 |
| West Kowloon Cultural District Proposal, Foster + Partners, 2010 |
Crowded streets, effervescent market, mixed use properties. The general image of a vibrant city is what architects have been pursuing with street-centered designs. Is this the new generic solution?
From the moment planners define "potential areas" on a map, they are assuming that these spaces have no value — or at least a minimum one. So, in this way, abandoned spaces, large public areas, "not yet developed zones" have no meaning for a city?
Usually these parts of the city are used by socially deprived people (prostitutes, homeless people, drug users, rebellious teenagers, gay cruising), but these are also the spaces people go when they just want to have a break from the city, to liberate their minds from the super overwhelming urban environment.
What is the value of these spaces then? Are they economically important for a city the way they are or they'll always be "potential areas" until the first developer comes to set the cornerstone in the site?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.