I commented on the Dallas Morning News' column from the architecture critic, Mark Lamster in the previous post. Today, I want to post a link about another, quite a bit more major, blog's response to Lamster's piece.
In fact everything built since the museum has been based on
guaranteeing patrons that they will never have to set foot on a public
sidewalk when they come to visit. Hence, when you drive through the arts
district on most days now it has a certain dystopian aura, as if
somebody set off one of those bombs that incinerates all the people
without harming the buildings. Otherwise known as the sun, in Dallas.
So is that about pretentiousness? Don't be silly. It's about avoiding black people. We talked about this
in May when I was writing about an attempt by the performing arts
center to shut out the one serious black cultural institution in the
arts district, the Dallas Black Dance Theater.
I told you the whole arts district was inspired by a so-called
consultant's study in 1977 finding that the art museum, then still in
Fair Park in black South Dallas, was in "a poor location for a facility
whose patrons came primarily from North Dallas."
Ahem. Say what? What could that possibly mean? Oh, gosh we don't
know, do we? Well, we wouldn't want to say. In fact, for a big brash
ostentatious zhay erra city like that one on TV, the cat's just got our
tongue, don't it? We're just all knock-kneed squiggle-toes when it comes
to why rich white people don't want to go to South Dallas.
I won't comment on this other than to say Jim Schutze, who wrote the Dallas Observer's response, is a published author on race relations. I generally find him to be well-researched when it comes to his stuff.
I bring this up because it illustrates just how difficult the planning process can be. How do you balance the wants and desires of becoming an urban area, with other, sometimes conflicting issues that have no quantifiable measurement? In this case, the desire of the creators of the Arts District to that of the social concerns of those who plan to use it?
If I ever seem overly critical of Dallas' urbanizing attempts, it is because I come from the ideal of what urban areas should be. In cases like this, it can complicate that ideal. Which one is right is purely a matter of opinion.
Showing posts with label Arts District. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arts District. Show all posts
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Museum Tower and the Arts District
Though it reads like I might have, I didn't write the subject of this post. In the Dallas Morning News, Matt Lamster, the architecture critic, focuses on Museum Tower, but touches on the Arts District too. Added bonus, Lamster is a professor at my Alma Mater, UT-Arlington, which has a recognized architecture school.
The following are what I consider to be relevant points in the article.
The hot glare of contention has had the unfortunate effect of drawing attention from what is rightly the building’s fundamental flaw. Reflectivity issues, however serious, can be mitigated. But there’s no easy way to alter Museum Tower’s essential nature as a gated vertical community sequestered from the neighborhood that surrounds it.
...
It’s hard to imagine a less-urban urban building. Pushed back from the street grid, Museum Tower stands at a remove behind stone walls, generic landscaping and a barren, circular driveway. Think of it as an outpost of the suburban bubble dropped into the heart of the city, where it does not belong.
...
Just imagine what could have been: An engaging street presence with retail options to benefit the entire neighborhood, its own inhabitants included, and to encourage passage from the new deck park to the arts institutions along Flora Street.
One Arts Plaza, the gridded mixed-use tower at Flora’s northern terminus, at least makes some effort in this direction, as will a pair of towers in development along Flora, designed by Dallas-based HKS. A plan for artists’ housing on a site adjacent to Museum Tower should also improve matters. But those projects are no cure for Museum Tower, which saps vitality from the street.
On this score, the Nasher Sculpture Center, the principal victim of the tower’s reflected rays, would do well to think about its own street presence. The stone walls that shield Museum Tower were modeled on the Nasher’s own ramparts. If the Arts District wants to be something more than a bastion of privilege, it needs to come out from behind its walls.
...
The building was conceived as a standing sculpture, much like I.M. Pei’s landmark Fountain Place, a model for Museum Tower. But Pei’s prismatic tower is a far more rewarding form, a mutating, abstract obelisk, and it is a wonder at the street, where its signature fountains, designed by the seminal modernist landscape architect Dan Kiley, remain a great urban amenity.
