The first diagram (location of tracks in the city) isn't convincing? ;-)
I don't feel strongly that the city needs anything, or at least the time I've spent trying to diagnose the city or this part of it haven't exposed any need that I feel compelled to address at this street. The running track (slash velodrome) is more of a sardonic comment on the minor fads and fetishes of the city.
It seems totally reasonable to me to make the case for the velodrome in the city, given its active, health-conscious population. The form (and function) of the velodrome really require focus and an inward experience (i.e. biking fast around a banked track), so I wonder how the periscopes fits in. The velodrome constituency probably lives nearby, or at least in the city, so maybe the periscope is less about the “money shot” view of SF – which is readily available elsewhere and difficult if not impossible to focus on when cycling – and instead provides visual access to the track from the unaccepted street – to see if the track’s full or open, etc.
How do you ride up to the track? Big switchbacks ala Tschumi’s Lerner, etc? How do pedestrians / runners / spectators circulate up and down? Might the scaffolding (circulation/infrastructure) that the velodrome requires be what gets propogated (“10/100”) to other unaccepted streets and that system of trussing could sponsor a variety of micro –geographic or –demographic based programs?
I agree with Chris; it would be interesting to explore how a scaffolding could support many programs. I'm still interested in the mirrors. A serious scaffolding is necessary to hold those mirrors up, so why not pay for it with something the local population wants. What are you giving back to the people who live on that alley?
i'm not arguing agaginst the mirrors, just their rethinking vis-a-vis the velodrome and the cyclists - they don't want or need the moneyshot while cycling. they need more banal operational info about is the track full now, etc from the street level. But the neighbors do - maybe that's the way it gives back. In exchange for hosting the infrastructure for a velodrome (or anything), neighbors with windows that face the alley get mirrors that turn their relatively dark, unspectacular rear rooms into "rooms with a VU" - and you just tune smaller mirrors attached to the scaffolding to provide better views of the city and better light.
great input...thanks... ideally, the infrastructure would be transparent and the mirrors would be the contribution to the residents (but I like the idea of broadcasting the rider capacity [like the floodlights of the stadium broadcast its occupancy]). The street really doesn't have room for infrastructure...but a revisit to the site today helped me find things that can be more efficiently packaged and marketed by the proposal (exterior stairs, vent pipes, "soft" stories, and a tangle of overhead cables).
6 comments:
how are you planning on representing the city so that a running track appears necessary?
The first diagram (location of tracks in the city) isn't convincing? ;-)
I don't feel strongly that the city needs anything, or at least the time I've spent trying to diagnose the city or this part of it haven't exposed any need that I feel compelled to address at this street. The running track (slash velodrome) is more of a sardonic comment on the minor fads and fetishes of the city.
Nice board.
It seems totally reasonable to me to make the case for the velodrome in the city, given its active, health-conscious population. The form (and function) of the velodrome really require focus and an inward experience (i.e. biking fast around a banked track), so I wonder how the periscopes fits in. The velodrome constituency probably lives nearby, or at least in the city, so maybe the periscope is less about the “money shot” view of SF – which is readily available elsewhere and difficult if not impossible to focus on when cycling – and instead provides visual access to the track from the unaccepted street – to see if the track’s full or open, etc.
How do you ride up to the track? Big switchbacks ala Tschumi’s Lerner, etc? How do pedestrians / runners / spectators circulate up and down? Might the scaffolding (circulation/infrastructure) that the velodrome requires be what gets propogated (“10/100”) to other unaccepted streets and that system of trussing could sponsor a variety of micro –geographic or –demographic based programs?
I agree with Chris; it would be interesting to explore how a scaffolding could support many programs. I'm still interested in the mirrors. A serious scaffolding is necessary to hold those mirrors up, so why not pay for it with something the local population wants. What are you giving back to the people who live on that alley?
i'm not arguing agaginst the mirrors, just their rethinking vis-a-vis the velodrome and the cyclists - they don't want or need the moneyshot while cycling. they need more banal operational info about is the track full now, etc from the street level. But the neighbors do - maybe that's the way it gives back. In exchange for hosting the infrastructure for a velodrome (or anything), neighbors with windows that face the alley get mirrors that turn their relatively dark, unspectacular rear rooms into "rooms with a VU" - and you just tune smaller mirrors attached to the scaffolding to provide better views of the city and better light.
great input...thanks...
ideally, the infrastructure would be transparent and the mirrors would be the contribution to the residents (but I like the idea of broadcasting the rider capacity [like the floodlights of the stadium broadcast its occupancy]). The street really doesn't have room for infrastructure...but a revisit to the site today helped me find things that can be more efficiently packaged and marketed by the proposal (exterior stairs, vent pipes, "soft" stories, and a tangle of overhead cables).
Post a Comment