Why does the public not use public spaces?
Posted 25 October 2006 - 08:58 AM
Posted 15 December 2006 - 02:28 PM
In these pics, the only "open space" (other than the dreadful and utterly misguided Centennial Square) is provided by parking lots. And you know what? That's the way it is and that's the way it should be. That's Victoria.
There's only one way to improve on this formula: get rid of the remaining parking lots.
Posted 15 December 2006 - 02:35 PM
Posted 15 December 2006 - 03:04 PM
It actually boggles my mind why all buildings don't have little gardens for at least their staff to take smoke breaks and such on.
Posted 15 December 2006 - 03:19 PM
They probably would need some structural upgrades to do this, and who would pay for that?
Posted 16 December 2006 - 01:31 PM
Yes, believe it or not, the first picture is the oldest. Note how the excessive setbacks were eliminated along with much of the open couryard. I would think that the sidewalks in the second picture would be much more interesting to walk down.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
Posted 20 December 2006 - 11:08 PM
However, I do draw the line at lingering in Centennial Square... there's too much of a bad vibe there.
Posted 21 December 2006 - 07:20 AM
Now I know many on here are not fond of the new CRD Square next to China town but I do like it. Yes it could be improved but it is still nice. Once we more people to the North end of downtown we are going to see these public spaces used much more.
I am not in favour of 10 square metres of "open space" being forced onto developers which then claim it as a public ammenity these tend to be useless setbacks that do nothing except suck vibrancy off the street.
Posted 21 December 2006 - 07:49 AM
I do think that there needs to be balance, though, and some areas probably would/do benefit from enforced public space. However, I think that green, living space is more important than paving bricks and metal benches that have become the norm. Those are no more inviting than parking lots.
Posted 27 April 2007 - 03:52 PM
(the pic's filename is "vancouver_large.jpg")
Posted 27 April 2007 - 06:35 PM
The paths that don't go where people want to go reminded me of the park in Vic West in front of Parc Residences. It has such useless paths. One, if I recall correctly, is paved in finely crushed gravel, and since there is no traffic on it grass has started growing through. Might as well just let it take over.
Posted 27 April 2007 - 06:41 PM
The pic actually shows Victoria's main tourist strip: quaint and historic Government Street. And the blank wall is the north face of the Belmont Building, one of Victoria's major heritage buildings.
The blank wall (near top) contributes nothing to the activity of the street. In fact, it doesn't even seem real.
Pretty harsh. Pretty perplexing, actually. I presume they thought the blank wall belonged to something fairly new. I also presume they've never actually set foot on that block, if they've ever even been to Victoria.
And the fact that the pic is named "vancouver_large" doesn't score them many points for credibility.
Posted 27 April 2007 - 08:20 PM
Posted 27 April 2007 - 08:49 PM
doesn't jibe with my memory of it....
Posted 27 April 2007 - 09:11 PM
Are you suggesting they were referring to that pic and not the Victoria pic? It's hard to tell, but I decided they were referring to the Victoria pic because their wording is "The blank wall (near top)..."
The blank wall is near the top of the Victoria pic whereas it's smack in the middle of the other pic (and hardly needs to be pointed out to the reader).
Posted 27 April 2007 - 09:15 PM
Posted 27 April 2007 - 09:18 PM
So is the Victoria pic there as a good example of a blank wall? Why the heck is it there at all?
I don't understand that bit about not seeming real in either case.
Posted 27 April 2007 - 09:30 PM
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users