What do you do below something big?
This is a very general question, but an important one. Many pieces of urban architecture are quite large, especially overpasses, bridges, elevated rail, etc. And there are a lot of different approaches to what you put below that, from "nothing" to "actively hostile to homeless architecture" to "cool stuff."
So let's consider the advantages of each.
1. Nothing in Particular
Sometimes you build something big and high, and just ignore what's down below.
This bridge is up there, but there's nothing in particular brewing down here.
This is common when the big thing is so big that it's just not really engaging with anything below it except at the ends--like this huge bridge in Seattle.
This, to me, is a bit of a missed opportunity. No, I don't expect life underneath this kind of bridge to fundamentally transform, but the opportunity would exist to take advantage of the effect of the bridge--both aesthetic and physical, e.g. shade--and plan something around it.
Still it's better than:
2. Actively Hostile Architecture
The greatest fear of a certain kind of planner seems to be that someone might accidentally not be inconvenienced further when they already don't have somewhere to sleep.
The Wall of Death probably belongs itself in category 3 (see below) hence why I have a picture of it.
However, the chainlink fences here don't.
This is very common: a lot of places have spikes, or fences, or concrete blocks that are just there to stop people from using the space. And I get it to a certain extent: homelessness is not something cities like to advertise, and there's probably some liability issues from building spaces that attract homeless people if something happens to them in that space.
But often, as with this fence, doing that is gratuitous and implemented in a way that doesn't exactly make the space better on its own terms. It's just mean.
3. Something Cool
Of course, sometimes the space is occupied by something that has its own value (see: the art element of the Wall of Death).
See also: the Troll.
I'm not saying every bridge needs a troll (we'd need a lot more than 3 Billy Goats Gruff if so) but certainly the Troll is a good example of adding something more than just a big nothing or worse underneath a bridge.
It need not be art; here's a public space in Milwaukee that's under the interstate there too.
The point is this: this space could be normal, or wasted, or actively awesome.
I know which one I'd prefer. And I bet you would too.
No comments:
Post a Comment