Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I also think that it's very important to consider the feelings of the actual park itself.  The park may feel inadequate living in the shadow of the skybridge every day without anyone ever coming down to sit on it.  There is a strong possibility that a lonely park with an inferiority complex won't produce the quality of grass that would want to make anyone sit on it anyway, so the whole thing really just becomes a downward spiral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I also think that it's very important to consider the feelings of the actual park itself.  The park may feel inadequate living in the shadow of the skybridge every day without anyone ever coming down to sit on it.  There is a strong possibility that a lonely park with an inferiority complex won't produce the quality of grass that would want to make anyone sit on it anyway, so the whole thing really just becomes a downward spiral.

 

Hey, make fun if you want, but there's no way to express urban planning principles without this sort of terminology.  If you want to understand why, say, the historic district downtown has a more inviting feel to pedestrians than Houston Center, the psychological effect of skybridges comes into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky bridge is just a terrible idea. Discourages walk ability in the park.

 

Actually, it connects the garage to the second building. Form follows function.  The tenants are probably going to pay high rents and they would appreciate a covered walkway to carry groceries, or other items to their apartment without having to worry about rain...sun...etc.

 

 

They will use the park space when they want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can't help but get mad when i read h-town man's asinine posts. he has to be trolling, right?

If people discussing and sometimes disagreeing about the fine points of urban planning makes you mad, then maybe an architecture forum isn't a good place for you.

I actually like everything else about the building. Sorry to hurt anyone's feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it connects the garage to the second building. Form follows function. The tenants are probably going to pay high rents and they would appreciate a covered walkway to carry groceries, or other items to their apartment without having to worry about rain...sun...etc.

They will use the park space when they want to.

Are you insulating that people should be given the choice between using the skybridge and using the park? Clearly unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people discussing and sometimes disagreeing about the fine points of urban planning makes you mad, then maybe an architecture forum isn't a good place for you.

I actually like everything else about the building. Sorry to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

H-town Man - not sure about all your posts but I concur with swtsig that your posts on this particular skybridge IS ASININE. We're all urban planning enthusiasts but please be practical.

 

If I lived on the 5th floor of the north building why on God's earth would I park on the 5th floor of the south garage, walk down four flights of stairs (with or without groceries, rainy day or not), cross the courtyard (it's not a 'park') and climb 4 more flights of stairs to my apartment just to appear "urban".

 

Get Real Dude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H-town Man - not sure about all your posts but I concur with swtsig that your posts on this particular skybridge IS ASININE. We're all urban planning enthusiasts but please be practical.

 

If I lived on the 5th floor of the north building why on God's earth would I park on the 5th floor of the south garage, walk down four flights of stairs (with or without groceries, rainy day or not), cross the courtyard (it's not a 'park') and climb 4 more flights of stairs to my apartment just to appear "urban".

 

Get Real Dude. 

Even though I agree that the skybridge is not such a bad idea, some of these arguments are absurd.  First of all, the buildings have something a called elevators, I don't see why you would have to use the stairs. In your example above, with out without the skybridge, you would still have to take two elevator rides (or stairs) since the skybridge is on the third floor. So unless you live on the third floor, and happen to find a parking spot on the third floor of the garage, the skybridge doesn't do much for you - except protect you form the elements. In any city where people are used to walking, being hot, cold or wet is just normal part of the commute. Cities like NY or DC don't have covered sidewalks, yet thousands of people use them every day, all year long. And finally, the issue is not the particular user pretending to be urban. The project is meant to be urban, yet makes an effort to keep people off the street. It's a valid argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I agree that the skybridge is not such a bad idea, some of these arguments are absurd.  First of all, the buildings have something a called elevators, I don't see why you would have to use the stairs. In your example above, with out without the skybridge, you would still have to take two elevator rides (or stairs) since the skybridge is on the third floor. So unless you live on the third floor, and happen to find a parking spot on the third floor of the garage, the skybridge doesn't do much for you - except protect you form the elements. In any city where people are used to walking, being hot, cold or wet is just normal part of the commute. Cities like NY or DC don't have covered sidewalks, yet thousands of people use them every day, all year long. And finally, the issue is not the particular user pretending to be urban. The project is meant to be urban, yet makes an effort to keep people off the street. It's a valid argument.

