concrete_and_light
Active Member
Yes. That Italy does something is an odd reason to decide we are doing something wrong. It's transplanting something from an entirely different culture and geographic realities.
We have squares, but they are largely empty because people aren't looking to hang out in a space that isn't a park or indoors unless there is programing happening.
And the ones that do have people in them, are half park space.
I really don't understand why you're so dead-set against us being inspired by this type of thing and trying to make our own version of it that works for the way our city is built.
Definitely we can't completely copy paste something from a different built and cultural context onto ours, but we can learn from it and try to build spaces that achieve similar things in a way that works for us. The culture of how people use space also changes over time (and is especially changing now due to the pandemic shifting our relationship with indoor spaces and public space) and I think going a little bit more towards building this type of public space would be a plus for the city and will be ever-more needed as the city grows.
I also disagree with this idea that people don't or wont use them without programming. @North's post above has demonstrated some locations where people very much do use them.
I don't even necessarily think this is the best best place for such a thing and it would have to be done well to be successful, but your opposition against the very idea of spaces like this is and insistence that the city stay the same and not try anything new that could be beneficial to its residents and public life is, well I'll say it myself now, kinda odd to me. It seems to me a bit of a weird thing to fight against, especially since to try out a few things like this wouldn't change the way you already experience the city in any meaningful way. Anyway, I guess I'm not changing your mind.
Last edited: