Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffstuff129
It has to do with economics, there is no reason to waste money on ornaments, and very few companies are willing to do it.
|
Which is why I thinks New York's larger examples of modern architecture are mostly souless and pedantic.
The reason to spend money on high quality development? Its called architecture. And people pay more to live and work in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffstuff129
Agreed. Progressive people who want the city to develope will never agree with people who want the city to become a museum for them to fawn over when they come once every 5 years.
|
Sorry but this is strikes me as BS. Why can't you do both? Why should we destroy neighborhoods like Soho to make life for souless towers that are rented as 2 week summer homes for Europeans? Thats not progress...its development... and they don't always overlap. New York should protect its freaking unique architectural heritage. People LIVE in this museum. Am I the only person on this forum who actually lives on this island? It would suck if it was all 1,000 ft towers. It would be a dead CBD.
Does this mean that EVERYHTING needs to be preserved? No. I'm a big fan of adaptive reuse and facadectomy where appropriate. I'm pro-developement as long as its SMART development. Big towers ahve their uses, as to mid and low-rises. All of them together make a city...and they are the reason New York is an awesome place to LIVE, not just look at.
Should we develop central park because its profitable to do so? Hell no. Does that mean the entire city should be park? Hell no. I don't know why it is so hard for people to conceptualize a balance between the two.