 

The skybridge would do a lot for me - if I lived on ANY higher floor it makes my trip that much shorter and it gives me the OPTION to choose an alternate route.  Forcing people to live by what you perceive to be 'better' when you most likely will never be a resident of the building yourself is ludicrous.

 

Sorry but I just don't see much validity in this argument. I would agree that the tunnel system and the plethora of skywalks downtown do hinder street life but this particular skywalk is no different than placing a parking garage on the lower levels of a building - residents/office workers would still have no need to exit the building to the streets. By your argument - lets force people to have to visit the streets/sidewalks for every trip - even if only briefly - just to ignite street life.

 

Just think about it - Houston has a quarter of the population of NY & probably the same (or more) number of cars. News flash - Houston is not NY or DC! Houston will be urban in it's own way, whether that includes a few skywalks here and there ultimately will make little difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I agree that the skybridge is not such a bad idea, some of these arguments are absurd. First of all, the buildings have something a called elevators, I don't see why you would have to use the stairs. In your example above, with out without the skybridge, you would still have to take two elevator rides (or stairs) since the skybridge is on the third floor. So unless you live on the third floor, and happen to find a parking spot on the third floor of the garage, the skybridge doesn't do much for you - except protect you form the elements. In any city where people are used to walking, being hot, cold or wet is just normal part of the commute. Cities like NY or DC don't have covered sidewalks, yet thousands of people use them every day, all year long. And finally, the issue is not the particular user pretending to be urban. The project is meant to be urban, yet makes an effort to keep people off the street. It's a valid argument.

Newsflash: if those buildings in "ny and dc" provided parking garages as a building amenity I guaran-damn-tee you they would be covered and secured as well. At some point this notion of pedestrian-oriented urbanity moved into the absurd. Hell, why stop at the skybridge? You know what's really insulating the residents from engaging w the street? Those damn walls! Let's make it totally open to the elements - really open up the complex to encourage REAL interaction w the pedestrian activity outside.

Put down your urban planning textbook and get real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are all forgetting the security issue. I'm sure a security conscious person, arriving home late at night, would not want to cross a park in the middle of the night if he/she doesn't have to. The Developer knows this and pretty much has to provide this element of security.

And I really don't think that this strip is a "park"...which doesn't change the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the elevators in developments like this is usually not awesome. If the hallway is open and not air conditioned, the elevator turns into a sauna. They are great for moving. They suck for everyday use. Skybridge is the right call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the responses on here are a little nasty. Not sure why disagreement on urban issues causes people to be spiteful.

As to the arguments concerning options and convenience, that's how we got where we are. An unwalkable city. At some point you have to force people to ground level and ruffle a few feathers. If you make everything convenient and protect from the elements, you end up like Houston Center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except this is not Houston Center. This is a genuinely pedestrian-oriented development, and the skywalk is actually probably necessary.

 

I think the strongest argument here is security. I guarantee you there are quite a few single women who would love to live in this development but for whom a secure route between the garage and her apartment is an absolute must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the responses on here are a little nasty. Not sure why disagreement on urban issues causes people to be spiteful.

As to the arguments concerning options and convenience, that's how we got where we are. An unwalkable city. At some point you have to force people to ground level and ruffle a few feathers. If you make everything convenient and protect from the elements, you end up like Houston Center.

 

i just find this pervasive attitude that nothing is ever good enough for the urbanists on this board quite tiresome. you're essentially comlpaining that people who want to move freely within their own apartment complex should have to endure the elements in order to achieve some asinine notion of interaction with the street below. it's stupid.  instead of applauding the developer for adding some greenspace to act as a pedestrian thoroughfare between the stadium and the other side of the apartment complex you focus your attention on what is without a doubt a necessary resident amenity. this developer could have just as easily closed off that area entirely and squeezed in another 40-50 units. what would you have said then?

