Last week, we did a guest spot at Curbed, taking hip shots at the High Line proposals, based on a slide show the Times presented. Now that more images are available, and a show (which I haven’t seen) at the Center for Architecture, through August 14, a more detailed assessment can be made. The additional information has not dramatically changed my initial impressions, so knowing — or not — what I wrote last week has relatively little signifcance here (though review of the images will: I’m not going to commit a lot of space to recounting the particulars of the project).
NB: For the purposes of concision (and my lack of adequate information to claim my annotations would be complete), I refer to each of the projects based on the lead design firm only, and the impressions here are based on more detailed review of the images, not any competition materials.
Diller, Scofidio & Renfro: The predominant motif of their design is both a literal exposure of and formal reference to the incision the High Line makes, and its repetition through materiality (the structural members that run parallel to its length and the rails they will be supplanting). The exposure includes cantilevering the tail ends of structural members at the Gansevort terminus — maybe. The most glaring weakness of this proposal is the omission of structural members and other construction details where they are clearly necessary (such as handrails) which obscures the intent of the more dramatic interventions, such as an ampitheater that soars into the air sans any significant structural support. In some instances, the lack of detail isn’t relevant, but for those signature pieces, the appeal of this entry would be severely compromised, as the elements aren’t particularly striking less the engineering showmanship. The other place the presentation technique significantly compromises itself is the (rightly) derided vignettes of potential use, one of which might be a De La Guarda performance, or simply a rendering with people bizarrely shown hanging from the sides of adjacent buildings.
The long strands of vegetation and interstitial concrete are intriguing, but the overall impression is that lines were inscribed on a site map, and where they intersected due to shifts in orienatation, an event was attempted visually, then alternating types of plant life were inserted to provide some variety. Of the two times these images succeed, only one can be attributed to design, the aforementioned terminus. The axonometric view displays a simple and striking formal arrangement that is what one typically associates with and expects of their work. The other is the perspective view of what I believe is in the vicinty of Chelsea Market. It displays little in the way of design whatsoever, but is one of the few views in any of the submissions that reveals how satisfying opening this space up to pedestrian only access can be.
Steven Holl: Holl is the sentimental favorite, a local who has had only limited opportunity to exercise his considerable talents, and who also happens to be the person who should be credited with first publicizing the idea of transforming the High Line through adaptive reuse, way back in 1981, publishing a project for a Bridge of Houses (along with one for Melbourne, Australia).
So it’s not surprising, given the long gestation, that his submission is at once the most plausible and perhaps the most compelling as well. Understanding just how fruitless pursuing a visionary concept can be (his original proposal wasn’t simply a formal gesture, but also included an analysis of costs provided mixed-income options), he qualified his option as being eminently viable, with almost a quarter being realizable in the near-term, for less than the budget the High Line currently is projecting. His images don’t necessarily project a consciously inexpensive solution. There a number of rather dramatic interventions, but the pragmatic requirements (an entry ramp and plaza) have a very elegant simplicity without seeming obvious or cheap. He also takes pains to illustrate almost every view with how people would interact with the project specifically, showing use that doesn’t drastically segregate path and planting. The weakest element is the terminus, which has a stair tower (possibly the portion developed by Vito Acconici) that spirals up with an odd and rigid geometry, while being overgrown with plant life. It certainly accomplishes the goal of providing a view, but it does not exactly resonate they way many of his very simple formal gestures do. But this is not unusual — many of his most commanding works did not immediately communicate their potential in drawing form.
Zaha Hadid: Perhaps the Archinect folks decided to do an abbreviated presentation of Hadid’s concept. Maybe there is more to be seen at the show. But from there is to see, it’s hard to discern an actual response to the program requirements. Instead, it is seems to be one of those force-fit situations where the designer was predisposed to deliver an idea that was going to work, no matter how awkward the intervention. Granted, the images aren’t necessarily awkward (not at least by her standards), but simply aloof. The two places where attention is lavished are those most detached from the High Line itself: the terminus structure (which is entirely new, unlike the other participants), and an elaborate access/entry ramp (at 18th Street, currently a surface parking lot; Holl also has an entry here, so imaginably some additional property acquisition was part of the program). The existing structure barely turns up in the renderings, and then only to serve as a background datum upon which her trademark angular slabs are spun, overlaid, or subtracted. Her attitude about the extant site is most evident in terminus, where a new plaza in constructed directly above the rail bed, which is awkwardly incorporated into a glass sheathed space that is likely a lobby. If the judging was based on what creating an interesting large scale interventions to be randomly sewn into the city, this might be a viable entry (albeit one I still wouldn’t find that compelling), but as a response to the preservation and evolution of the High Line, well, maybe she lost the competition brief.
