<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" 	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: To Make a Great Third Place, Get Out of the Way</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pps.org/blog/to-create-a-great-third-place-get-out-of-the-way/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pps.org/blog/to-create-a-great-third-place-get-out-of-the-way/</link>
	<description>Placemaking for Communities</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 09:42:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Manshel</title>
		<link>http://www.pps.org/blog/to-create-a-great-third-place-get-out-of-the-way/comment-page-1/#comment-98113</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Manshel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pps.org/?p=81973#comment-98113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why is all this ideology necessary? Here&#039;s a problem: The article leads with a picture of Bryant Park -- but we did Bryant Park DESPITE community demands. The &quot;community&quot; was opposed to many of the most important features of the Park&#039;s success. What we did do was try to anticipate community needs -- and to implement park plans in an incremental fashion, so as to fix &quot;mistakes&quot; after they occurred. In my experience people don&#039;t really know what they want from public spaces. If you ask them what they want, what they tell you is an abstract construct -- what they think they want. It is only through an iterative process of implementation that REAL feedback can be obtained from citizens about how they actually use public space. The thing that kills public spaces is the arrogance of imposing on a community a designer&#039;s knowledge and preferences on a space that can&#039;t be backed out of after a space has been built.

The most important point in this essay is one with which I agree -- maintenance and programming is more important than design in creating successful public spaces.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is all this ideology necessary? Here&#8217;s a problem: The article leads with a picture of Bryant Park &#8212; but we did Bryant Park DESPITE community demands. The &#8220;community&#8221; was opposed to many of the most important features of the Park&#8217;s success. What we did do was try to anticipate community needs &#8212; and to implement park plans in an incremental fashion, so as to fix &#8220;mistakes&#8221; after they occurred. In my experience people don&#8217;t really know what they want from public spaces. If you ask them what they want, what they tell you is an abstract construct &#8212; what they think they want. It is only through an iterative process of implementation that REAL feedback can be obtained from citizens about how they actually use public space. The thing that kills public spaces is the arrogance of imposing on a community a designer&#8217;s knowledge and preferences on a space that can&#8217;t be backed out of after a space has been built.</p>
<p>The most important point in this essay is one with which I agree &#8212; maintenance and programming is more important than design in creating successful public spaces.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 1.536 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2013-05-14 15:59:39 -->