Museum Tower, by way of contrast, is a rather banal stalk and offers nothing back in terms of public space.
That leads us to the barren driveway, minimally landscaped so pedestrians might have an unencumbered view of the tower’s tapering 42 stories of (brightly!) shining glass, its panels alternately fritted to add a bit of animation. That facade slips up above the roofline, smartly occluding mechanical equipment while emphasizing its verticality. The tower is far less successful at the base, where it sits on a boxy pedestal that has little relationship to the shaft, a problem that is especially acute from its dreary Pearl Street backside — too much junk in the trunk, as it were.
...
Museum Tower boasts all the amenities expected of a modern luxury tower and many, in addition, that seem intended more for marketing brochures than for actual residents.
Clubrooms and event spaces at ground level, meant to promote community, will see light use at best. Those same spaces should have been oriented to the street and programmed to genuinely develop a sense of shared experience. Residents might be happier with the convenience of a nice cafe or a grocer in the building — let alone a pharmacy or a dry-cleaner — and the whole area would benefit.
...
Such insularity is self-defeating and speaks to the building’s broader reluctance to engage with the surrounding community.
It’s one thing to have a kennel and pet-grooming station and another to have a private dog run, when Klyde Warren Park has one of its own directly across the street. Are Museum Tower residents really too precious to walk their dogs — or have their minions walk their dogs — in public? Even Jackie O. took her dogs out in Central Park.
At Museum Tower, exposure to the neighborhood is primarily visual, through the fishbowl-style floor-to-ceiling windows that have been vogue in contemporary apartment towers since Richard Meier ignited the trend in the early aughts.
...
It is, for example, difficult to square a building that boasts of “private estates in the sky” with any serious notion of green living. While environmentally friendly development should always be encouraged, there’s no escaping the perverse irony that Museum Tower’s theoretically sustainable facade is scorching its neighbors. That’s not sustainable, in any sense.
The only thing I would add is the similarities of Museum Tower to the four main performance venues. Aside from the reflective glare, they suffer the same anti-urban flaws that Lamster recognizes in Museum Tower. They have unneeded setbacks, useless landscaping, single-use designs, blank walls and attention-grabbing architecture that lacks urban substance.
Lamster mentions that Museum Tower inhibits the Arts District from becoming the 24-hour vibrant community it was planned. The problem is, the Arts District itself does that already.
The following are what I consider to be relevant points in the article.
The hot glare of contention has had the unfortunate effect of drawing attention from what is rightly the building’s fundamental flaw. Reflectivity issues, however serious, can be mitigated. But there’s no easy way to alter Museum Tower’s essential nature as a gated vertical community sequestered from the neighborhood that surrounds it.
...
It’s hard to imagine a less-urban urban building. Pushed back from the street grid, Museum Tower stands at a remove behind stone walls, generic landscaping and a barren, circular driveway. Think of it as an outpost of the suburban bubble dropped into the heart of the city, where it does not belong.
...
Just imagine what could have been: An engaging street presence with retail options to benefit the entire neighborhood, its own inhabitants included, and to encourage passage from the new deck park to the arts institutions along Flora Street.
One Arts Plaza, the gridded mixed-use tower at Flora’s northern terminus, at least makes some effort in this direction, as will a pair of towers in development along Flora, designed by Dallas-based HKS. A plan for artists’ housing on a site adjacent to Museum Tower should also improve matters. But those projects are no cure for Museum Tower, which saps vitality from the street.
On this score, the Nasher Sculpture Center, the principal victim of the tower’s reflected rays, would do well to think about its own street presence. The stone walls that shield Museum Tower were modeled on the Nasher’s own ramparts. If the Arts District wants to be something more than a bastion of privilege, it needs to come out from behind its walls.
...
