4 ms·

It's like park architect that create what they think are beautiful paths that surely everyone will like, only to end up after some months with with organically

It's like park architect that create what they think are beautiful paths that surely everyone will like, only to end up after some months with with organically created paths made by users walking on the lawn. The best way is to create the park with no built paths, let people settle in for some months and then come and build over the paths they created themselves.

wink 8y ago
By that logic you define the park as a part of the way from A to B and whoever comes first and is part of the majority who wants to travel from A to B through the park without casually strolling will define the way. What if the park is supposed to have a few loops and not-directly-diagonal paths to encourage lingering around? Also, maybe I'm just the stereotypical boring German but I usually try to not use the man-made footpaths if I just have to walk 20m more... Of course that's different for really "useless" 2m x 100m stripes of lawn in the middle of nowhere where someone just didn't notice that everyone will have to cross it, but of course there are exceptions to every rule.
- setr 8y ago
  In chicago, at Illinois Institute of Technology, they had a park in-between the residencies and classrooms; when they decided to build a main center (McCormick Tribune Campus Center) at the park, they (Rem Koolhaus) tracked the pathing that students were naturally taking to cut through the park, with the assumption that these were naturally optimized routes to important destinations. The building was then constructed such that those pathways persisted. This worked out quite well, in usage. (except some of the administration doesn't actually grasp this concept, and arbitrary block off routes... most often for their security circus) >whoever comes first and is part of the majority who wants to travel from A to B through the park without casually strolling will define the way I'm not sure about whoever comes first; people don't normally follow paths based on lightly treaded footprints in the grass. Hell, you watch people cutting across the grass and you're not going to see them just line up.. They walk to their destination, and enough people to do so over the same path (presumably, because its optimal, or close to it), and the grass dies, and a pathway naturally emerges, and then you get your lines. It wouldn't be about which person arrives first.. it would be about which destination appeared first. The pathway would be naturally created for it, and then if a different, but nearby destination appeared, they'd probably re-use the pathway rather than to create a new one. A sufficiently distant new destination would likely create more pathways though. >What if the park is supposed to have a few loops and not-directly-diagonal paths to encourage lingering around? There's nothing stopping that; just don't interfere with the optimal paths. There's no reason you can't have more paths (it's not like you're putting fences so they can't intersect..), but certainly its unreasonably to have fewer paths than what people will naturally use. Also, what is this supposed to business? It's a design/aesthetic choice, and if its unreasonable to have given the conditions of the environment, it would be utterly moronic to put it in anyways. If the designer doesn't have the authority to not be subservient to whatever is supposed to be, then its likely the stupidity of the bureaucracy. This then isn't question about what is good, its about what the authority thinks is good, and by how far its willing to force it onto the population.
  - wink 8y ago
    I applaud your example, but "park between residencies and classroom" is exactly what I meant. It's nicing up the area that's being used daily by loads of people with a deliberate path. For me "park" usually means "recreational area that doesn't happen to intersect the main pathway". And if it does, yes, sure, please make the direct route accessible so not every bit of lawn is treated as a footpath. Maybe I'm more thinking older cities like where I live where they sometimes convert old graveyards not being used for 200 years and having many graves of well-known architects, inventors, etc to parks, but not in the "play football on the grass" parks, but shady paths to take a stroll and sit on a bench.

wink 8y ago

By that logic you define the park as a part of the way from A to B and whoever comes first and is part of the majority who wants to travel from A to B through the park without casually strolling will define the way. What if the park is supposed to have a few loops and not-directly-diagonal paths to encourage lingering around? Also, maybe I'm just the stereotypical boring German but I usually try to not use the man-made footpaths if I just have to walk 20m more... Of course that's different for really "useless" 2m x 100m stripes of lawn in the middle of nowhere where someone just didn't notice that everyone will have to cross it, but of course there are exceptions to every rule.

setr 8y ago
In chicago, at Illinois Institute of Technology, they had a park in-between the residencies and classrooms; when they decided to build a main center (McCormick Tribune Campus Center) at the park, they (Rem Koolhaus) tracked the pathing that students were naturally taking to cut through the park, with the assumption that these were naturally optimized routes to important destinations. The building was then constructed such that those pathways persisted. This worked out quite well, in usage. (except some of the administration doesn't actually grasp this concept, and arbitrary block off routes... most often for their security circus) >whoever comes first and is part of the majority who wants to travel from A to B through the park without casually strolling will define the way I'm not sure about whoever comes first; people don't normally follow paths based on lightly treaded footprints in the grass. Hell, you watch people cutting across the grass and you're not going to see them just line up.. They walk to their destination, and enough people to do so over the same path (presumably, because its optimal, or close to it), and the grass dies, and a pathway naturally emerges, and then you get your lines. It wouldn't be about which person arrives first.. it would be about which destination appeared first. The pathway would be naturally created for it, and then if a different, but nearby destination appeared, they'd probably re-use the pathway rather than to create a new one. A sufficiently distant new destination would likely create more pathways though. >What if the park is supposed to have a few loops and not-directly-diagonal paths to encourage lingering around? There's nothing stopping that; just don't interfere with the optimal paths. There's no reason you can't have more paths (it's not like you're putting fences so they can't intersect..), but certainly its unreasonably to have fewer paths than what people will naturally use. Also, what is this supposed to business? It's a design/aesthetic choice, and if its unreasonable to have given the conditions of the environment, it would be utterly moronic to put it in anyways. If the designer doesn't have the authority to not be subservient to whatever is supposed to be, then its likely the stupidity of the bureaucracy. This then isn't question about what is good, its about what the authority thinks is good, and by how far its willing to force it onto the population.
- wink 8y ago
  I applaud your example, but "park between residencies and classroom" is exactly what I meant. It's nicing up the area that's being used daily by loads of people with a deliberate path. For me "park" usually means "recreational area that doesn't happen to intersect the main pathway". And if it does, yes, sure, please make the direct route accessible so not every bit of lawn is treated as a footpath. Maybe I'm more thinking older cities like where I live where they sometimes convert old graveyards not being used for 200 years and having many graves of well-known architects, inventors, etc to parks, but not in the "play football on the grass" parks, but shady paths to take a stroll and sit on a bench.