It is also the only plan which – with some tweaks - might approach becoming that long thought
mythical type of uncommon - common space - which everyone has long been seeking
as the Holy Grail of urbanism. And when
I walked the area early this morning, I was able to confirm what I had only
suspected last night. Their plan also
addresses the adjoining streets, sidewalks and buildings in ways none of the
other designs attempt – and in provocative ways I had never before – even remotely
– ever thought of.
And – amazing, it
also appears to have the best financial plan of the projects.
In fact this plan is so good – I am – almost – tempted to not bring
two baskets of really over-ripe tomatoes to hurl at the face of James Corner
every time he deliberately mispronounces the name of our city.
And, yes – I did say – almost; because I’m not even remotely
near there yet.
And before I move on from here, unless you were at the event
last night – and had seen the additional slides and renderings beyond what has
been up on-line, I know it will be difficult for anyone to understand some of
the better qualities of their project – as well as harder to understand some of
the issues in the other projects. So I
will see what I can do about putting up some updated photos regarding that plan
- which I will go over in detail in my third and final post today on Pershing
Square.
But first, in this initial post I will address the two second
best plans and why, while they were very good in many ways, they were less
successful and a touch less daring than the Corner/Fisher plan. First up is ‘Agence Ter and Team’ and I first need to
admit – with one big exception, there is
very little that doesn’t work in this plan – except for maybe the open edible
garden….
And the plan’s sole major problem was the removal of the diagonal
paths across the park and the placement of the huge lawn area – at grade –
right in the middle of square. And that
is the exact plan USC tried to implement on the huge grass area between its two
main libraries; a grass area which instantly became a muddy grassless wasteland
because - absolutely everyone – had walked across the lawn where the diagonal paths
should have been until USC - finally - realized that bad planning could not defeat
human nature or common sense - and reinstalled the diagonals..
But even though that can be easily fixed in the plan – my real
problem was that there wasn’t enough there – there. Nothing that grabbed my attention as something
new, something that might make a real difference. But there were a number of
details I would like to know more – such as the liquid sky and certain aspects
of the pavilions. There might be a pace
for them somewhere in DTLA – such as the Grand Park. Particularly if they can be easily uprooted
and moved.
Considerably better in the interesting ideas category was
the plan by wHY + CIVITAS. Again, there
is not much wrong with it except that too many of the green spaces were small islands surrounded by pavement – or they were consumed by the conceit that they
were standing in for the lost urban foothills of Los Angeles; a concept that
didn’t do anything for me.
Those ‘foothills’ also wasted too much
unusable land that’s too up in the air as opposed to the Corner/Fisher
project with its one very impressive hillside and its very different second
raised area. And the wHY + CIVITAS design also has areas covered with decomposed
granite; a product Satan himself (unless women want to claim him now)had to have
designed since it always leaves dust, dirt or mud on your shoes. And if there is one restriction the City of
LA should insist upon – it’s that no decomposed granite shall be used in any
part of Pershing Square or any urban park in DTLA.
And as for wHY + CIVITAS’s proposal’s many good
qualities – they are quite similar to what I like about Corner/Fisher project. But I prefer how Corner/Fisher executed those
ideas. But, in the other hand, it’s also a plan which has
details I can’t quite see or yet know enough about to have an opinion on; so I
am looking forward to seeing if their more detailed plans might shed some more
light on them.
Next up, in a few hours, I will be posting why a modified SWA/MORPHOSIS
project - which I really, really I hated when saw it last night -
actually might work quite well as an urban experiment in sustainability. But
not – in any way shape or form – will it work in Pershing Square. Because it is
what it is – and trying to make it into a concept for a major urban public space
that needs to appeal to everyone – is simply not what it is.
And just as I was typing that last line…. – it suddenly all came
to me. The way to build and test thisconcept – in a real world situation – in the type of place it fits. And then it further came to me – exactly where it needs to be built.
Because, if it did work there – and its chances of success would be far
greater there than in Pershing Square - then another one could be built - right next door – giving it more of an economy
of scale. And if that too worked, then
it could then be replicated – again and again – dozens or even hundreds of
times more.
OK – it now may take
me just a bit longer to write and type that…
Posts
