Case Study Clemson 4: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Teardrop Park is a 1.8 acre public park located in Battery Park City, a mixed-use neighborhood on the southwestern side of lower Manhattan. It was surrounded by four apartment buildings. | Teardrop Park is a 1.8 acre public park located in Battery Park City, a mixed-use neighborhood on the southwestern side of lower Manhattan. It was surrounded by four apartment buildings. | ||
The flat, featureless plot of land that was the pre-existing site was created in the 1980s by filling in a portion of the Hudson River shoreline. This resulted in a high water table and potential for lateral infiltration of river waters that limited the potential depth of site program. Solar analysis indicated that the residential towers that were to define the corners of the park, each ranging from 210 feet to 235 feet in height, would create tremendous shade. | The flat, featureless plot of land that was the pre-existing site was created in the 1980s by filling in a portion of the Hudson River shoreline. This resulted in a high water table and potential for lateral infiltration of river waters that limited the potential depth of site program. Solar analysis indicated that the residential towers that were to define the corners of the park, each ranging from 210 feet to 235 feet in height, would create tremendous shade. | ||
Wind studies indicated that the east/west corridors through the park would experience strong, cold, and desiccating winds off the Hudson River while the areas between the buildings would be more protected. | Wind studies indicated that the east/west corridors through the park would experience strong, cold, and desiccating winds off the Hudson River while the areas between the buildings would be more protected. | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
* How is the area/project/plan used and by whom? | * How is the area/project/plan used and by whom? | ||
* Is the use changing? Are there any issues? | * Is the use changing? Are there any issues? | ||
The project is anchored in giving the surrounding urban residents a place to get away from their daily structures and textures. A strong corner stone of its design focuses on children. There is a theory that experiencing natural environments in early childhood development is an important role for developing childhood creativity; however children that grow up strong urban areas generally miss this opportunity. The majority of playground areas in urban or inner city settings focus highly on low maintenance metal play equipment and deture from the use on plants as interaction objects. They are mostly used to frame areas or block users from sites. The elements of Teardrop Park are designed to address this issue for urban children by offering natural environmental elements that are engaging and to be interacted with, thus stimulating their creativity. The Park provides such natural elements as a large variety of native plantings, natural stone elements that were quarried only 500 miles away from the site, a splash park that has a water source that can be controlled by the observant, different sizes of topography and scale changes creating hidden sanctuaries, and an intricately choreographed set of views throughout the park. | |||
The park also gives a relaxing vista and images for older people that frequent the neighborhood elements around the park as to create a unity of use for everyone. Due to this park being a newer addition to its area it has not gone through any lengthy time changes but as its main focus is on children the sites use is always changing and evolving with the viewer. | |||
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes | Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes | ||
=== <font color=darkblue size=4>Core Question 2:</font> What is the role of landscape architecture in this project? === | === <font color=darkblue size=4>Core Question 2:</font> What is the role of landscape architecture in this project? === | ||
Due to the placement and size of the area key physical issues needed to have special attention in addressing the biological attributes. The site has a tremendous amount of shade due to the 4 large apartment and office buildings surrounding it. This meant specific detail needed to be pay attention to the solar mapping of the site to maximize the plant placement. | |||
As for a central theme the site addresses this more as a focus between site and interaction. It lets the viewer interact with his imagination at the site by not having set equipment play areas and corralling pathways framing the different elements. A person is left to their own chooses of for an area is supposed to be handled. This allows the site and view to merge together in an informal way that can be more influence. | |||
Revision as of 20:07, 21 November 2010
---> back to overview of Future Landscapes Group 4
add your case study title by add authors
| Name | Teardrop Park | |
| Location | Battery Park City, New York | |
| Country | United States | |
| Office | Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc | |
| Client | Battery Park City Authority | |
| Completion | September 30, 2004 | |
| ||
| <googlemap version="0.9" lat="40.711058" lon="-74.016967" type="satellite" zoom="17" width="300" height="250">
</googlemap> | ||
Core Question 1: In how far does this project reveal your concept of future landscapes?
