Nice article today on the Cheonggyecheon in NYT. Apparently, the Mayor of Yonkers has gotten some delusions of grandeur and is looking at the Cheonggyecheon as a model to revive Saw Mill River in downtown Yonkers.
Well, here’s wishing Phil Amicone luck! He’ll need it.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
After all the political and social farce of the media legislation and the faux tears shed over LMB’s tenure die away, this will be a lasting legacy of his. I am really glad to read of how this has influenced other cities too.
Needless to say, no one, who has commissioned yet another tall building or GS-style apartment complex in Korea, will achieve as much.
Completely agree @#1.
But there is also great scope for future development of the Cheonggyecheon; the edges really need softening, much more diverse planting, maybe a few sensitively designed mini-cafés or -7/11′s in season, extend the bike paths (distinct from pedestrian paths) through the central city part only if space permits (got chased for biking thru there recently), develop solar energy collectors on the south-facing canyon walls (beyond HomePlus as you head East) both as inspirational/educational exemplars and as fully functional energy sources…
Front page center in the IHT this morning. Slow news day?
On second thoughts, bike paths for the inner city along the river might need to commandeer the road level sidewalks on the river side of the roads (running alongside the river). They are too narrow, and have trees planted inconveniently within their width. Maybe cantilever these sidewalks somewhat over the river to widen them, repave them with a more suitable surface than cobbled bricks, and get the trees out of the way on the outside edges, or the edges of the pavements on the other side of the road (which get packed with merchant wares and operations). But still the problem remains of bike paths crossing transverse car roads…
. . . or drivers parking on bike paths or illegal vendors camping on the same paths.
Seoul City needs to completely ban drivers from driving up on sidewalks by putting in granite car barriers. Here in Gwanak-gu, after they put in nice, new paving stones, there is now ugly oil spots, smears and stains and cracked or sunken tiles from cars coming up on the sidewalks. One month later and it is looking like hell. Since there is no will to enforce law, they need to put in the barriers and let people use more public transportation or pay to park.
“…putting in granite car barriers”
This reminded me of the old “IF YOU DON”T LIKE MY DRIVING, STAY OFF THE SIDEWALK” bumper stickers.
Re: 5
Amen to that! The lawlessness on the roads (and sidewalks) is definitely the least appealing aspect of Korea. It’s dangerous as hell for cyclists and pedestrians and people feel pushed into purchasing cars to ensure their families safety. As long as Korean society accepts the right for cars and buses and mopeds to fail to yield to pedestrians and run red lights, for vendors to set up shop on bike paths, etc., people will continue to opt for cars and foreign oil.
some pics of the river before it was even paved over–from a thread called “Korea during early 2oth century up to 1970s”. It really was practically a sewer. Skyscrapercity is a good resource for pics of construction and infrastructure projects evertywhere. More cities around the world need to daylight their rivers, but it needs to happen hand in hand with wastewater treatment for those developing countries.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=611726&page=4
If you piss and shit into the river for decades, one day someone will come along and want to clean up the water.
But, you must piss, shit and dump hugh amount of toxic chemicals and who-know-what into the water.
My favorite individual entrepreneur takeover of public land in Korea is the drinks stand that some enterprising soul set up part-way across a pedestrian crossing in Jinju. At night – no problem! It’s just wrapped up in tarps, and left where it is for cars and pedestrians to navigate around…
It appears the NY Times reporter doesn’t realize it’s not a natural stream of water.
“It appears the NY Times reporter doesn’t realize it’s not a natural stream of water.”
In the sense that you appear to mean “water source” [despite the "restoration" it is phyisically for the most an artificial open concrete culvert, as opposed to pre-restoration a closed concrete culvert] your statement seems somewhat odd.
a) it is/was historically a natural watercourse, albeit seasonal, i.e. was dry in winter.
b) the reporter clearly states “given that nearly all of the water flowing between its banks on a typical day is pumped there artificially from the Han River through seven miles of pipe.”
You must log in to post a comment.