In her highly anticipated second film, director Celine Song poses an important question: Can we simplify love into a basic equation? 

Composed of a star-studded cast with Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal, “Materialists” explores the gamification of dating: what makes people click and the material worth of someone in a relationship. The story focuses on Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a matchmaker in New York City, plagued by an envious choice —  should she choose her broke ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans) or her extremely wealthy new love interest, Harry (Pedro Pascal)? To boil the movie down to a simple love triangle is an oversimplification; the movie is far more complex and profound than that.

Song’s directorial debut, “Past Lives,” was perhaps the most critically acclaimed romance film of 2023. “Materialists” will inevitably be compared to it, but to do so is a disservice to both movies as they are fundamentally different. While “Past Lives” focuses on the immigrant experience and love’s differing form through age, “Materialists” is a directive on money, love and superficiality. 

At its core, “Materialists” is a character study. The film examines the materialistic nature of dating — how love is a “business deal,” as one character suggests. Many of the characters in the film are Lucy’s matchmaking clients, who are insecure, desperate and picky. At one point in the movie, a client asserts that she deserves someone who meets all her standards. Among her page-long list of requirements is that her partner should make more than $500k a year and be at least six feet tall. 

In another scene, Lucy comforts her client who is about to get married. When Lucy asks her why she wants to go through with it, her client responds that her soon-to-be husband makes her sister jealous. Song treats each character’s desires and insecurities with a gentle hand. The audience sympathizes with these people because nobody should end up alone.

The movie’s marketing promises a light-hearted rom-com with three actors that the internet loves. This marketing is only somewhat true. It’s not lighthearted; the movie tackles some heavy issues in its side-plots. The humor is also not very explicit, but rather comes in the form of absurd situations that the main characters find themselves in. If you are looking for a funny movie, this is probably not the movie for you.

Chris Evans delivers the best performance of the movie, and maybe of his career. He shines as John, and it’s so easy to root for him that you might almost forget the internet’s criticism that his role is “broke-boy” propaganda. Most of John’s chemistry with Lucy is a figment of the past — the audience is told that they were in love once, but they are not necessarily shown it, which makes the relationship a little less believable. Dakota Johnson’s performance is okay, and Pedro Pascal does an adequate job with his character’s arc. The performances are underscored by the heavy-handed script of the movie — the lessons are very explicit, so there’s less room for interpretation. 

However, the writing is offset by the beautiful cinematography. It’s easy to get distracted by how visually aesthetic the movie is. There’s a dizzying scene in upstate New York closer to the end of the movie which is particularly memorable. The lighting, set and camera movement are immersive; it makes the audience feel like they are inside the film. 

“Materialists” is a welcome entry in the dying rom-com genre. At worst, it’s another romance-drama that still manages to spark excitement and discussion. But at best, it’s a film about feeling strong emotions and the hard, but true, implications of material and wealth in relationships.

The post ‘Materialists’ redefines the love triangle appeared first on Technique.

In her highly anticipated second film, director Celine Song poses an important question: Can we simplify love into a basic equation? 

Composed of a star-studded cast with Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal, “Materialists” explores the gamification of dating: what makes people click and the material worth of someone in a relationship. The story focuses on Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a matchmaker in New York City, plagued by an envious choice —  should she choose her broke ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans) or her extremely wealthy new love interest, Harry (Pedro Pascal)? To boil the movie down to a simple love triangle is an oversimplification; the movie is far more complex and profound than that.

Song’s directorial debut, “Past Lives,” was perhaps the most critically acclaimed romance film of 2023. “Materialists” will inevitably be compared to it, but to do so is a disservice to both movies as they are fundamentally different. While “Past Lives” focuses on the immigrant experience and love’s differing form through age, “Materialists” is a directive on money, love and superficiality. 

At its core, “Materialists” is a character study. The film examines the materialistic nature of dating — how love is a “business deal,” as one character suggests. Many of the characters in the film are Lucy’s matchmaking clients, who are insecure, desperate and picky. At one point in the movie, a client asserts that she deserves someone who meets all her standards. Among her page-long list of requirements is that her partner should make more than $500k a year and be at least six feet tall. 

In another scene, Lucy comforts her client who is about to get married. When Lucy asks her why she wants to go through with it, her client responds that her soon-to-be husband makes her sister jealous. Song treats each character’s desires and insecurities with a gentle hand. The audience sympathizes with these people because nobody should end up alone.