TerraGRAM: TerraGRAM’s images stand out, not simply because of their decision to mask them all as a circle, but because they don’t look like some Ridley Scott dystopian night (granted, in Holl’s scheme, his use of black and white photography to provide contrast of the design intervention only incidentally causes this). In their High Line vision, the sun shines, and for this alone one might be inclined to give it favor. Their design relies heavily on vegetation, and the sunflowers (which they argue will help reclaim the vitality of the soil) that dominate the southern terminus are vaguely threatening (sort of like a Residents performance gone haywire). The little they show of their planting scheme is unfortunately a sort of industrial English garden: a lot of look and don’t touch, as the pathway meanders through seemingly isolated pockets of planting. I’m predisposed against guided pathways in any form, and these lack any sense of freeform pedetrian ownership of the space. Granted, they only show two views, but both are pretty spartan in terms of furniture and don’t seem real respectful of the typical way groups of people like to meander (side-by-side, rather than in single file).
They show a nice treatment of the underside, in terms of organization and detail, but from what I can piece together in the FAQ at the High Line site, it seems most of the private property
beneath the structure will remain that, with little control over what goes on. So the parade of parking lots and taxi support services will remain, obviating the nice, bright passage way they project. Their terminus is straightforward, and consequently pretty successful, accomplishing with little fanfare what is the desire of anyone who inhabits or perambulates the city: a heightened vantage point with maximum glazing.
UPDATE: Links have been modified to point to the complete presentation boards at the High Line site.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Spliffy.
Last week, we did a guest spot at Curbed, taking hip shots at the High Line proposals, based on a slide show the Times presented. Now that more images are available, and a show (which I haven’t seen) at the Center for Architecture, through August 14, a more detailed assessment can be made. The additional information has not dramatically changed my initial impressions, so knowing — or not — what I wrote last week has relatively little signifcance here (though review of the images will: I’m not going to commit a lot of space to recounting the particulars of the project).
NB: For the purposes of concision (and my lack of adequate information to claim my annotations would be complete), I refer to each of the projects based on the lead design firm only, and the impressions here are based on more detailed review of the images, not any competition materials.
Diller, Scofidio & Renfro: The predominant motif of their design is both a literal exposure of and formal reference to the incision the High Line makes, and its repetition through materiality (the structural members that run parallel to its length and the rails they will be supplanting). The exposure includes cantilevering the tail ends of structural members at the Gansevort terminus — maybe. The most glaring weakness of this proposal is the omission of structural members and other construction details where they are clearly necessary (such as handrails) which obscures the intent of the more dramatic interventions, such as an ampitheater that soars into the air sans any significant structural support. In some instances, the lack of detail isn’t relevant, but for those signature pieces, the appeal of this entry would be severely compromised, as the elements aren’t particularly striking less the engineering showmanship. The other place the presentation technique significantly compromises itself is the (rightly) derided vignettes of potential use, one of which might be a De La Guarda performance, or simply a rendering with people bizarrely shown hanging from the sides of adjacent buildings.
The long strands of vegetation and interstitial concrete are intriguing, but the overall impression is that lines were inscribed on a site map, and where they intersected due to shifts in orienatation, an event was attempted visually, then alternating types of plant life were inserted to provide some variety. Of the two times these images succeed, only one can be attributed to design, the aforementioned terminus. The axonometric view displays a simple and striking formal arrangement that is what one typically associates with and expects of their work. The other is the perspective view of what I believe is in the vicinty of Chelsea Market. It displays little in the way of design whatsoever, but is one of the few views in any of the submissions that reveals how satisfying opening this space up to pedestrian only access can be.
