The failure of modern of architects, Corbusier, 'houses are machines for living' and the earnest ugly result, were partly the result of an inadequate philosophy - materialism - and partly that in a secular age, intellectuals like architects tried to play the new priests, which led to the hubris that they could ignore the past and ignore the people of the present and create something entirely new - brutalism etc. Such a pity. We don't just have to repeat the past, we can be contemporary and try new materials but small incremental changes in the spirit of what has worked would make our built environment a pleasure.
I could write thousands of posts on this topic but must dash to the station. But I have enough time to say that I never warmed up to New York. The scale was always hostile, too tall, too crowded, too dense. And quite ugly. Then I discovered Brooklyn. The Park Slope/Cobble Hill/Brooklyn Heights are is a real delight and a perfect urbanism for me (leaving aside its ridiculous politics). Something about the human ability to relate to scale is clearly at play here
But also manageable is a level of mixed density, with houses and midrises and even some highrises blended together, as long as there is sufficient greenery and landscaping. Quite a few European cities built extensively in this manner and I always admired the garden city effect in planning.
Charles did not get enough praise for his support of traditional architecture. It is a huge facet in the identity of a nation. Without traditional architecture of a place, you could be anywhere on Earth with zero distinctions. That would be a huge tragedy.
As a lifelong New Yorker (Manhattan to me =NYC, but I recognize that is a narrow view), I was intrigued by your article.
The most expensive apartment buildings in New York are the new ones, the ugly fingers pointing 50 stories plus in the sky.
Prewar (before 1940) buildings are generally co-ops and have become less desirable/less expensive for many reasons, including going through the crazy co-op application process and the cost and time of renovation.That said, I think the prettiest buildings in New York are the older ones, which are taller than 3-4 stories but are still human sized and well proportioned.
As well, many of these older buildings are the ones that surround Central Park, and I believe the best views of the Park are not from helicopter level, but while walking or running (not fleeing but for exercise!) through it.
<<The housing crisis is the number one problem facing British society>>
It really isn't. AI is the number one problem facing British society and every other society.
In the next 5-20 years, if AI development is not stopped, things are going to become Very Weird. Some of those Very Weird things are going to be Very Bad for society. Before the year 2050 AIs will run the world and there will be no possible way for humans to take back control. The AIs will have their own goals, which won't include caring about human beings. The AIs will control all the resources and territories that previously belonged to humans, they will eliminate any humans who are troublesome or who seem like they might become troublesome, and eventually humanity will suffer the same fate as wolves, bears and lynx suffered in the British Isles at the hands of a more intelligent species.
The "housing crisis" problem, like every other human problem, only matters in a world in which AI progress is stopped before AIs take control.
As you say, elected leaders can't even think about 11 years into the future. What about you? Can you think about 11 years into the future? It seems like you think the near future is just going to be "business as usual", even though we are currently creating machines that are becoming more intelligent every year.
Which rival were the Brooklyn New Englanders competing with: Manhattan, Boston, London, other?
Burroughs and Wallace portray Brooklyn, before the 1898 NYC unification, as a bastion of 'proper-Bostonian' bourgeois respectability and propriety, happy to have a bit of distance from the teeming masses in Manhattan.
The failure of modern of architects, Corbusier, 'houses are machines for living' and the earnest ugly result, were partly the result of an inadequate philosophy - materialism - and partly that in a secular age, intellectuals like architects tried to play the new priests, which led to the hubris that they could ignore the past and ignore the people of the present and create something entirely new - brutalism etc. Such a pity. We don't just have to repeat the past, we can be contemporary and try new materials but small incremental changes in the spirit of what has worked would make our built environment a pleasure.
I could write thousands of posts on this topic but must dash to the station. But I have enough time to say that I never warmed up to New York. The scale was always hostile, too tall, too crowded, too dense. And quite ugly. Then I discovered Brooklyn. The Park Slope/Cobble Hill/Brooklyn Heights are is a real delight and a perfect urbanism for me (leaving aside its ridiculous politics). Something about the human ability to relate to scale is clearly at play here
But also manageable is a level of mixed density, with houses and midrises and even some highrises blended together, as long as there is sufficient greenery and landscaping. Quite a few European cities built extensively in this manner and I always admired the garden city effect in planning.
Please avoid split infinitives. Otherwise, excellent.
"Most of Britain’s ‘happy towns’ are also incredibly expensive"
This could indicate that the happiness is produced by high incomes rather than by architecture.
Charles did not get enough praise for his support of traditional architecture. It is a huge facet in the identity of a nation. Without traditional architecture of a place, you could be anywhere on Earth with zero distinctions. That would be a huge tragedy.
As a lifelong New Yorker (Manhattan to me =NYC, but I recognize that is a narrow view), I was intrigued by your article.
The most expensive apartment buildings in New York are the new ones, the ugly fingers pointing 50 stories plus in the sky.
Prewar (before 1940) buildings are generally co-ops and have become less desirable/less expensive for many reasons, including going through the crazy co-op application process and the cost and time of renovation.That said, I think the prettiest buildings in New York are the older ones, which are taller than 3-4 stories but are still human sized and well proportioned.
As well, many of these older buildings are the ones that surround Central Park, and I believe the best views of the Park are not from helicopter level, but while walking or running (not fleeing but for exercise!) through it.
<<The housing crisis is the number one problem facing British society>>
It really isn't. AI is the number one problem facing British society and every other society.
In the next 5-20 years, if AI development is not stopped, things are going to become Very Weird. Some of those Very Weird things are going to be Very Bad for society. Before the year 2050 AIs will run the world and there will be no possible way for humans to take back control. The AIs will have their own goals, which won't include caring about human beings. The AIs will control all the resources and territories that previously belonged to humans, they will eliminate any humans who are troublesome or who seem like they might become troublesome, and eventually humanity will suffer the same fate as wolves, bears and lynx suffered in the British Isles at the hands of a more intelligent species.
The "housing crisis" problem, like every other human problem, only matters in a world in which AI progress is stopped before AIs take control.
As you say, elected leaders can't even think about 11 years into the future. What about you? Can you think about 11 years into the future? It seems like you think the near future is just going to be "business as usual", even though we are currently creating machines that are becoming more intelligent every year.
Just calling it misplaced is begging the question; in the proper sense of that term. I implore you to earnestly try harder.
God save the King, and so forth.
Which rival were the Brooklyn New Englanders competing with: Manhattan, Boston, London, other?
Burroughs and Wallace portray Brooklyn, before the 1898 NYC unification, as a bastion of 'proper-Bostonian' bourgeois respectability and propriety, happy to have a bit of distance from the teeming masses in Manhattan.
https://books.google.com/books?id=mObQCwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=history%20of%20new%20york%20city%20gotham&pg=PA729#v=onepage&q&f=false
May West is the best. I've long thought we should just scrap architecture as an academic subject.