The movie’s marketing promises a light-hearted rom-com with three actors that the internet loves. This marketing is only somewhat true. It’s not lighthearted; the movie tackles some heavy issues in its side-plots. The humor is also not very explicit, but rather comes in the form of absurd situations that the main characters find themselves in. If you are looking for a funny movie, this is probably not the movie for you.

Chris Evans delivers the best performance of the movie, and maybe of his career. He shines as John, and it’s so easy to root for him that you might almost forget the internet’s criticism that his role is “broke-boy” propaganda. Most of John’s chemistry with Lucy is a figment of the past — the audience is told that they were in love once, but they are not necessarily shown it, which makes the relationship a little less believable. Dakota Johnson’s performance is okay, and Pedro Pascal does an adequate job with his character’s arc. The performances are underscored by the heavy-handed script of the movie — the lessons are very explicit, so there’s less room for interpretation. 

However, the writing is offset by the beautiful cinematography. It’s easy to get distracted by how visually aesthetic the movie is. There’s a dizzying scene in upstate New York closer to the end of the movie which is particularly memorable. The lighting, set and camera movement are immersive; it makes the audience feel like they are inside the film. 

“Materialists” is a welcome entry in the dying rom-com genre. At worst, it’s another romance-drama that still manages to spark excitement and discussion. But at best, it’s a film about feeling strong emotions and the hard, but true, implications of material and wealth in relationships.

The post ‘Materialists’ redefines the love triangle appeared first on Technique.

In her highly anticipated second film, director Celine Song poses an important question: Can we simplify love into a basic equation? 

Composed of a star-studded cast with Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal, “Materialists” explores the gamification of dating: what makes people click and the material worth of someone in a relationship. The story focuses on Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a matchmaker in New York City, plagued by an envious choice —  should she choose her broke ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans) or her extremely wealthy new love interest, Harry (Pedro Pascal)? To boil the movie down to a simple love triangle is an oversimplification; the movie is far more complex and profound than that.

Song’s directorial debut, “Past Lives,” was perhaps the most critically acclaimed romance film of 2023. “Materialists” will inevitably be compared to it, but to do so is a disservice to both movies as they are fundamentally different. While “Past Lives” focuses on the immigrant experience and love’s differing form through age, “Materialists” is a directive on money, love and superficiality. 

At its core, “Materialists” is a character study. The film examines the materialistic nature of dating — how love is a “business deal,” as one character suggests. Many of the characters in the film are Lucy’s matchmaking clients, who are insecure, desperate and picky. At one point in the movie, a client asserts that she deserves someone who meets all her standards. Among her page-long list of requirements is that her partner should make more than $500k a year and be at least six feet tall. 

In another scene, Lucy comforts her client who is about to get married. When Lucy asks her why she wants to go through with it, her client responds that her soon-to-be husband makes her sister jealous. Song treats each character’s desires and insecurities with a gentle hand. The audience sympathizes with these people because nobody should end up alone.

The movie’s marketing promises a light-hearted rom-com with three actors that the internet loves. This marketing is only somewhat true. It’s not lighthearted; the movie tackles some heavy issues in its side-plots. The humor is also not very explicit, but rather comes in the form of absurd situations that the main characters find themselves in. If you are looking for a funny movie, this is probably not the movie for you.

Chris Evans delivers the best performance of the movie, and maybe of his career. He shines as John, and it’s so easy to root for him that you might almost forget the internet’s criticism that his role is “broke-boy” propaganda. Most of John’s chemistry with Lucy is a figment of the past — the audience is told that they were in love once, but they are not necessarily shown it, which makes the relationship a little less believable. Dakota Johnson’s performance is okay, and Pedro Pascal does an adequate job with his character’s arc. The performances are underscored by the heavy-handed script of the movie — the lessons are very explicit, so there’s less room for interpretation. 

However, the writing is offset by the beautiful cinematography. It’s easy to get distracted by how visually aesthetic the movie is. There’s a dizzying scene in upstate New York closer to the end of the movie which is particularly memorable. The lighting, set and camera movement are immersive; it makes the audience feel like they are inside the film. 

“Materialists” is a welcome entry in the dying rom-com genre. At worst, it’s another romance-drama that still manages to spark excitement and discussion. But at best, it’s a film about feeling strong emotions and the hard, but true, implications of material and wealth in relationships.

The post ‘Materialists’ redefines the love triangle appeared first on Technique.

In her highly anticipated second film, director Celine Song poses an important question: Can we simplify love into a basic equation? 

Composed of a star-studded cast with Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal, “Materialists” explores the gamification of dating: what makes people click and the material worth of someone in a relationship. The story focuses on Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a matchmaker in New York City, plagued by an envious choice —  should she choose her broke ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans) or her extremely wealthy new love interest, Harry (Pedro Pascal)? To boil the movie down to a simple love triangle is an oversimplification; the movie is far more complex and profound than that.

Song’s directorial debut, “Past Lives,” was perhaps the most critically acclaimed romance film of 2023. “Materialists” will inevitably be compared to it, but to do so is a disservice to both movies as they are fundamentally different. While “Past Lives” focuses on the immigrant experience and love’s differing form through age, “Materialists” is a directive on money, love and superficiality. 

At its core, “Materialists” is a character study. The film examines the materialistic nature of dating — how love is a “business deal,” as one character suggests. Many of the characters in the film are Lucy’s matchmaking clients, who are insecure, desperate and picky. At one point in the movie, a client asserts that she deserves someone who meets all her standards. Among her page-long list of requirements is that her partner should make more than $500k a year and be at least six feet tall. 

In another scene, Lucy comforts her client who is about to get married. When Lucy asks her why she wants to go through with it, her client responds that her soon-to-be husband makes her sister jealous. Song treats each character’s desires and insecurities with a gentle hand. The audience sympathizes with these people because nobody should end up alone.

The movie’s marketing promises a light-hearted rom-com with three actors that the internet loves. This marketing is only somewhat true. It’s not lighthearted; the movie tackles some heavy issues in its side-plots. The humor is also not very explicit, but rather comes in the form of absurd situations that the main characters find themselves in. If you are looking for a funny movie, this is probably not the movie for you.

Chris Evans delivers the best performance of the movie, and maybe of his career. He shines as John, and it’s so easy to root for him that you might almost forget the internet’s criticism that his role is “broke-boy” propaganda. Most of John’s chemistry with Lucy is a figment of the past — the audience is told that they were in love once, but they are not necessarily shown it, which makes the relationship a little less believable. Dakota Johnson’s performance is okay, and Pedro Pascal does an adequate job with his character’s arc. The performances are underscored by the heavy-handed script of the movie — the lessons are very explicit, so there’s less room for interpretation. 

However, the writing is offset by the beautiful cinematography. It’s easy to get distracted by how visually aesthetic the movie is. There’s a dizzying scene in upstate New York closer to the end of the movie which is particularly memorable. The lighting, set and camera movement are immersive; it makes the audience feel like they are inside the film. 

“Materialists” is a welcome entry in the dying rom-com genre. At worst, it’s another romance-drama that still manages to spark excitement and discussion. But at best, it’s a film about feeling strong emotions and the hard, but true, implications of material and wealth in relationships.

The post ‘Materialists’ redefines the love triangle appeared first on Technique.

In her highly anticipated second film, director Celine Song poses an important question: Can we simplify love into a basic equation? 

Composed of a star-studded cast with Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal, “Materialists” explores the gamification of dating: what makes people click and the material worth of someone in a relationship. The story focuses on Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a matchmaker in New York City, plagued by an envious choice —  should she choose her broke ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans) or her extremely wealthy new love interest, Harry (Pedro Pascal)? To boil the movie down to a simple love triangle is an oversimplification; the movie is far more complex and profound than that.

Song’s directorial debut, “Past Lives,” was perhaps the most critically acclaimed romance film of 2023. “Materialists” will inevitably be compared to it, but to do so is a disservice to both movies as they are fundamentally different. While “Past Lives” focuses on the immigrant experience and love’s differing form through age, “Materialists” is a directive on money, love and superficiality. 

At its core, “Materialists” is a character study. The film examines the materialistic nature of dating — how love is a “business deal,” as one character suggests. Many of the characters in the film are Lucy’s matchmaking clients, who are insecure, desperate and picky. At one point in the movie, a client asserts that she deserves someone who meets all her standards. Among her page-long list of requirements is that her partner should make more than $500k a year and be at least six feet tall. 

In another scene, Lucy comforts her client who is about to get married. When Lucy asks her why she wants to go through with it, her client responds that her soon-to-be husband makes her sister jealous. Song treats each character’s desires and insecurities with a gentle hand. The audience sympathizes with these people because nobody should end up alone.

The movie’s marketing promises a light-hearted rom-com with three actors that the internet loves. This marketing is only somewhat true. It’s not lighthearted; the movie tackles some heavy issues in its side-plots. The humor is also not very explicit, but rather comes in the form of absurd situations that the main characters find themselves in. If you are looking for a funny movie, this is probably not the movie for you.

Chris Evans delivers the best performance of the movie, and maybe of his career. He shines as John, and it’s so easy to root for him that you might almost forget the internet’s criticism that his role is “broke-boy” propaganda. Most of John’s chemistry with Lucy is a figment of the past — the audience is told that they were in love once, but they are not necessarily shown it, which makes the relationship a little less believable. Dakota Johnson’s performance is okay, and Pedro Pascal does an adequate job with his character’s arc. The performances are underscored by the heavy-handed script of the movie — the lessons are very explicit, so there’s less room for interpretation. 

However, the writing is offset by the beautiful cinematography. It’s easy to get distracted by how visually aesthetic the movie is. There’s a dizzying scene in upstate New York closer to the end of the movie which is particularly memorable. The lighting, set and camera movement are immersive; it makes the audience feel like they are inside the film. 

“Materialists” is a welcome entry in the dying rom-com genre. At worst, it’s another romance-drama that still manages to spark excitement and discussion. But at best, it’s a film about feeling strong emotions and the hard, but true, implications of material and wealth in relationships.

The post ‘Materialists’ redefines the love triangle appeared first on Technique.

In her highly anticipated second film, director Celine Song poses an important question: Can we simplify love into a basic equation? 

Composed of a star-studded cast with Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal, “Materialists” explores the gamification of dating: what makes people click and the material worth of someone in a relationship. The story focuses on Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a matchmaker in New York City, plagued by an envious choice —  should she choose her broke ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans) or her extremely wealthy new love interest, Harry (Pedro Pascal)? To boil the movie down to a simple love triangle is an oversimplification; the movie is far more complex and profound than that.

Song’s directorial debut, “Past Lives,” was perhaps the most critically acclaimed romance film of 2023. “Materialists” will inevitably be compared to it, but to do so is a disservice to both movies as they are fundamentally different. While “Past Lives” focuses on the immigrant experience and love’s differing form through age, “Materialists” is a directive on money, love and superficiality. 

At its core, “Materialists” is a character study. The film examines the materialistic nature of dating — how love is a “business deal,” as one character suggests. Many of the characters in the film are Lucy’s matchmaking clients, who are insecure, desperate and picky. At one point in the movie, a client asserts that she deserves someone who meets all her standards. Among her page-long list of requirements is that her partner should make more than $500k a year and be at least six feet tall. 

In another scene, Lucy comforts her client who is about to get married. When Lucy asks her why she wants to go through with it, her client responds that her soon-to-be husband makes her sister jealous. Song treats each character’s desires and insecurities with a gentle hand. The audience sympathizes with these people because nobody should end up alone.

The movie’s marketing promises a light-hearted rom-com with three actors that the internet loves. This marketing is only somewhat true. It’s not lighthearted; the movie tackles some heavy issues in its side-plots. The humor is also not very explicit, but rather comes in the form of absurd situations that the main characters find themselves in. If you are looking for a funny movie, this is probably not the movie for you.

Chris Evans delivers the best performance of the movie, and maybe of his career. He shines as John, and it’s so easy to root for him that you might almost forget the internet’s criticism that his role is “broke-boy” propaganda. Most of John’s chemistry with Lucy is a figment of the past — the audience is told that they were in love once, but they are not necessarily shown it, which makes the relationship a little less believable. Dakota Johnson’s performance is okay, and Pedro Pascal does an adequate job with his character’s arc. The performances are underscored by the heavy-handed script of the movie — the lessons are very explicit, so there’s less room for interpretation. 

However, the writing is offset by the beautiful cinematography. It’s easy to get distracted by how visually aesthetic the movie is. There’s a dizzying scene in upstate New York closer to the end of the movie which is particularly memorable. The lighting, set and camera movement are immersive; it makes the audience feel like they are inside the film. 

