Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
The destruction of the Lower Hill will always be a tragedy. And I, for one, will probably follow the ways of my adopted city and always CALL it the Lower Hill, no matter what BS name they put on the development.
And I also would have designed a very different replacement, much closer to what was lost. But to be fair, what actually happened with the design was not just because of the Penguins, it was also because of all sorts of community input.
So in the end--as long as this gets built up with enough density of use, and maybe some decent street-level feel along Centre, fine. The middle is going to be a strange scooped out public space thing, but that's what the community wanted.
|
Yeah, good points. This redevelopment was never going to satisfy everyone, regardless of the final design. To me, both the local community and the Penguins certainly hampered what I would consider to be a far superior re-imagining of the site (i.e., a more densely-developed tract of 15-20 square blocks or so with a fully reconnected street grid featuring 5 avenues -- including Centre and Bedford -- and 6 cross streets -- including Washington Pl and Crawford -- that would be permitted to develop more organically by multiple parties). But obviously, that idea is in opposition to community desires for open space/views/"suburban" feel and to the Penguins/master developer top-down plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronPGH
This. I can't believe this stuff is STILL happening. You'd think that developers would have learned at this point. These projects have so much money involved in them, it's insane to me that these types of things are still getting overlooked.
|
Developers know exactly what they're doing -- they're not trying to learn anything and nothing is being overlooked. Re-naming schemes like this are the direct result of these projects having so much money involved in them.