As per the discussion in class, write your overall assessment of the project you presented. Use the questions presented in class for guidance but feel free to expand on them or use a different outline. Make sure to add the name of your project, location and overall theme. Use the material in earlier classes to have a critical lens on the project development, answer the questions about what is god and what is bad about it. Lastly, if you are the mayor of this city, would you vote for this project or not? Your submission shouldn’t exceed 2 pages. Feel free to use other sources to support your argument.
Project: Douguan Vanke City Garden
Location: Douguan, China
Landscape Architect: FCHA
Size: 28,000 square meters
The Douguan City Garden is in the middle of a developing community called the Dongcheng District. The site is unique because of its ecological richness and high level of grade change. The existing site is an undeveloped drainage channel set between new apartment buildings and businesses. The goal of the landscape design is to create a public space that is share by the local community and city by meeting the activity needs of the different population types of people. FCHA “wants visitors to experience a diversiform space atmosphere with rich sport activities as if they are in a theme park” (FCHA, 2018).
The site is organized into five different spaces from north to south and follows the grade change. It creates east to west connections binding the residential and business parts of Dongcheng District together as well as providing north to south circulation to the primary road and transportation systems.
As a reflection over the design, I think there are many strong aspects to the site. The park is taking a very urban area with many high-rise buildings in a city full of 919,000 people and providing public space in a vacant lot. The use of color and material is attractive and diverse keeping the user’s attention and flexible for different types of activities. I also think it was smart to use a vegetation barrier between the activity spaces and the pedestrian business/residential circulation. The designers really thought about approach experience and the desire lines of how people are moving in space. Lastly, I think how a firm presents their work is very important. How FCHA arranged information on their website about this project as well as the graphics was very smart. It is approachable for the designer but also the commoner.
Although, this project is very strong, I think that they missed out on a big opportunity to be inclusive of all ages and body types. The goal of the design it to feel like a theme park, but if they should of included more spaces that could be used by parents, young adults, and the elderly. Honestly, three out of five of the spaces were designed for the younger population ranging from 5-15 years old. The second critique I have about the design is the accessibility of the site. Because the site has such drastic level change north to south and east to west, the design had to solve the challenge of getting people into this “valley” of a site. In a lot of cases, perhaps too many, the design incorporates stairs and few ramps. In order for the site to be more inclusive, there should be more ramp entry points and not require users to walk to a specific side and specific location to access the site. Lastly, this site was a previous drainage channel yet the designers did not solve or incorporate this aspect into the design in a creative way. The only part of the site that helps control the stormwater is the bottom of the site which is covered in concrete and expected to “fill up” to create a “lake.” FCHA’s design information does not say if there is away of pumping the water away or how it is used after it creates a “lake” is considerably problematic.
Overall, I think I would vote in this project with a request for a few adjustments to the type and amount of accessible entry points to the site and how stormwater is treated. The project would need to go through another review before I approved it and they would need a very strong argument for how the site is “inclusive.” As landscape architects they would be using the stormwater in a more creative way or functional way. Also who would maintain this “lake?” I think the idea seems a bit abstract even though this particular place in China does receive a large amount of water.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Project: City of Greensburg Main Street Streetscape
Location: Greensburg, Kansas
Landscape Architect: BNIM, Kansas City, MO
The city of Greensburg, Kansas was hit with an EF5 tornado on May 4th of 2007. Prior to this tornado, the town had began to struggle with lower population numbers and the tornado seemed to only make this issue worse. Instead of dwelling on this horrible circumstance, the citizens of Greensburg got together to figure out a way for their small community to come back better than ever. They made it a goal to build back their community through sustainable design. This goal was made to not only better the community, but also enrich the climate and lower pollutants that were going back into the earth.
What was good about this neighborhood design?