“Materialists” is a welcome entry in the dying rom-com genre. At worst, it’s another romance-drama that still manages to spark excitement and discussion. But at best, it’s a film about feeling strong emotions and the hard, but true, implications of material and wealth in relationships.

The post ‘Materialists’ redefines the love triangle appeared first on Technique.

In her highly anticipated second film, director Celine Song poses an important question: Can we simplify love into a basic equation? 

Composed of a star-studded cast with Dakota Johnson, Chris Evans and Pedro Pascal, “Materialists” explores the gamification of dating: what makes people click and the material worth of someone in a relationship. The story focuses on Lucy (Dakota Johnson), a matchmaker in New York City, plagued by an envious choice —  should she choose her broke ex-boyfriend John (Chris Evans) or her extremely wealthy new love interest, Harry (Pedro Pascal)? To boil the movie down to a simple love triangle is an oversimplification; the movie is far more complex and profound than that.

Song’s directorial debut, “Past Lives,” was perhaps the most critically acclaimed romance film of 2023. “Materialists” will inevitably be compared to it, but to do so is a disservice to both movies as they are fundamentally different. While “Past Lives” focuses on the immigrant experience and love’s differing form through age, “Materialists” is a directive on money, love and superficiality. 

At its core, “Materialists” is a character study. The film examines the materialistic nature of dating — how love is a “business deal,” as one character suggests. Many of the characters in the film are Lucy’s matchmaking clients, who are insecure, desperate and picky. At one point in the movie, a client asserts that she deserves someone who meets all her standards. Among her page-long list of requirements is that her partner should make more than $500k a year and be at least six feet tall. 

In another scene, Lucy comforts her client who is about to get married. When Lucy asks her why she wants to go through with it, her client responds that her soon-to-be husband makes her sister jealous. Song treats each character’s desires and insecurities with a gentle hand. The audience sympathizes with these people because nobody should end up alone.

The movie’s marketing promises a light-hearted rom-com with three actors that the internet loves. This marketing is only somewhat true. It’s not lighthearted; the movie tackles some heavy issues in its side-plots. The humor is also not very explicit, but rather comes in the form of absurd situations that the main characters find themselves in. If you are looking for a funny movie, this is probably not the movie for you.

Chris Evans delivers the best performance of the movie, and maybe of his career. He shines as John, and it’s so easy to root for him that you might almost forget the internet’s criticism that his role is “broke-boy” propaganda. Most of John’s chemistry with Lucy is a figment of the past — the audience is told that they were in love once, but they are not necessarily shown it, which makes the relationship a little less believable. Dakota Johnson’s performance is okay, and Pedro Pascal does an adequate job with his character’s arc. The performances are underscored by the heavy-handed script of the movie — the lessons are very explicit, so there’s less room for interpretation. 

However, the writing is offset by the beautiful cinematography. It’s easy to get distracted by how visually aesthetic the movie is. There’s a dizzying scene in upstate New York closer to the end of the movie which is particularly memorable. The lighting, set and camera movement are immersive; it makes the audience feel like they are inside the film. 

“Materialists” is a welcome entry in the dying rom-com genre. At worst, it’s another romance-drama that still manages to spark excitement and discussion. But at best, it’s a film about feeling strong emotions and the hard, but true, implications of material and wealth in relationships.

The post ‘Materialists’ redefines the love triangle appeared first on Technique.

If you enjoy walking in Midtown, you’ve almost certainly walked past the eyesore that is No. 2 Opus Place. The now-abandoned lot at 98 14th St. once had high hopes. It was first acquired by a developer with plans to build a condominium complex on the block. But construction on that building succumbed to numerous permitting and planning roadblocks, and eventually the land went into foreclosure in 2023. Since then, the land has been relatively untouched and ill-maintained — until now. Two months ago, Midtown Alliance, an urban development non-profit, announced that they were under contract to own and develop the plot. Their plan? Build a park.

Midtown is no stranger to parks. Piedmont Park, in all its 189 acres of glory, is the heart of Midtown Atlanta’s green space. If converted, the vacant lot  will be a fraction of the size of Piedmont — only four acres large. However, the space has the potential to make a meaningful difference.

It is near impossible to plan what a practical and productive park would look like without taking in consideration the needs of Midtown’s community as a whole.  The block sits down the street from Tech’s campus, and it is important to consider what aspects of a park would be worthwhile to Tech students.

