[HN Gopher] Le Corbusier's project Plan Voisin - a radical urban...
___________________________________________________________________
Le Corbusier's project Plan Voisin - a radical urban design for
Paris from 1925
Author : revolucien
Score : 73 points
Date : 2022-04-20 10:39 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.clemensgritl.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.clemensgritl.com)
| bambax wrote:
| The fact that one of the shots prominently features a statue
| doing a facepalm [1] makes one question if this was intended to
| attract or in fact deter?
|
| [1] https://images.squarespace-
| cdn.com/content/v1/58764f376a4963...
| netfortius wrote:
| Ceausescu (the Genius Architect of the Carpathians) "did"
| (ordered others to) just that, in Romania - especially in
| Bucharest - during his regime of [terror and] "reconstruction".
| contingencies wrote:
| The artist makes a good point but it's rather unfairly at the
| expense of Corbusier who to be fair was capable of real art. Fond
| memories of Paris myself - including _La Defense_ - but shocked
| how similar the right-side vision is to the current feeling of
| living _en Chine_.
| twelvechairs wrote:
| Tearing up Paris of course would have been an unmitigated
| disaster. But all the same its important to realize how visionary
| this (and the slightly earlier Ville Contemporaine) was in the
| 1920s. Corbusier saw the city of the future far before others -
| cars as the dominant mode of transport giving people freedom to
| travel far, simply constructed skyscrapers with standardised
| apartment types but also with sanitation and services for all (a
| huge issue in Paris of that era).
|
| Of course along with this he didn't see the big issues we know
| now through bitter experience - car dominance destroying street
| life, lack of human scale and beauty in mass-produced buildings,
| poor safety/security, bleak open spaces, etc. Some perhaps are
| unfair to blame on him as they are in our mind as a result of
| poor/cheap implementation in other schemes. But we should at
| least marvel at what Corbusier _did_ understand for his time and
| how clearly he was able to express it.
| mynameishere wrote:
| What's radical about putting up a bunch of prisons? We did that.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Big fan of megablock living in east Asia. Radiant City plan
| wouldn't have fared well in real life, but I imagine project if
| built, would be remediated into nice high density mix use
| neighbourhoods over time. Infill some street level retail,
| updated cladding over time. Could have worked, and probably
| better quality units for more people than constantly modernizing
| Haussmann blocks.
| birriel wrote:
| 3-D Model of Plan Voisin:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNBr6de7TD4
|
| And the Pruitt-Igoe segment from Koyaanisqatsi:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_SpRBXRmE
|
| Just bad ideas.
| everyone wrote:
| I think of the 20th Century as being the century of quacks. Guys
| like Corbusier and Freud proposing radical new ideas based on _no
| data_ , _zero research_ , basically pulled out of their assholes.
| And then somehow these ideas become widely accepted and
| implemented. There was a lot of damage done then that we are
| still dealing with the consequences of.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| The big problem with Le Corb is not that his stuff is ugly. It's
| that his designs are inhuman. No one with any choice wants to
| live or work in that kind of development. It's striking! Bold!
| Architects love the look! But form should follow function and Le
| Corb's idea of function is "a machine for living" and there's not
| too much room in that vision for things extraneous to living like
| "dreaming" or "enjoying life," so you get all their space in
| between that's hostile to you hanging out there, barren plazas
| which don't function as a park and are strictly segregated from
| any meaningful street retail...
|
| It's like a NYC housing project. Just put the people into a
| machine for living and call it a day.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Yes. There's a colossal failure of modernist architecture to
| think about the "user experience". People don't like being
| mechanized.
| verisimi wrote:
| But what's wrong with living in a tiny space stacked together
| with everyone else like tinned sardines on the shelf?!
| isolli wrote:
| Agreed, but as a counterpoint, read this story on a very
| interesting housing project in Montreal (1967).