The designers looked very early on at the whole town of Greensburg, and really began to think about how the whole city could be designed more sustainably. Previous to this new construction, the downtown of Greensburg was dwindling with business and there were many boarded up businesses. The installation of the main street streetscape helped to create a business boom along main street, as well as create a hub for community festivals and other events. Also, this design helped to lower the amount of contaminants that go back into the atmosphere which will better our climate. Examples of this include the main green street and the multiple LEED efficient buildings that have been built throughout the town.
What is bad about the design?
Something that is bad about the design is that the design could only go so far when it comes down to population growth. The town of Greensburg still struggles with its population size, even though these great amenities were installed. The main source of income around this small town is farming, so it your family is not employed by those means, it may be difficult to be able to live here.
Did the design achieve its goals?
I believe the design achieved its goals, because of two specific reasons. This masterplan that BNIM created, helped to bring the community of Greensburg together, and create a more sustainable city. The community was crumbling before the installation of this design, and once it was implemented, many people were able to have business start ups and create a central gathering space for community events. The masterplan focused on creating a more sustainable city, and I believe that it was realized through the installation of the green main street and the many LEED certified buildings that surrounded the community.
Would you vote for this design if you were apart of this community?
I would vote for this design, because it was able to achieve its goals within the community of Greensburg, which were to build back this city in a more sustainable way. So overall, I believe that this design has enriched the lives in Greensburg, Kansas. This city still faces population problems, but this community is tough and determined to continue to build up and stay strong when challenges come their way. I believe that the installation of this master plan is the first step in the strengthening of this community.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Project: Sarasota Bayfront Master
Location: Sarasota, Florida USA
Background: This is an ongoing project concerning 53 acres of publicly owned land along Sarasota’s bayfront, headed by Gina Ford, her firm Agency, and former firm Sasaki. Sarasota is a town of about 50,000 people, with a significant industry dependent on tourism and summer industries. While there is a large affluent (and largely caucasian) population, including a large population that only lives in the area for a portion of the year, thirty percent of the population is also African American or Latino, and has strong cultural ties to the area. In this rapidly developing area being dominated by high rise condos and rentals, the site is being compromised of its cultural heritage and ecological diversity. The Sarasota Bayfront Planning Organization and the city were looking to establish a performing arts hub that would engage the surrounding community and activate the waterfront. Three different designs were proposed to the community: one which “shifted” the focus on the site towards the horizon of the bay, another that created an island that allowed more interaction with the water, and a third which used “green fingers” to bridge the connection of the bay to the community. After proposing these iterations, the community was able to come together and culminate a hybrid design of the three proposals. This new design includes a performing arts center, municipal auditorium, event lawn, amphitheater, and includes other site amenities such as an ‘adventure play’ area, pedestrian pier, waterfront trail, and canal district for boats. Not only does the site offer social gathering and recreational opportunities for the surrounding residents, but increases the relationship and interactions with the environment that they did not have previously, by creating activities for engagement and educational opportunities with the waterfront.
Good: While the design of this site is certainly significant and beautifully thought an looks successful in its preliminary phase, the project is an important example of incorporating and thinking about underserved populations throughout the design process. Throughout this class, we’ve talked a lot about marrying preservation with urbanization, and I think this not only applies to ecological preservation, but to the preservation of culture and heritage of an area. The process to which this is achieved makes this project both unique and a precedent for future public projects. Recognizing that the site was serving the population that was hesitant to show up for public meetings and cast their votes on certain design issues, Gina Ford and her team took certain steps to ensure that all voices were heard. In addition to regular community meetings and open house, she held live online videos that allowed over 7,000 people to view the discussion about the area. Gina also help hold site tours, stakeholder focus groups, and met with youth groups to get the word about the design proposals and receive feedback about what amenities and programming that community would like to see. Another aspect of this design that this project does well is that the design team has begun to phase the design to try to draw in activity to the area as the rest of the site begins to be built. By focusing on the main street in front of the project and proving street improvements, the site becomes more activated and begins to formulate the connection that the community will have with this area. I think this was a smart move, and one I think that will pay off as the project is constructed.