We foresee that with global urban growth, the problems of lack of materials and energy, toxic pollution and high density of tall buildings will become a much more serious issue. Thus, we hold the opinion that future landscapes should better address these problems leading to long-term sustainable development. Teardrop Park in NY, USA is such a representative project where "green" credentials are reflected in every aspect of its development, such as including fully organic manufactured soils, better solving the shade created by buildings and recycling water. Future landscapes should use more technology and research to face constant problems by development and are practiced in every detail of landscape just like this project.
Landscape and/or urban context
Teardrop Park transcends its small size, shady environment, and mid-block urban location through a meandering design formed with complex irregular spaces, robust plantings, strong materials and bold topography that create places for prospect and refuge. Designed primarily as a landscape for children, the park's spatial structure and reinterpretation of natural form makes a place for exploration and movement.
Teardrop Park is a 1.8 acre public park located in Battery Park City, a mixed-use neighborhood on the southwestern side of lower Manhattan. It was surrounded by four apartment buildings. The flat, featureless plot of land that was the pre-existing site was created in the 1980s by filling in a portion of the Hudson River shoreline. This resulted in a high water table and potential for lateral infiltration of river waters that limited the potential depth of site program. Solar analysis indicated that the residential towers that were to define the corners of the park, each ranging from 210 feet to 235 feet in height, would create tremendous shade. Wind studies indicated that the east/west corridors through the park would experience strong, cold, and desiccating winds off the Hudson River while the areas between the buildings would be more protected.
Illustration:
Map; sketches; short descriptive analyses
Cultural/social/political context
- Brief explanation of culture, political economy, legal framework
Illustration: Bullet points, image, background notes
Spatial analysis of area/project/plan
- What are the main structural features?
- How has it been shaped? Were there any critical decisions?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes
Analysis of program/function
- What are the main functional characteristics?
- How have they been expressed or incorporated?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes
Analysis of design/planning process
- How was the area/project/plan formulated and implemented?
- Were there any important consultations/collaborations?
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes
Analysis of use/users
- How is the area/project/plan used and by whom?
- Is the use changing? Are there any issues?
The project is anchored in giving the surrounding urban residents a place to get away from their daily structures and textures. A strong corner stone of its design focuses on children. There is a theory that experiencing natural environments in early childhood development is an important role for developing childhood creativity; however children that grow up strong urban areas generally miss this opportunity. The majority of playground areas in urban or inner city settings focus highly on low maintenance metal play equipment and deture from the use on plants as interaction objects. They are mostly used to frame areas or block users from sites. The elements of Teardrop Park are designed to address this issue for urban children by offering natural environmental elements that are engaging and to be interacted with, thus stimulating their creativity. The Park provides such natural elements as a large variety of native plantings, natural stone elements that were quarried only 500 miles away from the site, a splash park that has a water source that can be controlled by the observant, different sizes of topography and scale changes creating hidden sanctuaries, and an intricately choreographed set of views throughout the park.
The park also gives a relaxing vista and images for older people that frequent the neighborhood elements around the park as to create a unity of use for everyone. Due to this park being a newer addition to its area it has not gone through any lengthy time changes but as its main focus is on children the sites use is always changing and evolving with the viewer.
Illustration: Map/diagram/sketches photos and background notes
Core Question 2: What is the role of landscape architecture in this project?
Due to the placement and size of the area key physical issues needed to have special attention in addressing the biological attributes. The site has a tremendous amount of shade due to the 4 large apartment and office buildings surrounding it. This meant specific detail needed to be pay attention to the solar mapping of the site to maximize the plant placement. As for a central theme the site addresses this more as a focus between site and interaction. It lets the viewer interact with his imagination at the site by not having set equipment play areas and corralling pathways framing the different elements. A person is left to their own chooses of for an area is supposed to be handled. This allows the site and view to merge together in an informal way that can be more influence.
Image Gallery
- Yourimage.jpg
your image text
- Yourimage.jpg
your image text
- Yourimage.jpg
your image text
- Yourimage.jpg
your image text
- Yourimage.jpg
your image text
References
Please add literature, documentations and weblinks
"Images" teardrop1.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photos/dahlia/264303587/