The building was conceived as a standing sculpture, much like I.M. Pei’s landmark Fountain Place, a model for Museum Tower. But Pei’s prismatic tower is a far more rewarding form, a mutating, abstract obelisk, and it is a wonder at the street, where its signature fountains, designed by the seminal modernist landscape architect Dan Kiley, remain a great urban amenity.
Museum Tower, by way of contrast, is a rather banal stalk and offers nothing back in terms of public space.
That leads us to the barren driveway, minimally landscaped so pedestrians might have an unencumbered view of the tower’s tapering 42 stories of (brightly!) shining glass, its panels alternately fritted to add a bit of animation. That facade slips up above the roofline, smartly occluding mechanical equipment while emphasizing its verticality. The tower is far less successful at the base, where it sits on a boxy pedestal that has little relationship to the shaft, a problem that is especially acute from its dreary Pearl Street backside — too much junk in the trunk, as it were.
...
Museum Tower boasts all the amenities expected of a modern luxury tower and many, in addition, that seem intended more for marketing brochures than for actual residents.
Clubrooms and event spaces at ground level, meant to promote community, will see light use at best. Those same spaces should have been oriented to the street and programmed to genuinely develop a sense of shared experience. Residents might be happier with the convenience of a nice cafe or a grocer in the building — let alone a pharmacy or a dry-cleaner — and the whole area would benefit.
...
Such insularity is self-defeating and speaks to the building’s broader reluctance to engage with the surrounding community.
It’s one thing to have a kennel and pet-grooming station and another to have a private dog run, when Klyde Warren Park has one of its own directly across the street. Are Museum Tower residents really too precious to walk their dogs — or have their minions walk their dogs — in public? Even Jackie O. took her dogs out in Central Park.
At Museum Tower, exposure to the neighborhood is primarily visual, through the fishbowl-style floor-to-ceiling windows that have been vogue in contemporary apartment towers since Richard Meier ignited the trend in the early aughts.
...
It is, for example, difficult to square a building that boasts of “private estates in the sky” with any serious notion of green living. While environmentally friendly development should always be encouraged, there’s no escaping the perverse irony that Museum Tower’s theoretically sustainable facade is scorching its neighbors. That’s not sustainable, in any sense.
The only thing I would add is the similarities of Museum Tower to the four main performance venues. Aside from the reflective glare, they suffer the same anti-urban flaws that Lamster recognizes in Museum Tower. They have unneeded setbacks, useless landscaping, single-use designs, blank walls and attention-grabbing architecture that lacks urban substance.
Lamster mentions that Museum Tower inhibits the Arts District from becoming the 24-hour vibrant community it was planned. The problem is, the Arts District itself does that already.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Raising Kids Downtown
Some of you may know, but for those that do not, I am a volunteer columnist for the Dallas Morning News Community Voices page that runs every Saturday. Several weeks ago I submitted a piece that ran a week ago. In it, I talked about the reason my wife and I decided not to eave for the suburbs, a uniquely American phenomenon when we have kids.
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/local-voices/headlines/20130201-j-branden-helms-urban-living-has-benefits-for-my-children.ece
As cities across the country have continued efforts to repopulate their downtowns and urban areas, Generation Y and the millennials became known as urban pioneers. Even before they could count on neighborhood amenities like close grocers or dry cleaners, they moved to places like Uptown, which was once devoid of urban amenities. Now the place teems with life and activity.
Downtown is following the same path. It isn’t there yet, but in the six years I have lived in this neighborhood, it has made much progress. My new neighbors are no longer urban pioneers, except in one important way.
Urban pioneers dated and married. Some then had kids. Conventional wisdom dictates that they would then get a house in a suburban setting. Certainly, some have followed that path.
But those who haven’t are the new urban pioneers. I often feel like my family is part of a group blazing a new path. I’m not going to speak for the others, but we have specific reasons we choose to raise our two boys in an urban area.
It’s not, as some anonymous Internet commenters have suggested, that we want to appear hip and trendy.
One of the biggest reasons is health. For a lot of reasons, kids today are the fattest, unhealthiest they have ever been. Giving them an environment where they can be active is very appealing to my wife and me. We envision a future where the kids, when they get older, are able to live a semi-independent life, where they do not depend on us to be their chauffeur. In the process, they will burn calories as they go, or so our line of reasoning takes us.
We also hope some level of exposure to people who don’t all look and behave the way we do will help them, too. They will see rich and poor, all races, genders, religions and everything between. We hope this understanding of their fellow citizens will offer insights that others may not have.
Even some commonly considered problems in this regard have benefits. I grew up in a small farming community in West Texas. Drug education basically consisted of “don’t do drugs ’cause they are bad.” However, my sons will see firsthand where drug or alcohol addiction can actually lead.
My wife really likes the idea of having many cultural facilities nearby. The Arts District venues are within walking distance. Fair Park is an easy train or bike ride away.
Certainly, as in any parenting situations, there are challenges. The schools zoned for our area leave a lot to be desired, even for me, a guy who thinks that parents matter far more than the school does in a child’s education. We are looking into Montessori schools, magnets, charters and other options.
There are also fewer kids in the urban neighborhoods than in the suburbs. More are coming to downtown all the time, but most of our kids’ play time comes at their school.
Now, we can debate all of the above, but I think there is one important thing to remember about any decision parents make. The best choice is the one they truly believe is best for their children.
If parents choose one lifestyle over another without that focus, the children are in trouble. But if parents do what they really believe is best for their children — no matter where they choose to live — then the children’s best interest is served.
In the end, isn’t that what we all need — more kids who are cared for?
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/local-voices/headlines/20130201-j-branden-helms-urban-living-has-benefits-for-my-children.ece
As cities across the country have continued efforts to repopulate their downtowns and urban areas, Generation Y and the millennials became known as urban pioneers. Even before they could count on neighborhood amenities like close grocers or dry cleaners, they moved to places like Uptown, which was once devoid of urban amenities. Now the place teems with life and activity.
Downtown is following the same path. It isn’t there yet, but in the six years I have lived in this neighborhood, it has made much progress. My new neighbors are no longer urban pioneers, except in one important way.
Urban pioneers dated and married. Some then had kids. Conventional wisdom dictates that they would then get a house in a suburban setting. Certainly, some have followed that path.
But those who haven’t are the new urban pioneers. I often feel like my family is part of a group blazing a new path. I’m not going to speak for the others, but we have specific reasons we choose to raise our two boys in an urban area.
It’s not, as some anonymous Internet commenters have suggested, that we want to appear hip and trendy.
One of the biggest reasons is health. For a lot of reasons, kids today are the fattest, unhealthiest they have ever been. Giving them an environment where they can be active is very appealing to my wife and me. We envision a future where the kids, when they get older, are able to live a semi-independent life, where they do not depend on us to be their chauffeur. In the process, they will burn calories as they go, or so our line of reasoning takes us.
We also hope some level of exposure to people who don’t all look and behave the way we do will help them, too. They will see rich and poor, all races, genders, religions and everything between. We hope this understanding of their fellow citizens will offer insights that others may not have.
Even some commonly considered problems in this regard have benefits. I grew up in a small farming community in West Texas. Drug education basically consisted of “don’t do drugs ’cause they are bad.” However, my sons will see firsthand where drug or alcohol addiction can actually lead.
My wife really likes the idea of having many cultural facilities nearby. The Arts District venues are within walking distance. Fair Park is an easy train or bike ride away.
Certainly, as in any parenting situations, there are challenges. The schools zoned for our area leave a lot to be desired, even for me, a guy who thinks that parents matter far more than the school does in a child’s education. We are looking into Montessori schools, magnets, charters and other options.
