the NYT could have just as easily written about the benefits of their much higher densities and their attempts to build public transit. granted, it wouldn't catch the attention of the typical reader as easily, but it would highlight some of the benefits of others' ideas.
the importance of stephen holl, zaha hadid, etc. pale in comparison to the urgent needs of urban and rapidly urbanizing populations. as for these starchitects themselves, they just... don't capture my imagination. they're akin to putting a horse on a polo shirt, and charging the consumer extra for that privilege.
Quote:
|
Personally, I think that writing about North American sprawl and conventional development would reveal anything that we haven't gained over the last 50 years through simple observation
|
i don't agree with you there. most architects and urban planners should know about this, and many aficionados should pick up some of these concepts. but the vast majority of people still associate density with the dystopian nightmares of cabrini green. thus our 'sustainable' high density infill developments in north america either appeal to the edgy avant garde crowd, or are pitched toward the very wealthy. 'regular' people still overwhelmingly aspire to own their little domain of a single family home and a redundant and traditional patch of green green grass. developers derive fat and quick profits from these developments, and banks and realtors reap financial rewards as well.