I have begun mapping the city of Cincinnati to pull out its systems of cityscape and landscape. The image below describes the grid structure and begins to speak to the mass.
I find these two images very interesting for many reasons, but I also do not see the need for both. Either way, I am drawn to the these images because even though this is a map of a place in Cincinnati, I am getting images of Manhattan in my head. Furthermore, it intrigues me because the city fabric seems to be present in areas that I perceive as water. The large open space along the vertical left side appears to be water, but in fact it is land. Though this is just a small weird observation, I think maybe you could play with that idea in you initial site drawings and use water to integrate into your scaping through that zone.
Is there are reading of topography (i.e. the landscape counterpart to the cityscape)that can be discerned in these drawings? A possible clue: what drives the location of freeways or the change in grid orientations?
I find these two images very interesting for many reasons, but I also do not see the need for both. Either way, I am drawn to the these images because even though this is a map of a place in Cincinnati, I am getting images of Manhattan in my head. Furthermore, it intrigues me because the city fabric seems to be present in areas that I perceive as water. The large open space along the vertical left side appears to be water, but in fact it is land. Though this is just a small weird observation, I think maybe you could play with that idea in you initial site drawings and use water to integrate into your scaping through that zone.
ReplyDeleteIs there are reading of topography (i.e. the landscape counterpart to the cityscape)that can be discerned in these drawings? A possible clue: what drives the location of freeways or the change in grid orientations?
ReplyDelete