There are also fewer kids in the urban neighborhoods than in the suburbs. More are coming to downtown all the time, but most of our kids’ play time comes at their school.
Now, we can debate all of the above, but I think there is one important thing to remember about any decision parents make. The best choice is the one they truly believe is best for their children.
If parents choose one lifestyle over another without that focus, the children are in trouble. But if parents do what they really believe is best for their children — no matter where they choose to live — then the children’s best interest is served.
In the end, isn’t that what we all need — more kids who are cared for?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Food Trucks
Today, I visit a topic that I am not 100% certain where I stand. I had a chance to visit the Food Trucks in the Arts District during a lunch hour. Normally, the Arts District lacks any activity during this period. The urban environment offers nothing for daytime activity.
So, in order to remedy that, the City, at the urging of some stakeholders and other interests, amended city code to allow food trucks to legally serve food in the area. I was amazed at the activity during what is normally an empty, dead area and time.
So that begs the question, do food trucks remedy the situation or do they exacerbate it? Undeniably, in this location, they at least highlight the design flaws of this area. If their presence can bring over a hundred people to the area every weekday, why wouldn't something more permanent? Some advocates say that the variety brings people in, since some food trucks are there one day and a different sort on another. True, but there is a permanent predictable variety on Main Street. Some say the lower price for lunch attracts some folks. Again, instead of opening a fine dining restaurant, why not open a lower price point menu. In response, I hear that rent is too high to offer cheaper food. There are cheap places downtown, and as long as the dominant and majority land use is surface parking lots, I don't buy it. A cheap restaurant doesn't need a whole lot of space. But, the built environment should have a place to accommodate them. On the other hand, will having these trucks visit this draw away any attempt at a permanent change in the build environment. I have no answer to these question. Other advocates say that the temporary nature of food trucks allow them to come when it is profitable and leave when it is not, saving money on wages and lights against the permanent restaurants.
I think some places are great for food trucks. Parks are a great example. I would want that to stay as recreational and open as possible, not cluttered by buildings. So food trucks there make sense to me. In the Arts District, however, I would rather that were built under the principles of solid urban design from the beginning.
That brings up another view. Do I judge food trucks on something out of their control? The food truck line made the Arts District better as it stands now. I am leaning towards them being bad in that area (though certainly not decided). But, if I were to change my viewpoint and accept the Arts District as it stands now, then certainly they are an upgraded feature.
So, in order to remedy that, the City, at the urging of some stakeholders and other interests, amended city code to allow food trucks to legally serve food in the area. I was amazed at the activity during what is normally an empty, dead area and time.
So that begs the question, do food trucks remedy the situation or do they exacerbate it? Undeniably, in this location, they at least highlight the design flaws of this area. If their presence can bring over a hundred people to the area every weekday, why wouldn't something more permanent? Some advocates say that the variety brings people in, since some food trucks are there one day and a different sort on another. True, but there is a permanent predictable variety on Main Street. Some say the lower price for lunch attracts some folks. Again, instead of opening a fine dining restaurant, why not open a lower price point menu. In response, I hear that rent is too high to offer cheaper food. There are cheap places downtown, and as long as the dominant and majority land use is surface parking lots, I don't buy it. A cheap restaurant doesn't need a whole lot of space. But, the built environment should have a place to accommodate them. On the other hand, will having these trucks visit this draw away any attempt at a permanent change in the build environment. I have no answer to these question. Other advocates say that the temporary nature of food trucks allow them to come when it is profitable and leave when it is not, saving money on wages and lights against the permanent restaurants.
 |
| One of the offerings when I visited this area on Tuesday. Great Quiche by the by. |
That brings up another view. Do I judge food trucks on something out of their control? The food truck line made the Arts District better as it stands now. I am leaning towards them being bad in that area (though certainly not decided). But, if I were to change my viewpoint and accept the Arts District as it stands now, then certainly they are an upgraded feature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)