1- the idea of a below ground ramp should be reconsidered
to drop off charter bus and taxi traffic, while other subway,
bus, and above ground transit can be processional, such
as with ferries chartering people across the rivers from a
distant parking space, to spend the day (and foot traffic)
at and around the site. so too with buses, they can go down
the ramp, drop people off in 10 minutes or so, leave without
parking or idling for 2-3 hours, and return from 20-30 minutes
away parking area for buses and other carport type areas.
2- why sunken pit is dangerous-- someone will eventually
drive over the edge, it is presumed, and kill a lot of people
who are in a memorial space. same problem with building
the world's tallest building on the corner of the site, suicidal
problem there, potentially another golden gate bridge, and
to have this in this space, if it should happen, would forever
mar the site further (which is why tall buildings should not
be built around the perimeter, only farther outside the main
square). plus, if traffic is driving by, trucks and semi's or other
traffic may 'look down' into the site, and may veer or cause
traffic problems. especially with ice on the roads, or turns,
cars or other vehicles may careen off the path and into the
crowds below- what is the preventative measure? a tunnel
above ground? same problem with the Walker Art Center
design in Minneapolis, putting a surface street level side-
walk all the way into the side of the Walker addition, which
will allow cars turning on ice to continue right into the new
building lobby, or into summer crowds if a drunk driver.
3- Libeskind is an architectural prophet, apparently. OK,
but does he have the official card, and is it laminated too?
--------------------------------------
Dug In at Ground Zero
Daniel Libeskind Wants to Ensure His Lofty Design Goes Up, and Down,
According to Plan
<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39481-2003Aug9.html>
'The puckish 57-year-old Daniel Libeskind wears all black, too.
There's the shiny black cowboy boots, the mod black-rimmed rectangular
glasses and the black garb. It's his trademark. And it is not an
affectation. He is the real thing, described in a recent book, "The New
Paradigm in Architecture," as an architectural "prophet." In his days
as a theorist rather than a practitioner, he even had a kind of cult
following among architectural students captivated by his metaphorical
discourse...'
...
'He acknowledges that he is vulnerable, that he's in a tough game,
facing constant challenge. It is as if there are forces at work trying
to strip his design of its soaring essence. When he talks about the
onslaught, he talks of the need to have "backbone," to stand on
"integrity," to maintain the public trust he believes his design
represents.'
'Just who is trying to squeeze him? He breaks into gales of laughter.
"I can't name names," he chirps.'
' Very diplomatically, he will only describe himself as being
vulnerable to "the forces that would take this site and treat it as
business-as-usual and say, 'Okay, let's get down to business' as if
nothing had happened. But something huge has happened, something kind
of immortal, forever marking this site.'
--------------------------------------
Charles Jencks and the New Paradigm in Architecture.
<
http://www.math.utsa.edu/sphere/salingar/newparadigm.html>
Nikos A. Salingaros
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Texas at San
Antonio, San Antonio, Texas 78249, USA.
salingar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(for KATARXIS III)
Abstract: Charles Jencks wishes to promote the architecture of
Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, and Daniel Libeskind by proclaiming
it "The New Paradigm in Architecture". Supposedly, their
buildings are based on the New Sciences such as complexity,
fractals, emergence, self-organization, and self-similarity. I
disprove Jencks's claim, and show that it is founded on
elementary misunderstandings. There is a New Paradigm
architecture, and it is indeed based on the New Sciences, but it
does not include deconstructivist buildings. Instead, it
encompasses the innovative, humane architecture of Christopher
Alexander, the traditional humane architecture of Léon Krier, and
much, much more.
Introduction
Scientific qualifications of the participants
Superficial copying versus fundamental processes
Fractals and broken forms
Emergence versus deconstruction
The real new paradigm
Postmodernist and deconstructivist styles
Science, technology, and materials
Promoting architectural agendas
Conclusion
--
The Design-L list for art and architecture, since 1992...
To subscribe, send
mailto:design-l-subscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To signoff, send
mailto:design-l-unsubscribe-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Visit archives:
http://lists.psu.edu/archives/design-l.html