Quote:
Originally Posted by kennedy
The French example works because it seems like it integrates itself (in the close-ups), however, from the aerial photos you can tell there's not a whole lot it must integrate into.
|
It's a somewhat isolated fragment of urban fabric. Like a piece torn out of a city and placed in Suburbia --where it functions as the community's core.
They're even building these in places like Charlotte, dotting them throughout Suburbia. In a few hundred years, they may fuse together if they're allowed to survive. Then you'll have a city.
Quote:
|
The Italian (Spanish?) example is the opposite-the close-ups make it look very separate from it's surroundings (could be a result of the lack of life when the photo was taken).
|
Italian. It's a subcenter by Leon Krier for a typical 20th Century road-based extension just outside the urban core of Alessandria, a small city in Piedmont. Places like that teeter on the edge of walkability; this is an attempt to tilt the balance. It should cover more territory.
Quote:
|
Yet, in the aerial photo, it looks more integrated into the city around it.
|
Well, it departs from the linear order of the road, and introduces a bit of medieval randomness.
Quote:
|
Which is more important? The sense of street level integration (small scale) or the preservation of the city fabric (large scale)?
|
In this case, the existing fabric is no great shakes --though on Huntington Avenue, it would probably be a hit.