|
|
|
|
|
by jjjjj55555
823 days ago
|
|
It seems like it had othe problems apart from being discontinuous from the city. There are lots of areas like this in the US which are contiguous with the city, that still end up as dead zones. Did anyone really believe this was a good idea? I feel like the developers' need to turn a profit and the government's need to impose itself don't leave any good ideas on the table. Instead they focus on packaging up the same bad ideas just with different marketing. When it inevitably doesn't work as promised, they just say oops, and move onto the next project. |
|
The pedestrian and shopping areas are linearized instead of polycentric as you would see in an urban core limiting mobility and discovery of the local businesses that make an urban landscape thrive. Additionally a limited variety in offerings of real estate limit the use patterns of a place. For example there stretches along the main way that form a barren pedestrian zone (among those are freeway underpasses, giant shopping centers and large office blocks).
Why its hard to replicate the organic formation of these places is that markets and public will, over time, evolve the space into the best value use. Of course, put enough people living in an area and urban life will emerge as people fill out coffee shops, theaters, etc. -given policy accommodative to mixed use development.
Here are two highly cherrypicked illustrations of my point.
Inner Copenhagen: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6800033,12.5764683,3a,75y,24...
Orestad: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6285983,12.5788039,3a,90y,19...