From what I can see in the photos I have seen it....
A. looks like a place where people, for a good percentage of the time, gather for events and concerts, and is not so much a place "naturally" used on a daily basis.
B. seems kind of isolated and not well connected to a larger pedestrian friendly area, and contains within itself some non-pedestrian friendly elements, and in and of itself does not seem that large.
C. Doesn't look,,, comfortable and inviting.
One of the things I always look for, especially in a rendering of a new building or space, is how will this space look and feel with no people in it?
It's a common trick of the trade for architects and the like to fill an image with people to make it look more enticing. People do indeed find that attractive, but it can distract you from the real essence of the place. No matter what, sooner or later that place your looking at will have no people in it, its THEN that the real character of the place can become more apparent. I look at the space or rendering and imagine it with no people in it. Then say to myself "Would I be drawn to go there?" "Would I enjoy being in this space alone?". Just about every morning that will be the case for every space. And if that space is not attractive and welcoming, once the novelty wears off of the "new", more and more people will go on by and go to areas they like more and or that are more convenient. (unless there is an event or festival to pull them in) But if it's a welcoming, comfortable, attractive space that "catches" those first few people, which then makes it even more attractive to others, and so on, then you have got something. You can fool most people by filling a crappily designed space/rendering with people, but you won't fool me lol.
Just the other day I saw another rendering of a plaza/public space type area that was being proposed. First immediate glance, "Oh, nice", but then a moment later realized that I was reacting, not to the space itself, but to all the smiling, happy people in the rendering. The space was actually no more attractive than the local mall parking lot and wasn't too dissimilar than a dozen other, often empty and unused spaces in our city. Heck I could make those spaces look attractive by adding dozens of people walking around, chatting in little clusters (oddly often in the middle of a vast open space, like that happens a lot in the real world, if that were true our downtown with it's myriad surface parking lots would be chock full of people) children skipping, someone walking a dog, etc. etc. Sorry, not buying it. Then there was another "birds eye" rendering of a new development on a corner that had large walls at street level, and was right next to and across from other non-pedestrian friendly buildings. But somehow all the streets by this building were full of people. And everyone was like... "Oh, I like that!". We have a several areas just like that with hideous street presence all over our downtown and you NEVER see swarms of people in those areas lol, they do go to the the old, pedestrian friendly areas of downtown,,, even when nothing is open because those streets are so beautiful. People don't look at the reality of the space/rendering, they get fooled by the people placed in it by the designers and architects.
Large portions of this district do not pass that test. If you were the only one there, would you want to hang around and enjoy the space? Again, this space seems to be designed to rely more on people going there, not because of the space itself being atractive, but to go there because of some event or festival, not because it's an extension of part of a larger pedestrian friendly urban fabric, but because it's another "destination" type of thing.
Last edited by WilliamTheArtist; Apr 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM.