Today's Capital Times has an article about Monday's talk by Stuart Niven, and a paragraph in their Wellyword column that I found a bit strange. Here it is:
While architects can usually be counted upon to support more buildings, the predominantly architectural crowd at an IntensCITY talk this week gave murmured approval to fewer buildings in a prominent city location. Visiting urban designer Stuart Niven asked why Civic Square, flanked by council-controlled buildings, could not be open on one side, drawing ripples of applause. But Wellyword wonders how many of the architects present would let the idea stand in the way of a contract to build on Jack Illott Green?That certainly doesn't match my recollection: I got the impression that Niven was suggesting that the buildings should be open on one side, rather than the square. In other words, rather than the mostly blank walls that currently surround the space, the ground floors of the buildings should open up with cafés, shops and other activities that engage the public and help to "establish informal use" of the square, which was something that Niven had earlier said he found hard to do when he was involved with the square.
Stuart, if you're reading this, can you confirm what you said the other day? Can anyone else who was there confirm either my interpretation or Capital Times' reporting of the event?