Steven Holl: Holl is the sentimental favorite, a local who has had only limited opportunity to exercise his considerable talents, and who also happens to be the person who should be credited with first publicizing the idea of transforming the High Line through adaptive reuse, way back in 1981, publishing a project for a Bridge of Houses (along with one for Melbourne, Australia).
So it’s not surprising, given the long gestation, that his submission is at once the most plausible and perhaps the most compelling as well. Understanding just how fruitless pursuing a visionary concept can be (his original proposal wasn’t simply a formal gesture, but also included an analysis of costs provided mixed-income options), he qualified his option as being eminently viable, with almost a quarter being realizable in the near-term, for less than the budget the High Line currently is projecting. His images don’t necessarily project a consciously inexpensive solution. There a number of rather dramatic interventions, but the pragmatic requirements (an entry ramp and plaza) have a very elegant simplicity without seeming obvious or cheap. He also takes pains to illustrate almost every view with how people would interact with the project specifically, showing use that doesn’t drastically segregate path and planting. The weakest element is the terminus, which has a stair tower (possibly the portion developed by Vito Acconici) that spirals up with an odd and rigid geometry, while being overgrown with plant life. It certainly accomplishes the goal of providing a view, but it does not exactly resonate they way many of his very simple formal gestures do. But this is not unusual — many of his most commanding works did not immediately communicate their potential in drawing form.
Zaha Hadid: Perhaps the Archinect folks decided to do an abbreviated presentation of Hadid’s concept. Maybe there is more to be seen at the show. But from there is to see, it’s hard to discern an actual response to the program requirements. Instead, it is seems to be one of those force-fit situations where the designer was predisposed to deliver an idea that was going to work, no matter how awkward the intervention. Granted, the images aren’t necessarily awkward (not at least by her standards), but simply aloof. The two places where attention is lavished are those most detached from the High Line itself: the terminus structure (which is entirely new, unlike the other participants), and an elaborate access/entry ramp (at 18th Street, currently a surface parking lot; Holl also has an entry here, so imaginably some additional property acquisition was part of the program). The existing structure barely turns up in the renderings, and then only to serve as a background datum upon which her trademark angular slabs are spun, overlaid, or subtracted. Her attitude about the extant site is most evident in terminus, where a new plaza in constructed directly above the rail bed, which is awkwardly incorporated into a glass sheathed space that is likely a lobby. If the judging was based on what creating an interesting large scale interventions to be randomly sewn into the city, this might be a viable entry (albeit one I still wouldn’t find that compelling), but as a response to the preservation and evolution of the High Line, well, maybe she lost the competition brief.
TerraGRAM: TerraGRAM’s images stand out, not simply because of their decision to mask them all as a circle, but because they don’t look like some Ridley Scott dystopian night (granted, in Holl’s scheme, his use of black and white photography to provide contrast of the design intervention only incidentally causes this). In their High Line vision, the sun shines, and for this alone one might be inclined to give it favor. Their design relies heavily on vegetation, and the sunflowers (which they argue will help reclaim the vitality of the soil) that dominate the southern terminus are vaguely threatening (sort of like a Residents performance gone haywire). The little they show of their planting scheme is unfortunately a sort of industrial English garden: a lot of look and don’t touch, as the pathway meanders through seemingly isolated pockets of planting. I’m predisposed against guided pathways in any form, and these lack any sense of freeform pedetrian ownership of the space. Granted, they only show two views, but both are pretty spartan in terms of furniture and don’t seem real respectful of the typical way groups of people like to meander (side-by-side, rather than in single file).
They show a nice treatment of the underside, in terms of organization and detail, but from what I can piece together in the FAQ at the High Line site, it seems most of the private property
beneath the structure will remain that, with little control over what goes on. So the parade of parking lots and taxi support services will remain, obviating the nice, bright passage way they project. Their terminus is straightforward, and consequently pretty successful, accomplishing with little fanfare what is the desire of anyone who inhabits or perambulates the city: a heightened vantage point with maximum glazing.
UPDATE: Links have been modified to point to the complete presentation boards at the High Line site.