Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitSky
|
Here's a blowup of that map. I can see what they're going for, but... I'm not a fan. Parts of the plan make sense, but as a whole I don't feel like it creates that 'connectivity' they're going for. It's not like cultural centers by themselves have a lot of traffic; museums and libraries aren't exactly hot spots of activity unless there's already an event or exhibit going on (which isn't all the time).
Making John R and Brush street two-way makes sense since neither street carry the amount of traffic they were designed for, but cutting John R off just seems awkward and arbitrary. Vacating Farnsworth and Putnam make sense since they mainly just provide connection to local parking, but then why not give the same treatment to Kirby?
Sprucing up the space around the DIA and the Library looks good although I'm confused as to why they seemingly did only half of the Library's lot. I don't think adjustments to Woodward would make a difference since there's little issue in crossing it. Warren is usually the road with higher pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and would have liked to see something done there. I also would have liked to see the DIA's parking opened up for development instead of parkspace.
Overall, I don't think this plan (as well as the other finalists' proposals) really add walkability or connectivity to the area, though it does at least add interesting variety to currently empty spaces. Like I've said, elements of the proposals are good, but as a whole, it could probably be done better. Though that may not be the complete fault of the designers and probably more to do with the jankyness of the urban planning that already exists for this neighborhood. Like really, there should have been a unified plan on how to develop this area 60 years ago.