Vision for the South Boston Seaport

ablarc said:
Sorry, didn?t mean to be dismissive. The passage is witless and ponderously written; and that puts obstacles in the reader's path.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I enjoy reading your well crafted and cogent posts.

I think the text I posted, bombast notwithstanding, is only Koolhaas? critique of the conceptual limitations of contextualism [which I take as the regulation and preservation of a historic district for example] and rationalism [which I take to be akin to the methodology of Krier or the New Urbanists].

Unlike Le Corbusier [your earlier comparison], who would propose manifesto-like that the architecture of the past was hopelessly outdated and should be destroyed and replaced with his modernism [Plan Voisin pour Paris for example], Koolhaas is not commenting on the architecture of the past at all, only on contextualism or rationalism as effective ways of creating [new] architecture.

He is saying that these two operations are not possible as posited since both rely on processes that contradict and even restrict the processes that created the [favorite] historic artifact in the first place. Therefore they betray their initial premise; that they are the continuity of the historic tradition. That is not to say that the results are bad, only that they are not what they claim to be.

I suppose ultimately he is arguing for his own work to be possible; and also that ?new types that are demonstrably responses to authentic programmatic demands and inspirations? are part of a true continuity of the historic tradition. And that is what I am arguing as well.
 
scootie said:
He is saying that these two operations are not possible as posited since both rely on processes that contradict and even restrict the processes that created the [favorite] historic artifact in the first place.
Click to expand...
Contradict, perhaps. Restrict? That may be just an assertion; depends on the controls you put in place to embalm the outcomes of your machinations. If you don't pump in too much formaldehyde, the assertion doesn't hold.

Therefore they betray their initial premise; that they are the continuity of the historic tradition.
Click to expand...
Let's just say they paraphrase it.

That is not to say that the results are bad...
Click to expand...
...and that's all the justification that's needed...

...only that they are not what they claim to be.
Click to expand...
...for the Noble Lie.

I suppose ultimately he is arguing for his own work to be possible; and also that ?new types that are demonstrably responses to authentic programmatic demands and inspirations? are part of a true continuity of the historic tradition. And that is what I am arguing as well.
Click to expand...
In short, live and let live.

Very succinctly put; Koolhaas could use you as his ghostwriter. scootie, I think this is the beginning of...
 
ablarc said:
Let's just say they paraphrase it.
Click to expand...

A sort of CliffsNotes of Architecture? ;)

Paraphrasing is a summary; a shorter, simpler version of an original. [Me with my Koolhaas-haat on would ask:] why settle with only paraphrasing? Why not occasionally write something fresh and possibly more relevant to the present?

ablarc said:
...and that's all the justification that's needed...for the Noble Lie.
Click to expand...

Versus the Ignoble Lie of the "American Dream??

I would rather face the truth?freedom may not be pretty [or urban[e]?]
 
^ No, thank you! Don't we have a bunch of undeveloped parks right next to Fort Point. That greenway thing, or something that was in the news.

I have no problem of having a neighborhood park where there are a bunch of things to do, but not 35 acres in Boston. Go to Maine.

Thank heaven this is a hypothetical thread.
 
^ This I like. A lot. A very urban conception of open recreational space. It's very unique and could be a nice draw to the area.

I don't know if you lifted the text directly from the firm's website (like 99% of archictecture firms its a completely nonfunctional website) but my one editorial comment is that the copy makes it sound like Fort Point is somewhere far off on the moon. If you guys are ShiftBOSTON, you might want to try to exhibit some more intimate familiarity with the area, which might connect local readers better to your content... just a suggestion.
 
Choo - the parks are based on rooftops and bridges (or so it seems). This doesn't replace or negate development of empty parcels. That's why I like it.
 
Um, what about the 100 Acres plan? Why propose something new when something's already been ironed-out?
 
Everybody, where and how can we apply the 'Vancouver' model to the South Boston Seaport? How would it work along Fort Point Channel?
 
kennedy said:
I decided to make a new thread where we could discuss pipe-dream type stuff for the South Boston Seaport, and leave the New Development thread to the actually proposed sort of thing.

Here is my Google Maps rendering of what I think the Seaport should be. I'll keep working on it when I have time, adding more, organizing more, spreading to more than just the Seaport. When I have fancy graphics software maybe I'll put up better maps. Anyhow, here's the link:

New Seaport
Click to expand...

I still can't see your Google Maps rendering of an ideal seaport. Think you can help me out Kennedy?
 
Well, not exactly a detailed rendering. It's more of a land-use map. But this link should work.

New Seaport
 
May I just ask again what exactly happened to internet oppurtunities here?

What could possibly locate here that doesn't need -- or at least highly values -- high speed internet? Not much. I know much of the country still isn't blessed with broadband, but this is a major northeastern United States city.

Something about Menino screwing it over with Verizon and their Fios, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top