U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2014, 02:21 AM
 
Location: New York
80 posts, read 168,963 times
Reputation: 59

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. A new building may be beautiful to you but not so much to others. Although in contrast to my first sentence, I will argue that most people prefer older architecture (mostly 1880-1940 architecture) over most modern buildings. Shiny glass blocks have nothing on the opulent patterns of terra cotta, stone, and brick of the Victorian Era.
Yes, but glass isn't a symbol of modern architecture(or rather post-contemporary). The use of materials and how it blends in with what's already there while offering value not only to the neighborhood but to the people living in it, is what can and should be appreciated. However, let me tell you why most people use glass even though it is not "green" to make.
1. It gives you a better sense of space
2. Light
3. Outside and inside
4. The best insulation to date by creating a double skin where you can control indoor temperature WITHOUT active systems.

And yes, your argument may be that most people prefer older architecture but then I could argue that most people prefer newer architecture. Who's telling the truth? I don't know. I know my own truth while you do yours. In other words, as you said it at the beginning, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The older generation loves old style buildings. The new generation do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
I honestly couldn't understand anything you were saying. Your grammar escapes me...
Perhaps I should hold your hand to cross the street?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2014, 02:39 AM
 
1,604 posts, read 1,119,191 times
Reputation: 2414
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixmike11 View Post
Well- I guess the preservationists are correct about keeping historic buildings and architecture around.

Study: Older, smaller buildings better for cities
Jane Jacobs made the same point 60+ years ago.

----------------
... Jacobs argued that modernist urban planning rejects the city, because it rejects human beings living in a community characterized by layered complexity and seeming chaos. The modernist planners used deductive reasoning to find principles by which to plan cities. Among these policies she considered urban renewal the most violent, and separation of uses (i.e., residential, industrial, commercial) the most prevalent. These policies, she claimed, destroy communities and innovative economies by creating isolated, unnatural urban spaces.

In their place Jacobs advocated "four generators of diversity": "The necessity for these four conditions is the most important point this book has to make. In combination, these conditions create effective economic pools of use." (p. 151) The conditions are:

Mixed uses, activating streets at different times of the day
Short blocks, allowing high pedestrian permeability
Buildings of various ages and states of repair
Density
------------------
The Death and Life of Great American Cities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 09:06 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,812,547 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmontesi View Post
Yes, but glass isn't a symbol of modern architecture(or rather post-contemporary).
Really? Large expanses of glass certainly seem to be a characteristic of many modern buildings; consider Comcast Center, or 1 World Trade. You don't see that in significiantly older buildings, mainly because it wasn't possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthnry
... Jacobs argued that modernist urban planning rejects the city, because it rejects human beings living in a community characterized by layered complexity and seeming chaos
That's a problem with planning in general. The more detailed your plan, the more you're trying to force (whether intentionally or not) people to live according to your vision rather than building a community of their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2014, 01:21 PM
 
Location: New York
80 posts, read 168,963 times
Reputation: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Really? Large expanses of glass certainly seem to be a characteristic of many modern buildings; consider Comcast Center, or 1 World Trade. You don't see that in significiantly older buildings, mainly because it wasn't possible.
true in a way.
But glass again is merely done for many reasons aside from this post contemporary idea.
But look up public swimming pools, or new museums. It isnt just about glass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top