So, what might "Reduction of the Open Space North-South Walkway Width" mean? Bigger building, more "affordable housing"?
I wrote 7/11/19 about several proposed changes to Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, which will be explained--rather than revealed beforehand, allowing some assessment--at the Quality of Life meeting this Tuesday.
They will then likely proceed to boilerplate endorsement by the advisory (but gubernatorially-controlled) Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation (AY CDC) and then the gubernatorially-controlled Empire State Development (ESD).
Let's take another look at Reduction of the Open Space North-South Walkway Width. First, take a look at the general open space concept plan, by Thomas Balsley, and the gray pavements for those North-South Walkways.
Current requirements
As of now, "Each Major North-South Walkway shall include a clear unobstructed pedestrian walkway with a minimum width of 16 feet, which path can split into two or more pathways at any point along its length provided that the resulting pathways each provide a clear unobstructed width of not less that 12 feet."
Let's take a look at those paths, with screenshots from Balsley's June 2015 presentation (bottom).
What's next?
Will those 16-foot widths be reduced slightly, or significantly, I wrote? And what might this have to do with the enlargement of at least one building?
We also should consider the possibility that the split pathways could be less than 12 feet.
The rationale could be to accommodate a larger building--remember, also on the agenda is "Change to Square Footage at Parcels B12 and B15." There's no pathway at B15, at the southwest segment of the screenshot below, across from the arena block.
But there are pathways at B12, which is second from the right in the southeast block. A narrower pathway could accommodate a larger building--and the rationale, as with so many rationales, could be, "Don't you want us to build 'affordable housing'?'"
Both B12 and B13, on sites leased by TF Cornerstone and expected to start next year.
Of course, there could be another rationale, including "B5 Design Guidelines Drawings Modification" and "Change to Distinctive Architectural Design Element Requirement for B9, B12, and B13."
Which is why the public deserves details that can be assessed before the meeting.
Pacific Park Open Space Des... by on Scribd
They will then likely proceed to boilerplate endorsement by the advisory (but gubernatorially-controlled) Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation (AY CDC) and then the gubernatorially-controlled Empire State Development (ESD).
Let's take another look at Reduction of the Open Space North-South Walkway Width. First, take a look at the general open space concept plan, by Thomas Balsley, and the gray pavements for those North-South Walkways.
Current requirements
As of now, "Each Major North-South Walkway shall include a clear unobstructed pedestrian walkway with a minimum width of 16 feet, which path can split into two or more pathways at any point along its length provided that the resulting pathways each provide a clear unobstructed width of not less that 12 feet."
Let's take a look at those paths, with screenshots from Balsley's June 2015 presentation (bottom).
What's next?
Will those 16-foot widths be reduced slightly, or significantly, I wrote? And what might this have to do with the enlargement of at least one building?
We also should consider the possibility that the split pathways could be less than 12 feet.
The rationale could be to accommodate a larger building--remember, also on the agenda is "Change to Square Footage at Parcels B12 and B15." There's no pathway at B15, at the southwest segment of the screenshot below, across from the arena block.
But there are pathways at B12, which is second from the right in the southeast block. A narrower pathway could accommodate a larger building--and the rationale, as with so many rationales, could be, "Don't you want us to build 'affordable housing'?'"
Both B12 and B13, on sites leased by TF Cornerstone and expected to start next year.
Of course, there could be another rationale, including "B5 Design Guidelines Drawings Modification" and "Change to Distinctive Architectural Design Element Requirement for B9, B12, and B13."
Which is why the public deserves details that can be assessed before the meeting.
Pacific Park Open Space Des... by on Scribd
Comments
Post a Comment