I hate it when facts go and ruin a perfectly good screed. But being self-righteous means always finding new ways to gripe. This started out as a perfectly fine complaint about Nicolai Ouroussoff and practice of critics — online at least — who talk and talk about things you can’t see, but they can. I’m certainly guilty of that to a small degree (though I sometimes have a little help alleviating this), but I re-report a lot, meaning that I’m already presenting the most robust amount of information to be had, and I also get the feeling that my calls wouldn’t get returned as fast as the Times.
My point being that in this day of advanced presentation technology and cheap bandwidth we should be able to reasonably expect fuller access to the renderings referred to in texts, and gosh, if possible, see a plan once in a while. Today, while reading Nicolai Ouroussoff’s roundup of the East River waterfront redevelopment, it appeared he made several glaring errors. Given the viewpoints of some of the renderings shown — particularly this one — it looked as if there were something odd about the plans, namely that they were recommending rehabilitation of a park space that is already undergoing renovation (in the linked image it appears to be looking south from the Williamsburg Bridge, with the beach right about the current location of the amphitheater). I was all happy to point this out, since it was the only thing shown that really gave a sense of what was be proposed.
I did do some cursory research to try and find source material, but came up only with a few. In simply trying to verify the name of the erroneous image (it would be Pier 42), I ended up at the City Planning site which features, would you believe it, the entireproposal.
Now, I have a problem with this. I know big media corporations have complex linking policies. Sometimes they even probably make sense to lawyers or marketing folk. But just yesterday having read a detailed history of Suck which had some fascinating insights into how the use of links shaped their editorial voice, I find it a little frustrating that the Times won’t link to a government site hosting a more robust version of the data on which they present commentary. Or, worse, that they don’t know about it.
So, yeah, I no longer have any cutting insight, since the image I referenced above is about 200 yards south (Ouroussoff could have cleared up all my confusion by mentioning it at all in his piece), where the removal of the storage shed on Pier 42 would enable the beach shown. But I do I have a point regarding linking. And, oh yeah, a beach?
Look, I lived on a beach, not for real long, and as an adult, perhaps too far removed from the days when someone else worried about how my shoes would get washed and well after I learned that no matter how sexy the idea of going to the beach was to romantic prospects it presents logistical, um, irritation, and as a result, the beach doesn’t do it for me much (but that SHoP is trying to do for me does it for me a little). Considering how tiny the plot is, and the lack of beach-like accoutrement (outdoor showers, cabanas, etc.) makes me long for the days when building a park was simply a big swath of grass. The new East River Park doesn’t have a single large area of green that isn’t given over to some type of organized recreation. Can’t we have just a little lawn?
I’m not saying that whole plan is a bad idea. The hard working folks over at SHoP have been pitching various ideas, in conjunction with Richard Rogers and Ken Smith, for the past year — and they don’t even have a contract (so Ouroussoff tell us, doing a little pimpin’ for the boys)! The range has been admirable: from the utopian flaky (put the whole of the FDR underground) to luxury condo hell (with towers spouting above the now left-in-place freeway), settling comfortably on pragmatic, community board-friendly parklets.
It’s a little heavy on ‘events’ though perhaps this is an effect of a presentation. Again, there seems to be a hesitancy to celebrate the insertion of a long, uninterrupted green space, though that seemed to work just fine on the Hudson side. It may well be that this isn’t as possible, given the condition of the FDR looming overhead, but what ever continuity is possible will help. The long urban path provides a sense of respite because it frees us from the usual annoyances and intrusion, be it traffic, visual distraction, or simply a hard-to-trace route.
Overall, it’s a nice plan, since it isn’t asking for anyone to wait around for the FDR to be buried or replaced by flying cars. This limitation implicitly acknowledges what I know to be true: the FDR is not that bad an intervention. Noise is far less in the elevated sections that surface level (certainly compared to West Street), and it could allow for easier access, particularly if we decided that a radical reconfiguring of South Street — a mostly unnecessary byway that could be severely constricted — was reasonable. Also, it provides a nice shady area to walk under while looking at one of the most arresting bridges in the world.
The pavilion idea is fine, though it strikes me that Pier 17 is somewhat a big pavilion that looks a little underutilized these days, so the allocation of the new structures could perhaps be a little more creative than a new location for Lids. And, yeah, that skating rink looks a little ratty, even in its most ideal rendering.
But see, that’s the beauty of hyperlinking: you can see for yourself. You don’t have to trust my hasty and strident opinion. If we could get the Times on board with this, think of the vibrant critical community we could create (and I could open comments, it’d be a syndicalist utopia).
