{"id":595,"date":"2009-07-28T13:05:27","date_gmt":"2009-07-28T19:05:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/?p=595"},"modified":"2009-07-28T13:09:45","modified_gmt":"2009-07-28T19:09:45","slug":"high-line-briefly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/2009\/07\/high-line-briefly\/","title":{"rendered":"high line, briefly"},"content":{"rendered":"

The High Line receives a glowing review<\/a> from the New York Review of Books (which, due their odd desire to maintain the pretense that they publish book reviews and not journalism, pretends that the article is a review of the pamphlet-sized Designing the High Line<\/a>, though it merits only a single paragraph in the article).<\/p>\n

From the TerraGRAM proposal<\/a> for the High Line; note the rolling staircase (like those used at airports).<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

I’ve always thought it unfortunate that the TerraGRAM team didn’t have the chance to realize their vision<\/a>, which, as an article in Metropolis<\/a> pointed out several years ago, was the one entry to the original competition that “had the confidence and the humility to let the High Line be the High Line”.\u00a0 Its hard not to feel that the eventual approach adopted by Field Operations and DSR — disassembling the structure and then reassembling it as a simulacrum of its prior self, a planting plan that mimics the appearance but not the process of the wilderness it replaces — is somewhat disingenious and disappointingly second-best (even if their hand was forced in that direction<\/a>), particularly in comparison to the TerraGRAM approach, which was so focused on enabling processes and communities of curation (though, obviously, not everyone agrees<\/a>, and perhaps I’ll have a different opinion once I’m able to visit).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The High Line receives a glowing review from the New York Review of Books (which, due their odd desire to maintain the pretense that they publish book reviews and not journalism, pretends that the article is a review of the pamphlet-sized Designing the High Line, though it merits only a single paragraph in the article). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,43],"tags":[168,167,848,169],"class_list":["post-595","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-asides","category-landscape-architecture","tag-field-operations","tag-high-line","tag-infrastructure","tag-terragram"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/595","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=595"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/595\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":598,"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/595\/revisions\/598"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/m.ammoth.us\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}