Winning Designs for Prospect Park Gate
[nggallery id=”51614″ template=galleryview] The Park Slope Civic Council announced yesterday the top three design choices for the 3rd Street entrance to Prospect Park. First place, with the award of $2,000, was given to the “Stone Garden” in which the sliding stones “can be used to prohibit the flow of vehicular traffic yet allowing bicycle and…
[nggallery id=”51614″ template=galleryview] The Park Slope Civic Council announced yesterday the top three design choices for the 3rd Street entrance to Prospect Park. First place, with the award of $2,000, was given to the “Stone Garden” in which the sliding stones “can be used to prohibit the flow of vehicular traffic yet allowing bicycle and pedestrian circulation to percolate through the augmented landscape.” Second place went to a design that emulates a tree grove, using wrought iron as a nod to the fences of Park Slope. The third-place design prominently uses arches in the entryway in an attempt to transform the entrance into a “gateway.” Finally, the fourth-place proposal uses four trees in the entrance to represent the four seasons. Which do you prefer? As Curbed notes, there is no guarantee any designs will actually be built, but the Civic Council says it is still “looking forward to exploring these concepts further for the Third Street entrance to Prospect Park.”
I like the third 1 with the arches, but I agree with tyburg- I think the entrance is better left alone.
The winning design with all the stones is just begging for skateboarders to do tricks on them lol
The Honorable Mention entry was created by a 13 year old.
I like whats there now…why change it…..
I agree with the other posters, use the money for something more useful.
I vote none of the above.
Wow — I didn’t even see the ‘snag’ hazard… More dangerous is the troughs of those mechanisms. Pedestrians will trip. And for a bicycle those channels are akin to a sewer grate or an on-road trolley track. Both of those are dangerous for bikes — but at least they serve a purpose. This is just dangerous for danger sake.
I have to say, I actually like the “look” of it… but only in the rendering. Like I said at the beginning, there’s NO way it would look this good in real life. You won’t have the stark yellow on black. You’ll have worn yellow-ish on gray, chipping asphalt or concrete. And if the rocks were actually carved granite, they might look nice… but would they be? Or would they be concrete.
All-in-all, I’m glad they have these design competitions… it gets people thinking of alternatives. Like the Grand Army Plaza redesign competition. But I’m ALSO glad that most of these design competition projects never happen. 🙂
The mechanisms that move the ‘boulders’ look like dangerous snag-hazards: just imagine someone getting an item of clothing caught in the tracks as the rocks drag them across the lane…
And yes, they are fugly – totally reminiscent of those anti-terror bollards.
Simple yellow-painted posts that rise/retract are the time-tested [and surely much cheaper] solution.
FYI: just want to say I haven’t commented in a long time – feeling like the site is getting a bit stale & juvenile, but this has been an unusually smart thread so far. Which, of course, is why I had to join-in!
Smugly yours.
Brenda, “overwrought” cast iron? Great pun.
I agree with the general sentiment. The lionesses are beautiful, as is the entrance as it is. I like it better than the GAP entrance, which is a bit too Imperial Roman prententious for me. Stanford White believed more was more.
Minard, sinking bollards seem like the best idea if that sort of thing is actually needed.
I do not like any of these proposals. They all detract from the great lionesses, which are true works of art.
If they need something, they should install steel bollards that sink into the ground. We don’t need ugly boulders or even uglier ominous looking steel trees.
Everyone’s agreeing with me. I’m feeling a little verklempt.