05-30-2017, 07:31 PM
(05-30-2017, 12:31 PM)urbd Wrote:(05-30-2017, 12:24 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: ?? I thought everybody was big on the continuous street wall!
But regardless of the exact design, there should be an indoor path connecting all the buildings at the main floor level. It’s absurd not to do so with a master-planned area like this in our climate.
Yes, a continuous street wall composed of many different buildings! not just one continuous facade.
And disagree about the indoor path, they have been proven ineffective except in very specific scenarios (PATH). The whole point is to promote active and welcoming streetscapes even in the middle of the winter. Yes it can be done.
That’s a pretty blanket statement for a concept so general as “an indoor connection”. What exactly is wrong with indoor paths? There are only three things that distinguish indoor paths from outdoor: (1) roof; (2) walls; (3) climate control. Which of these do you claim makes them ineffective?
And what’s so great about being required to go outside to get from one store to another, in this climate? Sure, having the convenient option is good, and frequently very enjoyable, but required?
Also side note, even in California climate this can be screwed up. Once while visiting, I had the distinct displeasure of being rained on … while riding an escalator. I don’t mind that the malls are more open in California, but it doesn’t take a lot of smarts to realize that rain on an escalator should not be something people have to worry about.
As to the street wall, build this development as four buildings with four facades, but continuous instead of with gaps between them, if it is thought that variety is desirable (which is perfectly reasonable in my book).