Hey guys, new to the thread but just wanted to say you should all check this video out by Reason TV. I may not agree with their politics but it raises an important issue facing many cities, in particular Philadelphia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc07OPPzo9Q
Again im knew, not sure if im posting this right.
I'm definitely not for setting cities in stone and fossilizing them, but honestly the examples this video uses proves the validity of the landmarks act, at least for me. I actually had to stop watching midway through since all the buildings in the 1890s were way cooler than what stands there now and it's sad they aren't there anymore. The structures they discuss as having been demolished were really much more majestic than NY today. Even what came before the MetLife and Empire State Building. And it was plenty dense. Moreover, imagine if the landmarks act hadn't happened just in time to prevent what's there being demolished in favor of 60s/70s/80s garbage. So it's not the same as a lot of the ridiculous NIMBY issues here, where people don't want 55-foot tall buildings since they're "out of character with the neighborhood" or don't want empty lots to be built on...
I'm definitely not for setting cities in stone and fossilizing them, but honestly the examples this video uses proves the validity of the landmarks act, at least for me. I actually had to stop watching midway through since all the buildings in the 1890s were way cooler than what stands there now and it's sad they aren't there anymore. The structures they discuss as having been demolished were really much more majestic than NY today. Even what came before the MetLife and Empire State Building. And it was plenty dense. Moreover, imagine if the landmarks act hadn't happened just in time to prevent what's there being demolished in favor of 60s/70s/80s garbage. So it's not the same as a lot of the ridiculous NIMBY issues here, where people don't want 55-foot tall buildings since they're "out of character with the neighborhood" or don't want empty lots to be built on...
True but even if a building is ugly it adds to the skyline at least. One WTC is a pretty ugly building but it adds to the character of new york's skyline. Im not saying don't designate landmarks, but i'd rather there be ugly buildings that have functionality rather than historic buildings that only serve to please the eye. But we are on common ground that NIMBYs are freaking ridiculous and shouldn't sit on the City Council.
True but even if a building is ugly it adds to the skyline at least. One WTC is a pretty ugly building but it adds to the character of new york's skyline. Im not saying don't designate landmarks, but i'd rather there be ugly buildings that have functionality rather than historic buildings that only serve to please the eye. But we are on common ground that NIMBYs are freaking ridiculous and shouldn't sit on the City Council.
Well, functionality I suppose is somewhat subjective. Although I'm interested in skyline height and character, for example, I don't see how that's directly related to functionality. The development of WTC and World Financial (Center?) created a huge 9-5 underpopulated district that NY is still recovering from. A lot of the 1890s things that got demolished were more mixed use and promoted more round the clock activity than what came after them. Of course WTC fit a lot of offices in it as did other single-use high-rises, though many also came with enormous plazas and plinths, so the overall density is often not nearly as great as it may appear with very tall buildings (just look at all those blocky towers along—I want to say Avenue of the Americas) that appear to be taken over half by plazas where nothing happens. I actually think as far as urban dynamism goes, even though in some conditions it can impede rapid development, smaller parcels are more functional because they promote a diversity of uses. Of course developers like at East Market who have some vision turn this on its head, but in general in modern American urban history, the consolidation of lots for development has led to some pretty boring—and I would venture, non-functional—outcomes.
True but even if a building is ugly it adds to the skyline at least. One WTC is a pretty ugly building but it adds to the character of new york's skyline. Im not saying don't designate landmarks, but i'd rather there be ugly buildings that have functionality rather than historic buildings that only serve to please the eye. But we are on common ground that NIMBYs are freaking ridiculous and shouldn't sit on the City Council.
So you're kind of a "Le Corbusier in Paris" type then?
Prev
I still like the bones of a building without the façade....
Linear Mode