Bad: It’s very difficult for me to be critical of this project because of all the lengths that the design team went to to be able to receive input from the whole community that allowed it to have different and diverse views and opinions. One thing, however, that I think the design should improve on is the transit and accessibility of the area. Gina Ford talked about this project at the ASLA conference and pictured it as a cultural meeting places for the minority population, but the site is dominated by vehicular transit as the primary form of transportation. While the design does incorporate pedestrian bridges and pathways throughout the site, more public modes (buses, trolley, etc) would further activate the area and make it more accessible to those that do not live nearby the water. While the designers may not have a lot of say on this matter, further communication with the city would help to advocate and bring attention to this issue.
Vote: As the mayor of Sarasota, I would definitely vote yes for this project because it does such a good job of rethinking about the normal scope and parameters of a typical design proposal and community master plan. Instead of focusing on the quickest and easiest way to garner input for a little representation of the population, the design team went out of their way to engage, preserve and protect the diverse cultural heritage of the area while also incorporating environmental concerns. Overall, though the project isn’t yet built, I think it has the opportunity to have positive social and economic impacts to the Sarasota community and should have the opportunity to set an example for future community designs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Size: 100,000 square meters
Aarhus is located in Denmark on the harbor. Aarhus’s population is approximately 336,411 residents and is continuing to grow. With the growing population, BIG Architects proposed to develop Bassin 7, adjacent to the harbor, to increase public space and incorporate new mixed-use development. The design includes seven, low and high-rise residential buildings surrounded by public spaces intended to support live, work, and play. Elements incorporated within this development are intended to activate the waterfront and attract people to the area. Proposed features include beach zones, theaters, swimming pools, cafés,
Did the design achieve its goals?
The Aarhus waterfront development is successful in reaching its overall concept to promote interaction with the harbor and maximize activity within the space. Activating the harbor and attracting people to the area will increase economic value. The activities incorporated within the design provide a variety of opportunities, while supporting play and enticing people to spend more time outdoors. The design is also effective in creating a balance between public and private space. Public space is intertwined within the entire site and the building structures are designed to support private interior courtyards. I believe the goals of the project were reached and are beneficial to the area, but there are some changes I would make to the design.
What was bad about the design and would you vote for this project?
I believe this design was successful in reaching its overall goals to maximize efficiency in the space allotted and attract people to the area. I also feel that if someone proposed this design to me there would need to be modifications before I ‘signed-off’ on it to have it constructed. The “bath” section extending into the water is disruptive to existing ecosystems and fish habitats and would have been more ecologically-friendly if is had stayed closer to the shore. The area is surrounded by hardscape and I believe there is a missed opportunity to incorporate more nature elements and restore some of the shoreline. There is a lack of trees that would create shade for seating structures and people walking along the pedestrian promenade. The article online discusses the importance of culture in Aarhus and how that was a focal point of the design, but I haven’t seen how the elements reflect these ideas and there aren’t any diagrams indicating these intentions. I am unable to find whether a landscape architect was consulted during the design process for this neighborhood or not, but I believe an educated landscape architect would have been influential in making the design more ecologically- friendly and would have introduced more vegetation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Architect:Stoss Landscape Urbanism
Project Name: Chouteau Greenway
Location: St. Louis, Mo
The project began as a competition to create an east west pedestrian connection between two major green spaces in St. Louis.
When Stoss took on the project they came to realize that this east west connection was important but they also realizes that the city also has green spaces to the North and South that could be incorporated into this network.
Our concept begins with a recognition of the multiple narratives of St. Louis that shape its identity, both good and not so good. An iconic landmark, a beloved park, nationally recognized universities, biotech and innovation – these identities are present and strong.
The Chouteau Greenway attempts to incorporate all these major divers and help the people of St. Louis come together and put some of the darker parts of the city’s history behind them.