 

your analogy between the tunnel system that is used as an ALTERNATIVE to street level retail vs. people transitioning between their apartment and car as a NECESSITY only further demonstrates how off base you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes a hell of a lot more sense for the extremist urban planning view that the apartment shouldn't have a garage for cars at all than complaining about a benign skywalk that wont even allow you to bypass any semblance of urban business, just allows you to bypass a quasi courtyard pass through.  This development is transit oriented! Lets rail on the developer for thinking of his pocket book and putting in a useless amenity like parking when tehse tenants should be forced to walk and use the convenient train station!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just find this pervasive attitude that nothing is ever good enough for the urbanists on this board quite tiresome. you're essentially comlpaining that people who want to move freely within their own apartment complex should have to endure the elements in order to achieve some asinine notion of interaction with the street below. it's stupid.  instead of applauding the developer for adding some greenspace to act as a pedestrian thoroughfare between the stadium and the other side of the apartment complex you focus your attention on what is without a doubt a necessary resident amenity. this developer could have just as easily closed off that area entirely and squeezed in another 40-50 units. what would you have said then?

 

your analogy between the tunnel system that is used as an ALTERNATIVE to street level retail vs. people transitioning between their apartment and car as a NECESSITY only further demonstrates how off base you are.

 

I guess you're responding to the second part of the post you quoted and not the first. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H-town Man - not sure about all your posts but I concur with swtsig that your posts on this particular skybridge IS ASININE. We're all urban planning enthusiasts but please be practical.

If I lived on the 5th floor of the north building why on God's earth would I park on the 5th floor of the south garage, walk down four flights of stairs (with or without groceries, rainy day or not), cross the courtyard (it's not a 'park') and climb 4 more flights of stairs to my apartment just to appear "urban".

Get Real Dude.

People do it at post midtown square every day. It's not that big of a deal and helps street life particularly coco's crepes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People do it at post midtown square every day. It's not that big of a deal and helps street life particularly coco's crepes

 

I was one of the first residents at Post Midtown Square back in 1999 and I'm very familiar with the set-up.

 

I lived on the 4th floor of the building where Coco Crepes now sits on the ground floor - although it was an empty store front for years back then. It really wasn't much of an issue if I happened to find parking on the first floor of the garage of the 'Farrago's' building, however if I had to enter the residents gate to park on the 2nd floor or higher then it WAS a hassle, especially if I had groceries or items that would take more than one trip!

 

I often found myself looking for parallel parking in an on street spot closer to my apartment and taking my things up before parking in the garage. In fact, many times I just used the on street parking space as my unofficial overnight assigned spot - of course this was before they got aggressive with writing tickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was one of the first residents at Post Midtown Square back in 1999 and I'm very familiar with the set-up.

 

I lived on the 4th floor of the building where Coco Crepes now sits on the ground floor - although it was an empty store front for years back then. It really wasn't much of an issue if I happened to find parking on the first floor of the garage of the 'Farrago's' building, however if I had to enter the residents gate to park on the 2nd floor or higher then it WAS a hassle, especially if I had groceries or items that would take more than one trip!

 

I often found myself looking for parallel parking in an on street spot closer to my apartment and taking my things up before parking in the garage. In fact, many times I just used the on street parking space as my unofficial overnight assigned spot - of course this was before they got aggressive with writing tickets.

 

I lived there too for a couple of years and usually parked on the fourth floor or higher. There were elevators in both buildings. It really wasn't a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lived there too for a couple of years and usually parked on the fourth floor or higher. There were elevators in both buildings. It really wasn't a big deal.

I'm with HOUSTONIAN, when I lived in the other building at the Post I rarely parked in the garage. I lived on the top floor of the other building and found it easier to park on the street than to park in the grange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lived there too for a couple of years and usually parked on the fourth floor or higher. There were elevators in both buildings. It really wasn't a big deal.

 

"Big deal"?  I'm not implying it was a life & death situation, just that IMO there was a hassle factor associated with not having direct access.

 

Slick, I'm sure you understand that what may not be 'big deal' for you, just might be for someone else - so giving residents different options shouldn't a 'big deal' either.., right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Big deal"?  I'm not implying it was a life & death situation, just that IMO there was a hassle factor associated with not having direct access.

 

Slick, I'm sure you understand that what may not be 'big deal' for you, just might be for someone else - so giving residents different options shouldn't a 'big deal' either.., right?

 

Yes but it depends what the motive is. If they want an active street life, you can't have sky bridges and tunnels. Also, think of all the random business coco's got from people walking back and forth to the garage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but it depends what the motive is. If they want an active street life, you can't have sky bridges and tunnels. Also, think of all the random business coco's got from people walking back and forth to the garage.

I don't think they care whether they have an active street life, I think they care whether they can rent all of the units at their target price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...