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25940074
| hef19898 wrote:
| Well, thing is, despite he utter ugliness of his designs in
| mass, _one_ of his high-rises, a tad smaller, could be a nice
| piece of architecture. _One_ , not a whole city of those...
| rvieira wrote:
| It seems he would really enjoy working in the 21st century.
|
| Designing striking CGI buildings for movies without the
| "downside" of humans actually having to live there :)
| captainmuon wrote:
| This. And the funny thing is Le Corbusier and other modernists
| _intended_ to design for humans:
|
| - They add large parks between the buildings
|
| - You get the huge highrises and long boulevards because of
| separation of function, because they want to put the living
| quarters far away from the smelly factories
|
| - They use a lot of concrete and prefab components to keep
| everything affordable
|
| - They design community areas into the buildings
|
| and so on. But it fails spectacularly. The resulting cities are
| completely inhumane. There is no space for natural development,
| for "lucky accidents", no mixed zoning, no entertainment and
| shopping close by to living quarters, the kind of stuff people
| now want from an urban lifestyle. And you can't really walk
| anywhere.
|
| One thing I really hate in these kind of cities is that you
| can't just go anywhere straight, you are 'channeled around'.
| Whether you are on foot or in a car, you have to shut off your
| brain and follow the signs. You can't follow your 'desire
| path', and even if you would, you will walk for a long time
| through 'non-places' where there is nothing.
|
| I was trying to walk a couple of blocks in one of these cities
| in the hot summer, and it was brutal (there are places like
| this in the US, France, China, ...). Nothing is human scale,
| and that is why it feels dehumanizing.
| Bud wrote:
| Le Corbusier just didn't have this figured out. But
| Christopher Alexander did. See "A Pattern Language" and "The
| Timeless Way of Building".
| Sharlin wrote:
| Quite so. And in reality those large parks would have (and
| did!) turn into fields of asphalt and concrete, as automobile
| infrastructure expanded to fill all available space (Le
| Corbusier and his contemporaries didn't _quite_ get how
| drastic the consequences of automobilization together with
| separation of functions would be...)
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| I think this is an under appreciated point. Something I
| find striking in watching historical footage of urban areas
| is just how empty the roads were. Just the other day I was
| watching some restored footage of Paris in the 1920s, and
| they drove the camera car through famous areas that today
| would be a near parking lot most of the day, but back then
| were wide open.
|
| If you look at car centric infrastructure through this
| lens, it's easier to understand how it all went so wrong.
| The American dream as designed in say the 1950s was quite
| pleasant if you could afford it. A nice modern house on
| clean brand new wide open roads. Sure you have to drive
| everywhere vs walk to the neighborhood main street for
| errands but gas is cheap and those roads make it all so
| fast and convenient.
|
| Of course the problem is non of this scaled, but that
| didn't stop us from trying, and ending up with the worst of
| both in many ways.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| This "Not Just Bikes" video[1] recently on YouTube makes a
| similar case for generic concrete business parks in the USA and
| Canada compared to one in the Netherlands. That nobody with any
| choice wants to live or work there, that they are full of
| hostile in-between space and strictly segregated from housing
| and shopping by 6-lane roads, and inhuman feeling. Designed
| with car access as the priority and bus access as an
| afterthought and without pedestrian or cycle access at all, as
| if the only reasons to be 'outside' at all are driving or
| parking.
|
| The Netherlands one in the video has dedicated roads for busses
| which get priority over cars at traffic lights, dedicated paths
| for bikes and pedestrians which get priority over busses and
| cars at traffic lights and are separate from the roads so
| people aren't walking right by vehicles, and a train station.
| It has narrow car lanes with both directions separated with an
| easier pedestrian crossing experience, floodwater management
| integrated as a nice looking canal feature rather than as a
| storm drain by a road; pretty building design and path design
| to make a more pleasant environment to walk in, and buildings
| having large and accessible entrances for pedestrians without
| forcing them to cross bits of mud or large expanses of car
| park.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ
| rich_sasha wrote:
| It should probably be pointed out that Paris has a history of
| "knocking it all down" to make space for the New. Haussman did
| that. Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral, one of the most iconic
| sacral buildings of the world (?) sits on the rubble of its
| Christian predecessors (as well as an ancient pagan temple, oh
| well, zeitgeist).
|
| The difference was that Le Corbusier's stuff is, as most of this
| thread attests, ghastly, maybe except some Platonic space. The
| earlier rebuilds worked out, mostly because the esthetics stood
| the test of time, which Le Corbusier's ideas didn't.
|
| By contrast, after the Great Fire of London in 1666, it was
| proposed to rebuild the city on a grand, modern design, but in
| the end that was turned out, and the city was rebuilt much as it
| was before (except with greater fire safety regulation). This
| explains why even to this day, City of London, now the main
| business/finance district, has such a weird layout, with tiny
| backstreets and anachronistic street names.
| cm2187 wrote:
| I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The only
| way painters could remain relevant is by doing something
| original rather than beautiful. Then the other arts followed.