The project proposes an east-west Loop that connects Washington University to Forest Park to downtown and the Gateway Arch. We have also proposed a north –south Stitch, that connects Fairgrounds Park and North St. Louis to Tower Grove Park and South St. Louis. In this way the Chouteau Greenway inscribes itself into the city, connecting assets, opportunities, neighborhoods, and people across its rich and diverse fabric.
The Loop + The Stitch wind through spaces that are connected by movement, as imagined on a bicycle, in a stroller, or in your jogging shoes. The Loop + The Stitch are about mobility, access and opportunity. The farther reaching ambition pairs mobility with a romance for the city. The discovery, enchantment, and appreciation that viewing a place through the lens that movement can afford.
What is good about this project?
This project does a very good job of considering the multiple aspects of the city and how they should be incorporated into a space that serves the entire city.
Taking the initiative to add on to the project goals and create a north south connection was successful and gave Stoss proposal a unique take on the project.
I like the way that that they envision the path through the eyes of a biker, jogger or walker, and really accentuated the path.
What is bad about this project?
The project is good for a master planning scale, but there are a lot of big ideas that are unresolved and may not be possible.
A lot of the elevated surfaces are going to be expensive.
The path is shown with heavy use by both pedestrians and bicyclists but does not have a designated lane fore each which may make it difficult for people to move through the space safely.
Did it achieve its goals?
The project achieved its goals because it won the competition, and successfully created a east – west connection for pedestrians.
It also exceeded the goals by implementing a north – south network.
If you were the mayor or the decision maker, would you vote for it or against it?
I would have approved this project, and I would be excided to see how it developed further into a more realistic project.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Project: Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration
Location: Seoul, Korea
Completion year: 2005
Project type: urban renewal, park/open space, stream restoration
Designers: SeoAhn Total Landscape
The Cheonggyecheon Stream restoration project in downtown Seoul, Korea, is an urban renewal project completed in 2005, which transformed a heavily polluted urban stream channel into a public recreation space. The Cheonggyecheon stream had turned into an open sewer due to post-war economic development in the 1950s, and was hence covered with concrete for sanitation purposes. In 1976, an elevated highway was constructed over the stream. As a part of his mayoral activities, Mayor Lee Myung-bak had the elevated highway removed and attempted to restore the stream sewer channel back into the recreational and ecological infrastructure that it had the potential to be.
The stream restoration project was a successful urban renewal project, which created a 3.6 mile-long linear green waterfront park in the middle of the dense city. It turned the concrete-covered sewer into a day-lit stream corridor, which attracted over 60,000 visitors each day, many of whom were tourists, boosting the tourism industry and businesses in the area. Along with the stream restoration, the bus transit system was also upgraded, which increased the bus ridership by 15.1% and subway ridership by 3.3%, and created multi-modal lateral and longitudinal connections to the stream corridor. Land prices in the immediate vicinity increased by 30-50%, and the number of businesses increased by 3.5%. The biodiversity increased by over 600%, boosting the number of plant, fish, bird, insect, mammal and amphibian species in the area, thus providing ecological benefits. It also provided flood control and protection up to 200 years. Most importantly, the project introduced much-needed green space in Seoul, and a place where people could gather, interact with the water and vegetation, and engage in a variety of waterfront activities.
The stream restoration project required heavy investment: $380 million USD was required to take down the highway, restore the stream and implement the waterfront landscape design. Also, although the project increased the biodiversity in the area, the water that flowed in it was drawn from the Han river, treated, and then pumped into the stream channel, so it was not a complete natural restoration. The stream does not support water purification functions because the stream bottom is made of concrete. The Cheonggyecheon area also used to house a bustling flea market, which was evacuated to make room for the project, displacing the businesses of numerous people. It also involved tearing down a significant transportation infrastructure at great cost, which altered the traffic flow. The maintenance costs are increasing by 30% each year, largely because of an algae problem in the stream. Hence, although the project was successful overall, and had immense public support, it had several shortcomings that drew a lot of criticism.
