that are now the park-let. Second, the industrial look does not appeal to me. I liked Al's picture and ideas. Third, it looks uncomfortable. The floor looks like something that will conduct extremes of heat and cold up the feet and legs of sitters. I nice boardwalk would have buffered temperature extremes and looked better. Fourth, It seems silly to have a 'park-let' competing with an actual park. Fifth, it has been placed on a block that needs more, not less parking. Given, 1,4 5, it does give the appearance of being a favorite son project. I can imagine prettier sites, for park-lets, in areas with easier parking, greater safety, and more need of an economic impetus and /or community accommodation. How about mid-block on Chestnut near the Ethio cafe and Fit-Gym? It would be nice to see some Gym bodies chilling in site of traffic that might otherwise flow through UC to CC.It would be nice to see pedestrians and a mini-oasis rest refresh space on that block. Also good (but tight parking), might be in front of Tampoco, on 45th or near Local 44 on 45th. Less tight and really useful might be on Baltimore in front of the Laundromat.This would block off an often mis-used spot, and keep open the line of sight for people pulling off of Farragut onto Baltimore.Plus it would give the folks who can't afford their own Laundry machines a pleasant place to wait while their clothes wash and dry. Now you have my 2 Cents and a few other sites to consider. All the best! Elizabeth Campion -- Original Message -- From: krf...@aol.com To: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: [UC] Another reason I dislike the parklet Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:03:49 -0400 (EDT) !--CTYPE HTML PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//E--pspan id=role_document style=font-family: Arial; color: #00; font-size: x-small;divI don't disagree with the maxim de gustabus non est disputandum./divdivnbsp;/divdivBut I wonder how many neighbors would disagree with me that -- ignoring the other pros and cons of the parklet covered on this list -- a big reason for disliking it is its ugliness./divdivnbsp;/divdivMaybe a robot ambulating through the area would find the industrial design attractive. But for at least some of us humans, a park connotes a degree of rustication. When I first heard about it, but hadn't get gone down to see what the brouhaha was all about, I pictured something that had the appearance of a wooden deck, maybe even a pergola,nbsp;with a floor elevated a few steps off the ground. Something like the illustration below, only longer and narrower,nbsp;with one or two steps running the whole open length./divdivnbsp;/divdivimg id=rg_hi class=rg_hi style=width: 259px; height: 194px; src=http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYc4inui-UxzoIv7NjNHqh6bDiE430MezP1Z4sad7Kxf4-IpKB; alt= width=259 height=194/divdivnbsp;/divdivMore of a Leggo than an Erector Set construction, but still standardized for easy assembly and disassembly. divnbsp;/divdivAny thoughts (non-ad-hominem if possible) on this, one way or another? If we're going to have this sort of thing, maybe we can make some suggestions about not creating eyesores in the process./divdivnbsp;/divdivnbsp;/divdivnbsp;/divdivspan style=font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small; lang=0You read it here, first, on the ever-popular /spanspan style=font-family: Arial; color: #a0; font-size: x-small; lang=0span style=font-family: Arial; color: #a0; font-size: x-small; lang=0strongemPopu-List/em/strong/span/spanemspan style=font-family: Arial; color: #00; font-size: x-small; lang=0brbrCourtesy of Al Krigman/span/em/div/div/span/p/html
Re: [UC] Another reason I dislike the parklet
On 8/15/2011 3:03 PM, krf...@aol.com wrote: Any thoughts (non-ad-hominem if possible) on this, one way or another? If we're going to have this sort of thing, maybe we can make some suggestions about not creating eyesores in the process. Al, I've been thinking of the architecture and art philosophy that arrived here with the beginning of the gentrification. The Radian/Hub, the cages on 40th, the Clark park redesign, and the parklet all invoke an immediate industrial feeling, as you and Liz both observe in the parklet. Several themes of design become clear when comparing the 4 projects. Much of the general design philosophy has long been piloted in big box malls and fast food restaurants. We live in the most utilitarian era in the history of Western civilization and this is the immediate theme conveyed with the obvious sterility of all 4 designs. The designs convey that all are temporary, disposable and for commercial use only. The industrial features are meant to convey power, safety, separation and modernity, which helps mask the cheap mass produced building materials. Additionaly, there is no interpretation, deep meanings, or detail remotely suggested in the intent. The individual design messages of each project are immediate and singular. And with the use of either clashing bright or deathly metallic or gray, artificial colors, and paint textures; the viewer knows that the values of society should properly be tense and anti-aesthetic around these projects. Beyond taste, as you refer to, the viewer feels viscerally that aesthetic sensibilities are not simply unimportant in all 4 projects but taboo distractions. No one will want to sit and meditate near any of these projects! The steel cages at the western end of Penn's campus (40th St.) give an omnipotent singular warning about the line of demarcation. Cages are feared by a large segment of the population. That project doesn't require much individual discussion. It's an industrial warning barrier symbolizing a prison. The parklet also uses an elongated steel cage with a wooden blinder for those seated. And the orange and purple chairs and tables, as in Clark Park, are immediately felt as a warning. The clash to the surrounding natural colors and architecture is obviously meant to be offensive, but the artificial bright colors clearly deliver a warning. (People in our area understand that the bright colors announce both a class or police warning, as well as a customers only warning.) Warning designs are now meant to deliver a sense of security to customers, who exist in a state of permanent siege. The parklet, with its warnings, is viewed as safe place for quick tense consumption. The Radian is reminiscent of the highway road sheds, which were once used to hold mountains of rock salt along lonely highways. The design creates a clear imposing separation above the brick and mortar city, and invokes the isolation one might feel as one passes quickly through on a deserted suburban highway. The viewer senses there are mighty industrial barriers in the fortress, like a suburban gated community would call forth. There will be no mixing with the city for those individuals behind its tin walls. To conclude, the design philosophy of each project invokes the following features: industrial strength, temporary/disposable intention, commercial use only, strictly utilitarian/anti-aesthetic principles and powerful singular messages of barriers and segregation. The parklet is designed with all these features because it is a place to quickly consume products from the business it is attached. It is not meant to be inviting to strolling pedestrians, who are not drawn to quick consumption of the offered products. No one wants to linger beyond consumption time, like the architecture and colors that fast food joints and box malls convey. Thanks for the discussion, Glenn
