Could Pittsburgh do with a defining structure? (York, Washington: amusement park, hotel)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

Does the St. Louis arch, for example, really make you care more about St. Louis or give you any idea of what the city is actually like?

No, of course not. And it isn't going to radically increase tourism either.

[gg]

Originally Posted by ctoocheck

Does the St. Louis arch, for example, really make you care more about St. Louis or give you any idea of what the city is actually like?

Sure. I remember the first time I saw that arch and it was bigger than I thought it was going to be. I am bummed I didn't ride the elevator to the top. I will do it next time I am over that way. Those kind of things are certainly good for tourism. Sure St. Louis isn't a very big place and probably doesn't have a ton tourist, but that arch is pretty cool.

Pittsburgh doesn't really have a "defining structure". I would say our biggest draw is driving through the Ft. Pitt Tunnels and BOOM the city hits you in the face. That isn't a structure, but is unique.

[SammyKhalifa]

It seems really silly to say that an "iconic" building--or tower, or whatever, does nothing for a city's image. People have been building such things since they've been building cities. They weren't all wrong. We remember them for it.

The fact we're talking about cities with Cristo Redentor or the Washington Monument or the Space Needle or the Sydney Opera House or Big Ben (instead of a really nice business office in Houston) should in itself indicate the power they hold.

Not saying that we necessarily need one or that it is EVERYTHING, but still.





Also, The Fountain.

[Copanut]

Without a doubt, it's Primanti's in the Strip, n'at.

Tend to agree, we don't need a defining structure. Does Boston have one? Cleveland? Sharpsburg?

[DinsdalePirahna]

Pittsburgh has an awesome skyline and the PPG building is a defining structure.

By thankful that you are not St. Louis. Take away the arch and you will have one of the most boring skylines of any notable American city.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa

It seems really silly to say that an "iconic" building--or tower, or whatever, does nothing for a city's image. People have been building such things since they've been building cities. They weren't all wrong. We remember them for it.

You don't think something common can also be wrong?

Governments of all sorts have indeed pushed expensive and impractical vanity projects on cities throughout history. But the alternative to assuming those governments have been faithfully acting on behalf of their cities is to ask whether instead those governments have been serving themselves at the cost of their cities. The fact is that economic development generally requires a lot of hard, smart work under the best of circumstances, and city governments are often not in control of all of the factors that lead to success or failure even if they do work hard and smart, and yet people tend to blame them for disappointed expectations regardless. Given that basic dynamic, governments often opt to blow resources on tangible projects that they think will immediately evoke civic pride, but that doesn't mean such projects really are important to economic development.

In short, vanity projects like this are undoubtedly a PR device for the officials who promote them, but whether they serve the same function for the relevant cities as a whole is a much more dubious proposition.

The fact we're talking about cities with Cristo Redentor or the Washington Monument or the Space Needle or the Sydney Opera House or Big Ben (instead of a really nice business office in Houston) should in itself indicate the power they hold.

First, people would still be "talking about" cities like Washington or London regardless if you subtracted any given monument, because those cities are legitimately very important cities.

As for places like Seattle--we have been discussing the Space Needle here because it was specifically cited in the OP, and the topic of this thread is gimmick structures like the Space Needle. The more relevant question is: outside of this highly limited context, do we talk about Seattle more here than we would otherwise because of the Space Needle? I'd say the answer is no, not in any detectable way. As a matter of fact, I would guess we have talked more about Houston recently than Seattle, so what does that say about the supposed benefits of the Space Needle? The fact is that such a thing is really negligible in comparison to real economic factors, such as a growing and evolving energy sector.

Not saying that we necessarily need one or that it is EVERYTHING, but still.

It would all be a harmless diversion, if these things didn't take up real resources that could be used in far more productive ways. I don't think there is much danger of a Gateway Arch-type project in Pittsburgh, but a very similar argument could be conducted over the merits of the North Shore stadiums, and I think a very strong case could be made that the resources directly and indirectly spent on those stadiums could have been much better used in other ways.

[sealie]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

You don't think something common can also be wrong?


It would all be a harmless diversion, if these things didn't take up real resources that could be used in far more productive ways. I don't think there is much danger of a Gateway Arch-type project in Pittsburgh, but a very similar argument could be conducted over the merits of the North Shore stadiums, and I think a very strong case could be made that the resources directly and indirectly spent on those stadiums could have been much better used in other ways.

Might I ask why you are fretting over a castle-in-the-air, an imaginary project, built with imaginary money, to serve an imaginary need, with your complaint being that it's too expensive and frivolous? When did that become a limiting factor on c-d hypothetical projects?

[gg]

Originally Posted by Copanut

Without a doubt, it's Primanti's in the Strip, n'at.

Tend to agree, we don't need a defining structure. Sharpsburg?

Well actually Sharpsburg does have one. The Indian of course. Goodness, you need to get out more.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Well actually Sharpsburg does have one. The Indian of course. Goodness, you need to get out more.

You are correct, sir!

I forgot about that, kind of like the doughboy in Larryville.

And don't forget the saucer in Mars.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=mars,+pa+saucer&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1600& bih=799&tbm=isch&tbnid=-rirZxy-Ej9eXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebujak/2737932328/&docid=Lifz7--03tntpM&itg=1&imgurl=http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3231/2737932328_67958229e0_z.jpg&w=640&h=480&ei=I3mJUMC LE4640AHYwYDgDA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=2&sig=103325582 670977806887&page=1&tbnh=194&tbnw=259&start=0&ndsp =16&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0,i:89&tx=97&ty=109

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by sealie

Might I ask why you are fretting over a castle-in-the-air, an imaginary project, built with imaginary money, to serve an imaginary need, with your complaint being that it's too expensive and frivolous? When did that become a limiting factor on c-d hypothetical projects?

Because that is the nature of the question I take the OP to be asking us to consider.

I might note that I generally resist hypotheticals of the sort, "Assuming it didn't cost anything, should we . . . .?" I typically don't find those sorts of questions interesting, because if you assume away the costs and leave only the benefits, you can make almost any idea look good. And I think I am relatively consistent about approaching hypothetical project proposals here in that fashion: if I don't think they would be a reasonably good use of resources, I will likely say so.