6 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2019
    1. The consensus reception holds that the visual composition of the structures lack a unified voice due to the heavy handedness of the individual star-architects who were commissioned to design its various structures.Most critics write from the lens of art criticism and therefor focus on the aesthetics of structures as though they were sculptures in a museum. For decades, critics from this tradition have failed to understand or assimilate the principles of urban design that make cities vibrant and walkable.

      This struck me as very interesting, as it frames the article as a rejection of accepted criticism of many respected voices in the field. Instead, the author conducts a potential use study of the space for future users, from the perspective of walkability. It is written not for other scholars of the field but for a general audience, New Yorkers in particular.

    2. The primary benefit of this would be to make the Hudson River and Public Square park areas more easily accessible to everyone who lives and works east of Hudson Yards. Opening 10th avenue to street facing retail, turning the six lane street two-way, and adding bike lanes would also make it more forgiving.

      Concluding appeal and explanation of the author's call to action. Considering the lack of walkability and limited potential use, they suggest a new design that will maximize access. This also has the benefit of altering the public's sense of that the space is exclusive.

    3. It's important to note here that between the posh region of Chelsea and Hudson Yards are seven blocks of unglamorous project style developments and warehouses. The High Line provides a convenient bridge over this region, and the canyon of quirky residential developments that flank it obscures the true nature of the surrounding neighborhood, which is mostly black, latino and poor.

      Briefly discusses underserved populations that would likely not benefit from the space and go mainly unnoticed by art critics and star architects. Members of the general public.

    4. Much has been made over the symbolism of the Public Square’s corporate aesthetic, its ‘gaudy’ stairway monument, and the exclusive luxury of its mall. I believe this is overstated; New York has plenty of examples of luxury developments and amenities which also contribute to the fabric of the city, including Rockefeller Center, the World Trade Center memorial site, and Fifth Avenue. With time, these markers of status will ebb and a new development will claim the hyper-lux mantle.

      This is another example of the author rejecting popular criticism by leaders of the field. He tempers his comments towards the design of the space by mentioning other historic examples in the city.

      This may also be a connection to the general public who have embraced (as a novelty) the Hudson Yards. It gives the author a sense of reliability, compared to the highbrow disdain of art critics.

    5. But over time, they become numb to the novelty of art, and other considerations exert a far greater influence on their experience of the building: things like who uses the space, when the space is used, how the space forms community and how it integrates the the community that surrounds it.

      His argument is user-orientated, criticizing experts in the field who work separately to build components of a shared urban ecosystem. Each architect was chosen for their fame, not their ability to work as part of a team, and spare little consideration about those who will live, work, and move through the space. Most importantly, the question of fostering community is addressed.

      Similar to scholars at the top of their field, these architects place little consideration towards the mass consumption of their work and its context.

  2. Apr 2018
    1. General Advertizer

      The General Advertiser was an eighteenth-century newspaper. It was originally known as the London Daily Post and General Advertiser, and then became the General Advertiser. Printer Henry Woodfall took over the paper in 1713, renaming it the Public Advertiser. He operated it until his nineteen-year-old son, Henry Sampson Woodfall, took over the paper in 1769. relaunched as the Public Advertiser with much more news content. In 1758, the printer's nineteen-year-old son, Henry Sampson Woodfall took it over. During this time, The anonymous polemicist Junius sent his letters to the Public Advertiser. Henry Sampson Woodfall sold his interest in the Public Advertiser in November 1793. N. Byrne took it over and printed it as the Political and Literary Diary, but it went out of business by 1795.