Achievement of goals:
I think the stream restoration project achieved its goals of social connectivity since it drew people from all over the city to the stream-front, and also connected them longitudinally and vertically. It became a valuable park space for public and tourist use, and supported various daytime and nighttime uses social gatherings and art installations, increasing the economic prospects of the Cheonggyecheon area. It also achieved its goals of improving the environmental circumstances of the stream, and improved the air quality and urban biodiversity of the surroundings. So, overall, I think the steam restoration project was successful.
The stream restoration project did have many flaws, but I think the numerous social and ecological benefits that it provided overshadowed the shortcomings. Thus, if I was the mayor of Seoul, I would vote in favor of the project, but would propose changes to several aspects of its planning and implementation. Firstly, I would utilize recycled overflow water from the impervious city surfaces rather than pumping water from the Han River. I would also de-channelize and re-naturalize the stream using plants for bank stabilization at strategic locations instead of a concrete base. I would plan the project for a longer term ecological recovery instead of the fast-paced politically-driven development that it is criticized to be. But generally, I appreciate the project for attempting to restore the concrete-covered stream into a public waterway and green space in Seoul.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Cheonggyecheon.” 2018. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheonggyecheon&oldid=848876837.
“How the Cheonggyecheon River Urban Design Restored the Green Heart of Seoul | Inhabitat – Green Design, Innovation, Architecture, Green Building.” n.d. Accessed October 28, 2018. https://inhabitat.com/how-the-cheonggyecheon-river-urban-design-restored-the-green-heart-of-seoul/.
it, Cheonggyecheon StreamSeoulMap. 2011. “Cheonggyecheon Stream Restoration Project.” Landscape Performance Series. December 1, 2011. https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/cheonggyecheon-stream-restoration.
Marshall, Colin. 2016. “Story of Cities #50: The Reclaimed Stream Bringing Life to the Heart of Seoul.” The Guardian, May 25, 2016, sec. Cities. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/25/story-cities-reclaimed-stream-heart-seoul-cheonggyecheon.
“Seoul Tears down an Urban Highway and the City Can Breathe Again.” 2011. Grist (blog). April 5, 2011. https://grist.org/infrastructure/2011-04-04-seoul-korea-tears-down-an-urban-highway-life-goes-on/.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Project: Mueller Community
Location: Austin, TX
Theme: Sustainable development
Mueller is a community fundamentally rooted in and committed to sustainability. It is designed for public transit and quality pedestrian experience. The community is also committed to a green building program for housing. Mueller started out as an urban infill project but quickly expanded to become a green community with 20% park space. It is located close to downtown Austin. A tree is planted for every 4 parking spaces in the community to increase air quality and aesthetic value. Along with established public transit, there are well-denoted bike paths and sidewalks along every street to promote alternative modes of transportation. Furthermore, since Mueller is located near an old airport, builders are “breaking down old hangars bolt-by-bolt to use them as recycled building materials” for the streets (1). They are also creating innovative public spaces out of historic buildings. Rare landscape is also being preserved in partnership with the ladybird johnson wildflower center. Reclaimed “gray” water is used across the board to irrigate native plantings. Finally, a sustainable power plant has been constructed in the community to provide clean energy to the houses and businesses in the area. All in all, the Mueller community does a great job of using innovative techniques to create a more sustainable living situation.
From the outside, the Mueller community might seem like a successful green utopia. However, like all great initiatives, there are some flaws. First of all, the density of housing in Mueller is not high enough for the influx of people wanting to live in the area. The houses are mostly single family and townhouses. With Mueller’s commitment to having lots of open green space, having high rise apartment buildings would not be a bad thing. Additionally, the affordable housing program has received some critique since 5 homes have fallen off the program. According to some reviews, the walkability and bikeability features are not taken advantage of- most people still drive cars. Since Mueller is a newly designed suburban style community, there is not much diversity in the look of the housing. It lacks the character of the city.
