Chuck's World: Five rules for understanding people and place
Studying the different ways we relate to the landscape around us can inform the way we think and talk about building livable places -- and lives.
(Page 2 of 2)
Why are these “observation wheels” achieving a kind of landmark status in some places when other, more vernacular gestures might better fit the context of a place?
My answer is not to cynically decry these wheels, but to consider them as the same exciting, moving observation points first described by seventeenth century journalists. Understanding their ongoing success — premised on fun and excitement — is consistent with my opening call for more studied reflection about relationships of people and the communities around them.
Lesson: Some urban icons remind us of an important and universal truth about our experience of place — the need for outright enjoyment in the process.
This piece first appeared in myurbanist. All images taken and composed by Chuck Wolfe. Click on each for more detail. © 2009-2013 myurbanist. All Rights Reserved.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Feb 21, 12:18 p.m. Inappropriate
Please!
Posted Thu, Feb 21, 8:21 p.m. Inappropriate
Up Chuck!!
Posted Thu, Feb 21, 10:39 p.m. Inappropriate
I knew it was a mistake to reintroduce the wolfe back into Washington State.
Posted Fri, Feb 22, 5:08 p.m. Inappropriate
Some good points here about not bulldozing everything wholesale in order to replace it with characterless prison-style monotony. However, I don't see the proliferation of these ridiculous ferris wheels as any idea of fun; I see them as a tacky, copycat blight. And Seattle's can't even keep all the lights working. Makes me think of that broken window idea--fix the small stuff quickly so everyone feels better. Not happening at Seattle's "Great (not) Wheel."
Posted Sat, Feb 23, 9:04 a.m. Inappropriate
This piece is almost unreadable. Made-up words like "placemaking", novel definitions of phrases like "lump-sum proposition", and simply opaque formulations like "retrofit for the future" make this article a tough slog. I get the impression that there are some genuinely good ideas here, but it would be hard to prove it given the jargon-filled loquacity of the writer. I only made it half way through the piece. I'll wait for the English translation.
Posted Sat, Feb 23, 10:10 a.m. Inappropriate
Here's a definition of placemaking that you might find helpful. Or not :)
http://www.pps.org/reference/what_is_placemaking/
Posted Mon, Feb 25, 12:23 p.m. Inappropriate
Well, mea culpa for trusting Webster's dictionary, which I've heard of, over the Project for Public Spaces, which I have not.
Posted Sat, Feb 23, 10:23 a.m. Inappropriate
Thank you dbrenneman. It isn't almost unreadable, it is unreadable.
Implied thruout the article is the ideat that seeems to suggest that Chuck thinks tourism is what defines a city. Odd.
Posted Sat, Feb 23, 10:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Gag me. I hate the word 'placemaking' nearly as much as 'empower'.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.