I’m troubled by the term “designing a park for the 21st century.” The examples that were referred to in the reading were described by Julia Czerniak as projects that ask designers for “forward-looking thought, prompting speculation on the roles for contemporary parks and, inevitably, their appearance.” She also states two essential characteristics of a park, legibility and resilience. To me these designs understood the systems integrated within the landscape and the methods of configuring these elements into a functioning unit. Is this what it means to design a park for the 21st century? Hasn’t this been already happening and is Central Park a 19th century park with a 21st century design? I interpreted the big idea being not how the park looks, but understanding how the park works in turn affecting how it looks. Are these then the requirements for a successful park and if so then where do the Italian Renaissance and old English gardens stand in all this, if you consider them private parks for the bourgeois?
The main point I got from this reading is that successful large parks are legible and resilient. The park should have an identity and should also be able to adapt throughout time with new programs. Central park is an example that really highlights this idea. The park’s purpose is legible, to provide a change from the harsh city environment, however its purpose is not to ignore is surroundings but an effort to restore the area and then further promote urban development. Central park is also resilient because “the key sensibility of the park, the ability for a visitor to flow seamlessly- on foot, on a bike, in a car or on a horse-without interruption, persists.” As the analysis of more modern large parks continued these points proved to show what make each successful. For the Lifescape site there is a distinction between resilience and adaptive, because “adaption suggest continual change in form and identify to adjust to a set of conditions, resilience implies a return to a recognizable state after a disturbance. I think adaptation is a more contemporary idea. I thought this was an interesting read, and definitely offered me some insight into my design. As I work through the resilient stage to keep the park producing energy after the landfill itself doesn’t, I have to convey this process so that it is legible to the visitor.
"to imagine a park presumes an urban condition". a simple statement put slightly more poetically, but still a true statement regardless. parks obviously need to be designed and imagined with context in mind, however, the reading explains how this relationship is becoming more and more important as time goes on and cities and spaces evolve. successful large parks are designed not only to relate to the current conditions, but to deal with expected changes that will come with the future, and really, have an evolutionary timeline themselves.
I’m troubled by the term “designing a park for the 21st century.” The examples that were referred to in the reading were described by Julia Czerniak as projects that ask designers for “forward-looking thought, prompting speculation on the roles for contemporary parks and, inevitably, their appearance.” She also states two essential characteristics of a park, legibility and resilience.
ReplyDeleteTo me these designs understood the systems integrated within the landscape and the methods of configuring these elements into a functioning unit. Is this what it means to design a park for the 21st century? Hasn’t this been already happening and is Central Park a 19th century park with a 21st century design? I interpreted the big idea being not how the park looks, but understanding how the park works in turn affecting how it looks. Are these then the requirements for a successful park and if so then where do the Italian Renaissance and old English gardens stand in all this, if you consider them private parks for the bourgeois?
The main point I got from this reading is that successful large parks are legible and resilient. The park should have an identity and should also be able to adapt throughout time with new programs. Central park is an example that really highlights this idea. The park’s purpose is legible, to provide a change from the harsh city environment, however its purpose is not to ignore is surroundings but an effort to restore the area and then further promote urban development. Central park is also resilient because “the key sensibility of the park, the ability for a visitor to flow seamlessly- on foot, on a bike, in a car or on a horse-without interruption, persists.” As the analysis of more modern large parks continued these points proved to show what make each successful. For the Lifescape site there is a distinction between resilience and adaptive, because “adaption suggest continual change in form and identify to adjust to a set of conditions, resilience implies a return to a recognizable state after a disturbance. I think adaptation is a more contemporary idea. I thought this was an interesting read, and definitely offered me some insight into my design. As I work through the resilient stage to keep the park producing energy after the landfill itself doesn’t, I have to convey this process so that it is legible to the visitor.
ReplyDelete"to imagine a park presumes an urban condition". a simple statement put slightly more poetically, but still a true statement regardless. parks obviously need to be designed and imagined with context in mind, however, the reading explains how this relationship is becoming more and more important as time goes on and cities and spaces evolve. successful large parks are designed not only to relate to the current conditions, but to deal with expected changes that will come with the future, and really, have an evolutionary timeline themselves.
ReplyDelete