Making no Little Plans

[grysar]

New World Trade Center replacement designs are out, they are actually interesting and audacious, not too mention big. About bloody time.


All right, quickie nationalist screed, promise three nonpolitical entries before my next one.

One of the most sickening pieces of drivel I read after the attack decried the American tendency to build big buildings as some sort of insult to the rest of the world. Completely wrong that, America is no shire, we're willing to make audacious moves and big plans and that's a good part of the reason why our enemies at this point our sniveling and weak. In this world, democracies, civilization, the forces of good, have an overwhelming power advantage. There is still much poverty and evil about, but the percentage of the world in which it is rampant is probably less than at any time in history.

As a necessary caveat, America has been responsible for acts of evil and set backs to the good parts of the world I'm praising right now. Some may have been necessary, most certainly were not and these acts are inexcusable. Nonetheless, our repentance for these deeds should come not in the form of withdrawal but by tying our power, aggression, and ideas closer to our core democratic values.

Comments

[lampbane.livejournal.com]

This response has (almost) nothing to do with nationalism.

Big buildings are built in New York City because we are a city with lots and lots of people but very little space. So many years ago someone had the bright idea to start building tall in order to fit as much as possible onto the skinny isle of Manhattan.

No other city (to my knowledge) has the same space constraints as NYC, therefore their construction of large buildings is completely unnecessary. I once read in a textbook at school that other cities do this to show their prosperity. I find this pretentious and annoying. But returning to your actual comment here, I point out that the tallest building in the world is in Malaysia. So this drivel you speak of was quite obviously wrong, wrong, wrong.

[grysar.livejournal.com]

What you say about New York makes sense. But, I actually don't have enough urban planning knowledge to know whether there are good reasons to build tall buildings. Part of it is just compactness I believe, many cities have poor road infrastructure and are easiest to navigate via walking, biking, or transit. Tall buildings I believe would make this process easier. Similarly, once the city is already built, if one wishes to expand one's offices in the city, the only place to go is up, moving to the outskirts is an option of course, but it would mean the company or organization is no longer central. So long as cities have desirable locations, financial districts, etc. I think sky scrapers make sense. Wonder at what level diminishing returns kick in on that, 40 levels of practicality and 30 levels of hubris, that sort of thing.

I'll bet the textbook is right though when tall buildings go up in cities that are young or don't have desirable but crowded districts. Although, I think typically the edifice complex [not my term, I think I've seen it enough that I can use it without sounding pretentious, let me know if I'm wrong and I'll avoid it ;) ] is not just a city thing, but is also possessed by companies and organizations that which to show their prosperity via property. I don't really mind this, so long as the aesthetics of the city are improved by the building.

Absolutely right about Malaysia, I actually find it kinda neat to watch cities/nations compete for the tallest building, the architecture is at least moderately varied and not all that ugly. Although the use of antennas to up the height I find more than a little bit silly.