Hugeasscityscapes

And to think…a couple of years ago SPRD proposed to turn Occidental Park into an indoor skating rink.

I suppose it depends on what time of day you visit the park.

Sunshine and mom's with strollers are not typical for Seattle's urban parks.

I think sneaking a kiss on the roof of 2 Union Square would be pretty romantic

You mean that a roof doesn't compare to a sidewalk? This truly has to be one of the most asinine comparisons I've seen yet. Congrats. Tune in next week for a comparison of streets to light posts!

The faux-public courtyard in the Union Square complex is actually quite lovely. I worked in those buildings for several years. There are trees, dappled shade, blooming shrubs, boulders, a waterfall and many pleasing nooks and seating areas in which to relax. Occasionally there are even free music events. Admittedly it's private property, but it's not the sterile futurescape it seems to be from a distance.

Not quite as personal as Kent Station

http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles29296.jpg

If you don't like the city, why do you live in it. This article seems to imply that only small town stuff is good. So go live in a small town and leave city living to people that like it.

good point. It draws people. Admittedly many of them, it's because they work there.

In contrast, occidental park is empty most of the time, as the photo shows. A big blank square shape does not draw people despite cobblestones, dappled shadowing blah blah blah. And really in Seattle, “a place that offers relief from the sun!” is NOT a huge draw, duh.

It's depressing to see urban planner types and new urbanists constantly praise parks that are empty and buildings that are ugly. We need new urbanism to be sure, but really? This stuff is not rocket science. For a park you need (a) a place serving beverages and snacks (b) a moving water feature is nice. There is a traditional one called a “fountain” …seriously folks a fountain with a few benches, this works. (c) beyond that a bit of varied terrain, even a curvy shape formed by two steps offers a place to sit and a natural “stage” for a mime or just people watching; small elevations or declivities do wonders.

Blank rectangles whethe concrete, grass or cobblestoned suck. In my decades in Seattle NOT ONCE has anyone said hey let's hang out in occidental park and …um…stand there….once went there to an art walk….once went for coffee…really nobody goes there as your own photo shows.
Fountain. Benches. A few curved concrete steps or sinuous walkways, it's not rocket science!

I see Occidental Park as having great potential as a beautiful public space, but it needs a draw that brings people there more often. Pioneer Square isn't densely populated and there's a wall of parking structures that keeps people from coming down from downtown.

What would draw people to OP? High-end restaurants with outdoor seating would help. Add portable tents that can be put up in the rain along with portable radiant heaters, and you'll get winter evening use as well. Add some form of entertainment (I've always pictured St. Mark's Square style duling orchestras), and we'd have quite a busy attraction.

As it exists, the courtyard that Scott mentions is more active (during office hours, on weekdays) just because that's where the people are. (plus there's reasonably good by-the-pound chineese)

I like Dan's posts but this is really dumb. The plaza at the bottom of Two Union isn't bad for hanging out and ties in an interesting, maybe even space-port-y way, to the Convention Center and Freeway park. I especially like how the free wifi from Tully's bleeds out into the open seating areas.

Choose your battles.

I believe the term for you is “troll”
anonymous
hateful
nothing to contribute

Actually I gotta agree with Asdf on this one. Of course a picture of a park is gonna look more “organic” than a skyline view of a bunch of buildings. I could take a picture of a patch of my front lawn and it would look more organic than my computer. What's the point?

Too bad the bocce courts don't get much use. I thought that had some potential. I do love getting lunch at Grand Central and sitting in the park, although last time I ate there I was driven away by a musician with a too-loud amp.

There's actually a brand new Saturday craft and mobile food (not farmers) market in Occidental Square which will run until the end of September:
http://www.facebook.com/SeattleSquare
They have bric-à-brac, whatever that is.

Speaking of using public space, there are also center city summer farmer's markets this year at City Hall (Tues), Cascade Playground (Thurs), and the Olympic Sculpture Park (Thurs).

By the way, there is a tree-shaded area in front of Met Park East that's has benches for seating and isn't too bad:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuadf/4698962740/
Habesha Ethiopian restaurant and CORNED BEEF place are open on Saturday, but the restaurants in Met Park itself are weekday only. Bike parking in the garage.

i think calling this post dumb is bit reductionist, but it is certainly comparing apples to oranges. both of these built environments correspond to a completely different historical and technological era, mode of thought, economy, etc: the park is completely pre-modern while the union 2 'complex' is on the cusp of modernism and post-modernism. the former is reminiscent of pre-capitalist europe while the latter screams 'finance' and completely engulfs the user, disorients them: where is the front door? where is the line between public and private space? where does the building even end, with the tunnels and bridges, etc? hell, where does 'nature' end with the seemingly natural freeway park adjacent to the tower?

so, yeah, a straight-up comparison of these places is a bit weird, but dan's question about the kiss is on the right track; connecting these spaces to practices is an incredibly insightful way to understand them (the philosopher's in the house will call it phenomenology), but you have to consider the complete psychological experience, not just one hypothetical event.

I appreciate your response though I'm compelled to quibble with some of your analysis. For one, I think there is very little about Seattle (post euro-american settlement) that qualifies as 'pre-modern', and certainly not a picturesque, late nineteenth-century park.

I'm generally intrigued by your categories. I feel sympathetic to them but I also resist. Why does public/private need a boundary? Could any such boundary actually reflect our current social conditions? For example, does the “private” have any boundaries in neoliberalism? If the fate of the planet is entirely subject to the logic of present-day elites, aren't all gestures of boundaries and limits just comforting illusions? (Maybe a little like the illusion of our national democracy?)

And, where is the front door to the park? Or to your body?

And, what about the pan-handlers in Occidental park? Are they not screaming, “Finance!”

Etc…

now that's the kind of response i like and appreciate.

regarding the pre-modern comment, i was thinking of those moorish plazas you see in places like sevilla and granada, with the brick paving and the trees planted at regular intervals. i'm no historian of landscape architecture, but i'd guess such places served as inspiration for the sort of early modern design we see here. and while they — the moorish gardens — don't have discrete entrances and exits, they are linear, defined by the rows of trees and those little stone gutters that carry water between them. two union — the plaza or the building itself — is anything but linear: the shape of the tower is curved, plaza stairs jut out in different directions, and even the mega-columns that support the building are round.

i think your comments about the blurring of public and private spaces are spot-on, and buildings like two union (or the convention center, pacific place mall, seattle center/space needle/emp) reflect that. the 'schizophrenia' — the post-modern version of alienation — that cultural critics like jameson and always talking about, comes from that rupture between something 'easy' to understand (mine-yours-ours or a project, like the park, that are built at a human scale) vs. something complex (neoliberalism — try drawing a picture of that compared to old school jp morgan-esque capitalism — or buildings that don't begin or end at 'normal' places and are way out of scale in comparison to us mortals).

i'm essentially just saying that it's damn hard to compare these two spaces that are both 'parks' when so much more is involved. and something like a kiss, something close and human, 'fits' the former space better than the latter. the plaza at two union seems to be a better place to send text messages from next to the fake waterfall, or read a 'book' on a kindle!

and for what it's worth, the pan-handlers downtown behave as one might expect, given our little exchange here: i've seen 'em make the trek from the convention center to rainier tower in search of funding and didn't understand until right now how appropriate it really was…

Usually a distinction is made between Occidental Mall, shown in the foreground of the picture, and Occidental Park, although both were initially designed by the same person. Be that as it may, I am glad to hear that someone appreciates Occidental Park, because that has not always been the case. It is especially wonderful on a summer afternoon.