NYC's West Side Stadium Plan

I haven't had a chance to really understand where the New York Times architectural critic stands, though it is very obvious that he is a product of the design world. Ouroussoff's most recent review of the West Side Stadium Plan nakes it harder. He strikes the right pose on critiquing the plan with its token public space designs, and with its appeal to humanism and "thoughtful urban development." But ultimately, he wallows in design talk and fails to go all the way on providing the substance on why the stadium plan won't be an asset to the West Side.

I'm going off on a tangent on this article, but it seems to be that what is humanistic is often a designer's narrow vision of how human civilization is supposed to have progressed, not a provision for how people actually use space. For example, "light" and "air" are typically more light and more air from the building's perspective, for its walls and its aesthetic; so rarely does light and air intend to enhance a person's physical experience with light and air. Furthermore, the most humanistic quality - sociability (the chatting, people-watching, public affection) - is overlooked in most designs. So humanistic architecture, while well-intended, is a gross misnomer.

Just look at that picture and the sleek computer graphics. Where are the people?

For a great analysis on the West Side plan, check out the Regional Planning Association's position paper. If you don't have time to slog through the entire report, read the executive summary. I found the critique to be pretty well-balanced.