So, what makes a park helpful? The best parks have both physical and community-building aspects. Studies show greenspace is especially good for college students — parks usage is correlated with lower stress levels and better physical health. But more importantly, a perfect park can bring a community together, offering an area for people of all ages to coexist freely. Uniting diverse populations should be the biggest priority of the potential park — to be a space that serves college students, families and day-workers in the Midtown area. 

First and foremost, Midtown does not need a new Piedmont; this park should be more intentional with its usage and be accessible and equitable. It cannot be a simple green space, but rather, there must be something for everyone. For college students, a social commons; for corporate employees, a quiet spot for a lunch break; and for families in the community, a playground for kids. Inclusivity goes hand in hand with accessibility; the park must be safely and easily accessible from all directions, especially on streets with heavy traffic. Creating safe, direct pedestrian paths through the park will increase visitation, while integrating the park with surrounding buildings. Much of Midtown’s green space is corporate and is either private or requires purchase to use. This park should prioritize free, public amenities: water fountains, gathering spaces and restrooms.

The park should also focus on creating a community-building space. Midtown has a shortage of outdoor event spaces, and its abundance of commuters takes away from its cohesive sense of community. A smaller park can lend itself to host events that cater to very different audiences, but still bring people together. Take Tech’s very own community market as an example—a dedicated space to host a market similar to that would bring together a wide variety of customers (perhaps even commuters and day workers). These events can create unity and a sense of safety, which is ever so important in a growing neighborhood like Midtown.

This park is a chance to reimagine a small part of Midtown with significant impact. So let’s design it so nobody is left out—including us!

The post Inner city park development appeared first on Technique.

If you enjoy walking in Midtown, you’ve almost certainly walked past the eyesore that is No. 2 Opus Place. The now-abandoned lot at 98 14th St. once had high hopes. It was first acquired by a developer with plans to build a condominium complex on the block. But construction on that building succumbed to numerous permitting and planning roadblocks, and eventually the land went into foreclosure in 2023. Since then, the land has been relatively untouched and ill-maintained — until now. Two months ago, Midtown Alliance, an urban development non-profit, announced that they were under contract to own and develop the plot. Their plan? Build a park.

Midtown is no stranger to parks. Piedmont Park, in all its 189 acres of glory, is the heart of Midtown Atlanta’s green space. If converted, the vacant lot  will be a fraction of the size of Piedmont — only four acres large. However, the space has the potential to make a meaningful difference.

It is near impossible to plan what a practical and productive park would look like without taking in consideration the needs of Midtown’s community as a whole.  The block sits down the street from Tech’s campus, and it is important to consider what aspects of a park would be worthwhile to Tech students.

So, what makes a park helpful? The best parks have both physical and community-building aspects. Studies show greenspace is especially good for college students — parks usage is correlated with lower stress levels and better physical health. But more importantly, a perfect park can bring a community together, offering an area for people of all ages to coexist freely. Uniting diverse populations should be the biggest priority of the potential park — to be a space that serves college students, families and day-workers in the Midtown area. 

First and foremost, Midtown does not need a new Piedmont; this park should be more intentional with its usage and be accessible and equitable. It cannot be a simple green space, but rather, there must be something for everyone. For college students, a social commons; for corporate employees, a quiet spot for a lunch break; and for families in the community, a playground for kids. Inclusivity goes hand in hand with accessibility; the park must be safely and easily accessible from all directions, especially on streets with heavy traffic. Creating safe, direct pedestrian paths through the park will increase visitation, while integrating the park with surrounding buildings. Much of Midtown’s green space is corporate and is either private or requires purchase to use. This park should prioritize free, public amenities: water fountains, gathering spaces and restrooms.

The park should also focus on creating a community-building space. Midtown has a shortage of outdoor event spaces, and its abundance of commuters takes away from its cohesive sense of community. A smaller park can lend itself to host events that cater to very different audiences, but still bring people together. Take Tech’s very own community market as an example—a dedicated space to host a market similar to that would bring together a wide variety of customers (perhaps even commuters and day workers). These events can create unity and a sense of safety, which is ever so important in a growing neighborhood like Midtown.

This park is a chance to reimagine a small part of Midtown with significant impact. So let’s design it so nobody is left out—including us!

The post Inner city park development appeared first on Technique.