Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc
I am completely unable explain why certain people are so opposed to skyscrapers (or in Sacramento's case, high rises). Can an old 2-3 story building house the same number of residents a skyscraper houses? Can an old 2-3 story building attract the kind of business a skyscraper attracts? Can an old 2-3 story building provide the kind of stature a skyscraper provides? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the desire to preserve the short, ugly, boring, old pile of crap buildings that plague our downtown/midtown. I guess it takes all kinds, unfortunately.(snip)
|
I'm not opposed to high-rises or skyscrapers--they have their place and their role. There certainly are things they can do that smaller historic buildings can't. But there are also things that skyscrapers can't do, that historic buildings can--which is why we need both. New skyscrapers don't carry on the architectural and social legacy of a city, although they can continue it. New buildings, skyscrapers or not, carry a bigger environmental impact whereas constructed buildings provide a big environmental savings (and a cost savings) in that the energy of their construction has already been spent. Rehabbing old buildings is better for the local economy because the bulk of the expense is in labor, which is money spent locally, rather than in materials. Old buildings are also better places for low-income housing than new buildings, because they are inherently cheaper than new construction. This means that the government doesn't have to subsidize low-income housing construction in order for it to occur.
One of the major driving forces of urban renewal was tax-increment financing--government borrows money to pay to knock down neighborhoods, then subsidizes industry with the borrowed money, and paid off the loans with the increased property taxes. This resulted in bigger government, higher taxes, government-enforced theft of private property, destruction of small businesses and reduced rates of home ownership--all things that should make any good libertarian's head spin with fury.
This may surprise you, but I consider myself a libertarian and a capitalist too, though perhaps not to the same extent. History is a resource--a limited, highly valuable and irreplaceable resource. Correct husbanding and management of that resource can (and SHOULD) result in profits, both financial and social.