HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2014, 1:22 PM
Barbarossa Barbarossa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 127
The problem with the article is that it assumes that there is something new under the sun. Nothing has changed, except technology. Do you think all of the reactionary nobility of Europe hundreds of years ago actually lived in cities or did things that were beneficial to cities and the people living in them? Of course not. Do you think the medieval barons and dukes cared about the cities? No.

If the King wanted to build a new palace or embark on a city building project, he would have to face the ire of the landed nobility who could care less. Most Kings in the middle ages were weak, wheres the rural oligarchy (nobility) was strong and made most decisions. Nothing has changed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2014, 4:46 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa View Post
The problem with the article is that it assumes that there is something new under the sun. Nothing has changed, except technology. Do you think all of the reactionary nobility of Europe hundreds of years ago actually lived in cities or did things that were beneficial to cities and the people living in them? Of course not. Do you think the medieval barons and dukes cared about the cities? No.

If the King wanted to build a new palace or embark on a city building project, he would have to face the ire of the landed nobility who could care less. Most Kings in the middle ages were weak, wheres the rural oligarchy (nobility) was strong and made most decisions. Nothing has changed.
I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.

I'm most familiar with the status of nobility in Britain, but there it was customary for nobles to have both a country estate and a residence in the city (called a "town house" - and the origin of the modern term). Norfolk House in London is probably one of the largest examples, built in the 18th century as a resident for the Duke of Norfolk, but used since 1938 for offices.

Nobility did live in the cities - at least part of the time. And you can't blame them for not living there all the time, because in era before public sanitation, European cities were horrible places. Pretty universally they were population sinks - people died faster than they were born, with continual in-migration from the rural areas the only way they stopped from shrinking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2014, 9:32 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa View Post
The problem with the article is that it assumes that there is something new under the sun. Nothing has changed, except technology. Do you think all of the reactionary nobility of Europe hundreds of years ago actually lived in cities or did things that were beneficial to cities and the people living in them? Of course not. Do you think the medieval barons and dukes cared about the cities? No.

If the King wanted to build a new palace or embark on a city building project, he would have to face the ire of the landed nobility who could care less. Most Kings in the middle ages were weak, wheres the rural oligarchy (nobility) was strong and made most decisions. Nothing has changed.
None of this is correct.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:47 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.