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Criticism’s a beach.
I hate it when facts go and ruin a perfectly good screed. But being self-righteous means always finding new ways to gripe. This started out as a perfectly fine complaint about Nicolai Ouroussoff and practice of critics — online at least — who talk and talk about things you can’t see, but they can. I’m certainly guilty of that to a small degree (though I sometimes have a little help alleviating this), but I re-report a lot, meaning that I’m already presenting the most robust amount of information to be had, and I also get the feeling that my calls wouldn’t get returned as fast as the Times.
My point being that in this day of advanced presentation technology and cheap bandwidth we should be able to reasonably expect fuller access to the renderings referred to in texts, and gosh, if possible, see a plan once in a while. Today, while reading Nicolai Ouroussoff’s roundup of the East River waterfront redevelopment, it appeared he made several glaring errors. Given the viewpoints of some of the renderings shown — particularly this one — it looked as if there were something odd about the plans, namely that they were recommending rehabilitation of a park space that is already undergoing renovation (in the linked image it appears to be looking south from the Williamsburg Bridge, with the beach right about the current location of the amphitheater). I was all happy to point this out, since it was the only thing shown that really gave a sense of what was be proposed. I did do some cursory research to try and find source material, but came up only with a few. In simply trying to verify the name of the erroneous image (it would be Pier 42), I ended up at the City Planning site which features, would you believe it, the entire proposal. Now, I have a problem with this. I know big media corporations have complex linking policies. Sometimes they even probably make sense to lawyers or marketing folk. But just yesterday having read a detailed history of Suck which had some fascinating insights into how the use of links shaped their editorial voice, I find it a little frustrating that the Times won’t link to a government site hosting a more robust version of the data on which they present commentary. Or, worse, that they don’t know about it. So, yeah, I no longer have any cutting insight, since the image I referenced above is about 200 yards south (Ouroussoff could have cleared up all my confusion by mentioning it at all in his piece), where the removal of the storage shed on Pier 42 would enable the beach shown. But I do I have a point regarding linking. And, oh yeah, a beach? Look, I lived on a beach, not for real long, and as an adult, perhaps too far removed from the days when someone else worried about how my shoes would get washed and well after I learned that no matter how sexy the idea of going to the beach was to romantic prospects it presents logistical, um, irritation, and as a result, the beach doesn’t do it for me much (but that SHoP is trying to do for me does it for me a little). Considering how tiny the plot is, and the lack of beach-like accoutrement (outdoor showers, cabanas, etc.) makes me long for the days when building a park was simply a big swath of grass. The new East River Park doesn’t have a single large area of green that isn’t given over to some type of organized recreation. Can’t we have just a little lawn? I’m not saying that whole plan is a bad idea. The hard working folks over at SHoP have been pitching various ideas, in conjunction with Richard Rogers and Ken Smith, for the past year — and they don’t even have a contract (so Ouroussoff tell us, doing a little pimpin’ for the boys)! The range has been admirable: from the utopian flaky (put the whole of the FDR underground) to luxury condo hell (with towers spouting above the now left-in-place freeway), settling comfortably on pragmatic, community board-friendly parklets. It’s a little heavy on ‘events’ though perhaps this is an effect of a presentation. Again, there seems to be a hesitancy to celebrate the insertion of a long, uninterrupted green space, though that seemed to work just fine on the Hudson side. It may well be that this isn’t as possible, given the condition of the FDR looming overhead, but what ever continuity is possible will help. The long urban path provides a sense of respite because it frees us from the usual annoyances and intrusion, be it traffic, visual distraction, or simply a hard-to-trace route. Overall, it’s a nice plan, since it isn’t asking for anyone to wait around for the FDR to be buried or replaced by flying cars. This limitation implicitly acknowledges what I know to be true: the FDR is not that bad an intervention. Noise is far less in the elevated sections that surface level (certainly compared to West Street), and it could allow for easier access, particularly if we decided that a radical reconfiguring of South Street — a mostly unnecessary byway that could be severely constricted — was reasonable. Also, it provides a nice shady area to walk under while looking at one of the most arresting bridges in the world. The pavilion idea is fine, though it strikes me that Pier 17 is somewhat a big pavilion that looks a little underutilized these days, so the allocation of the new structures could perhaps be a little more creative than a new location for Lids. And, yeah, that skating rink looks a little ratty, even in its most ideal rendering. But see, that’s the beauty of hyperlinking: you can see for yourself. You don’t have to trust my hasty and strident opinion. If we could get the Times on board with this, think of the vibrant critical community we could create (and I could open comments, it’d be a syndicalist utopia).