Quote:
Originally Posted by mistermetAJ
Before you settle too much on your strawman argument, now defining progress as "the plans will progress" let me take you back to the ACTUAL converstation, that anything new in New York is defended as "progress" and "not a museum" against valid architectural criticism. It is progress in what sense? Economic...ok. Since that is the ONLY grounds you can stand on in which "new" equals "progress" virtually unequivically, the argument has no grounds as a defense against architectural criticism.
|
Literally
anything would be progress over what is there today - no matter how you want to define the word. Feel free to criticize whatever architecture is eventually proposed here (we still haven't seen actual design proposals, only simple massing studies), but know that, even if it's the second-worst turd of a building ever, it still represents progress compared to what it's replacing. I'm really puzzled as to why this is such an argument.
Threaded Mode