If I were the mayor of this city, I would vote yes on the Mueller development. I think that the energy efficient initiatives are noble and should be given a chance to succeed. My critiques of the neighborhood is that it may be too difficult to maintain in the future. What will happen when technology changes and electric cars are no longer a trend? Will Mueller be a community that stands the test of time, or is it just a trend that’s working for the moment? I think the principles from Mueller can be taken and applied elsewhere, to make more hybrid sustainable communities.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Location: Sacramento, California
Landscape Architect: Fletcher Studio → San Francisco, California
Rivermark is a 100% affordable housing unit in west Sacramento. The inspiration for the design comes from the sierra foothills. It emulates the geology of the area by using the fault lines and fissures that pull the landscape in interesting and dynamic ways.
What is good about Rivermark is that it is affordable housing in an area that is quickly densifying. As we have learned in the section about people’s right to the city, is that they shouldn’t have to move just because a new development is moving into the area. What makes these areas river in culture is the people. You will lose the uniqueness of the area is you lose the people. Another part of the project that is good is the high design. Many examples of affordable housing have basic design. This project had a goal to bring high design to all people inside the building and out.
The bad part about this project is the area is densifying. As the area grows, new development comes in and that has the potential to bring in to businesses. Like I mentioned before, peoples right to the city brings up so many points about people. People are the heart of the areas, Just because the may be able to live there, doesn’t mean that they will be able to afford the things around them. At the moment the west Sacramento area hasn’t fully developed so there is potential to save this area from doing that.
As a mayor I would vote for the project, but I would have contingencies. I would want to ensure those in the Rivermark project would have access to a healthy living style. I want them to have access to healthy food and recreational activities. I want the area to have ample transportation types and transportation stops. Rivermark overall reached its goals of high design, recreational opportunities, and sustainability all within a restricted budget that is allotted for affordable housing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Queens Quay Boulevard Project in Toronto, Canada is part of the larger Toronto Central Waterfront Master Plan. Designed by West 8, this project aims to revitalize a section of Queens Quay Boulevard to create a better pedestrian experience and to link multiple amenities along the lakefront. The street was drastically reduced to three lanes of traffic to accommodate a wide pedestrian path, bike lane, and a lightrail transit corridor. The project also introduced 240 new trees along the pedestrian sidewalk, which helps reduce the stormwater going into the city’s sewer system.
This project is positive in that it revitalizes a central part of the city and connects many different amenities along the lakefront. Reducing traffic is a big step towards creating a more walkable experience. The addition of the public transit system will also help reduce traffic and make the space more accessible to citizens. The commercial presence along the street will also be enhanced by the larger influx of people, boosting the local economy and creating a vibrant area of activities. This project focuses a lot on pedestrian activity and reduction of traffic, but there are a few minor concerns that I have about the project.
The first issue is that although this is a lakefront project, there is little focus on the lakefront itself. While the main focus of this project is the pedestrian system to and from other amenities, this particular section of the lakefront has no access to the actual water. The amenities provided along the shore are elevated from the water line and is bounded by a protective rail. Further context shows that the lakefront at this point seems to be either privately owned or is used for docks, but it seems like a missed opportunity to bring people closer to the lake and appreciate it as a recreational element. The second issue is that there is little in terms of stormwater management and vegetation other than the alley of trees. While this is a strong element of the design, there do not seem to be any other types of vegetation in use on this project. A vast majority of this space is hardscape, and I believe adding more vegetation to this environment is another missed opportunity to create a stronger tie to nature. Lastly, there seems to be very little seating along this corridor that would be practically used. There are some seating options placed but most are very close to the streetscape and there is little to bring people closer to the lakefront. Again, while this project primarily aims to create a corridor to multiple amenities, there is more potential for this site to become an interesting amenity where people can gather and socialize.
While I think this project completed its goal of connecting the rest of the master project together and making a better pedestrian experience, there are many things I feel that could have been added to this list of goals to further enhance the space. As a mayor, I would not approve of this project as it is. I feel that the space provided does not fully justify the drastic redistribution of traffic from this popular area. If the space were more developed and provided more activity for pedestrians then it would be better accepted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LEVEL 01 City Scale + Neighborhood Scale
Name of your project: Klyde Warren Park – Expansion + VisitDallas Experience Center
Location: Over the Woodall Rodgers Freeway at 2012 Woodall Rodgers Fwy, Dallas, TX 75201
World Landscape Architecture 2018 Built Design – Large Project Award, AIA’s 2018
Collaborative Achievement Award, ASLA’s 2017 Design Award of Excellence, Urban Land Institute 2014 Urban Open Space Award, D Magazine 2013 Best Community Impact Award, North Central Texas Council of Governments 2013 Clide Award Winner
Klyde Warren Park Completion Project Announced
Klyde Warren Park, designed by The Office of James Burnett, acts as the physical manifestation of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam, two districts of Dallas reaching towards one another but forever frozen just moments from each other’s warm embrace. The current park is quite literally the living room of the city, a highly active space at the quincunx of everything Dallas has to offer. Klyde Warren provides free daily programming ranging from yoga to lecture series and event concerts and films. These are often multicultural and intergenerational due to the careful planning and organization effort of the Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation.
Klyde Warren Park is currently 5.2 acres and was completed in October of 2012. Klyde Warren has welcomed over six million guests and promoted over two billion dollars in economic development and improved the value of the surrounding properties. Current analysis trends project a near $850 million in stimulus to the area post completion of the expansion. Klyde Warren is and will continue to be the most successful infrastructural investments in the cities rich history. The Woodall Rodgers Park foundation and Visit Dallas came together in an estimated $76 million dollar and more than the 1.2-acre expansion to fulfill the initial intent of the current success of Klyde Warren Park. The proposal expands upon the green space and public gathering nodes, long-term sustainability goals, over 1,300 free events provided to the citizens of Dallas and its visitors and well as the addition of a 20,00 Sq.-Ft. state-of-the-art pavilion to house the VisitDallas Experience Center. The project has officially passed the state and cities review on October 19th, 2018 and is planned to begin construction in early 2019 and be opened to the public prior to 2022. This quick turn around in direct response to the foresight of the Office of James Burnett in the original vision for Klyde Warren and the lofty goals they set out to achieve in 2012. The new project sets out the complete the deck plan over the freeway, outlined in the master plan, integral step to improving connectivity from the park to the Arts district and adding to the allure of Downtown Dallas.
Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation (WRPF) proposal, in collaboration with VisitDallas, to expand Klyde Warren Park and add the VisitDallas Experience Center acknowledges the divide between up and downtown the freeway caused in Dallas. More importantly, the park creates a town square where all of Dallas can be ever present in the life and culture of the growing arts district of the city. Increases in quality and value of the events currently available to the over one million annual visitors will offset the five million dollars annual operating cost of the continual maintenance and upkeep of the park and its staff. The current foot traffic of approximately one hundred thousand monthly visitors will gladly welcome the additional space for events and to relieve some of the congestion of the park currently faces.
Numerous ecological and environmental factors documented in the Landscape Performance Series intensive study of the parks mediation the carbon footprint within the city.
In my limited first-hand experiences with the park and its surrounding amenities and accessible, the park fails to acknowledge parking and vehicular circulation to and from the park. For tourist and other coming to the park as an experiential destination little is done to accommodate parking or the user experience to get to the park. Also, some of the charm and character of the “arts’ district isn’t responsive of the increase to property value Klyde Warren has already caused in the area without the addition of a highly technological civic hub. Collectively, in my opinion, what makes Klyde Warren successful isn’t the revenue it brings to the city but the social interactions and equity it brings to the people and the communities of Dallas.
Naive to the responsibilities and knowledge that comes with being the City Mayor and doing what is best for the greater good of the city. I would whole heartily vote Yes and do what I could within my power to implement the positivity and momentum Klyde Warren brings to the city elsewhere throughout the city and in which its communities.
LikeLiked by 1 person