| Modern classical music is impossible to listen to most ears.
| And architects followed too, more interested in creating an
| original shape of glass or concrete rather than building
| anything beautiful and pleasing. There is hardly any piece of
| modern architecture that will resist the test of time (and the
| materials used won't anyway).
|
| For a long list of examples, I defer to the twitter account
| architects against humanity.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| It does not seem to be the case to me. At least I cannot see
| the correlation.
|
| Art Deco buildings are very beautiful, and that happened a
| long time after photography was invented.
|
| In fact, the soulless style of architecture only started to
| visibly dominate after WWII.
| febeling wrote:
| One problem was that people started believing that there's no
| such thing as beauty. How do you build a beautiful building,
| if you think beauty is an illusion anyway?
|
| I have the idea that it's related to atheism. Once you
| believe all of life and all of nature is ultimately some
| brute atoms buzzing back and forth anyway, then what your
| imagination creates is likely to look pretty brutalist. If
| you believe it's angels and God's creation all the way down
| you will place meaning and symbols into the large elements
| and every tiny bit. Anyone else can see this connection?
| davidivadavid wrote:
| Nah.
|
| First, I don't think any major aesthetic theory claims
| there's no such thing as beauty. At best, they question the
| definition of beauty and the classical canons of beauty.
|
| Second, you can put meaning and symbols into atoms buzzing
| back and forth (atoms buzzing back and forth are more or
| less a symbol, anyway).
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp):
|
| > _Fountain_ is a readymade sculpture by Marcel Duchamp
| in 1917, consisting of a porcelain urinal signed "R.
| Mutt". In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing
| chosen by Duchamp was submitted for an exhibition of the
| Society of Independent Artists, the inaugural exhibition
| by the Society to be staged at The Grand Central Palace
| in New York. When explaining the purpose of his Readymade
| sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects
| raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's
| act of choice."...
|
| > The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of
| the avant-garde as a major landmark in 20th-century art.
|
| So here's a major artist, saying that a urinal can be a
| work of art, needing only the artist's choice to make
| them so. And here's a major art movement agreeing that
| that "art" piece is a major landmark.
|
| That doesn't quite claim "there's no such thing as
| beauty", but it pretty much says there's no such thing as
| _art_ , other than an artist saying so. But then, who is
| an artist? Whoever says they are?
|
| And if all it takes is the artist saying so, then a
| urinal is just as much art as the _Mona Lisa_.
|
| But I think this does somewhat trace back to febeling's
| point. If nature is all there is, and nature is
| deterministic, then art is just what deterministic people
| do. It's not intrinsically different from non-art. And
| when people believe that, they act like what they do is
| just the same as the _Mona Lisa_ , when we can look at it
| and tell that no, it's not.
| Zababa wrote:
| I'm not sure about that, I'm an atheist myself and I still
| find religious building beautiful. Even if there is no god
| there, and even if the buildings were ugly, they are filled
| with the feelings of lots of people. That is beautiful in
| itself. Just like I'm not really into sports, but the
| energy of a stadium is something beautiful to see, and very
| real. There's something special happening in those places.
| Same thing with an old house. Many people lived there.
| That's powerful.
| car_analogy wrote:
| > I think the cutoff is the invention of photography. The
| only way painters could remain relevant is by doing something
| original rather than beautiful.
|
| You are letting them off too easy. Have you ever seen a
| photograph that looks like https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICilJlD
| 5nhA/ThQQ_v2LKzI/AAAAAAAAA... ?
|
| Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abbey_in_the_Oakwood#/me
| di... ?
|
| Or https://i.pinimg.com/originals/11/9f/2a/119f2ac0958cb42610
| 15... ?
|
| The modern styles void of any aesthetic appeal are by far not
| the only ones photography has not supplanted. The layperson
| may be excused for thinking art's only goal was photorealism,
| but when coming from experts, that is a deliberate _lie_ ,
| used to ridicule anyone that dares complain how beauty was
| excised from the modern art world.
| [deleted]
| bsedlm wrote:
| I don't think that the musicians have responded yet to the
| reccording technology in a comparable way to painters
| responding to photographic technology with impressionism and
| other non-realistic painting techniques (which do seem to
| have sprung up when photography became widespread)
| pembrook wrote:
| While everybody loves Haussman's Paris today, at the time, it
| was extremely controversial and he was eventually ousted. Paris
| used to be like the cramped medieval old towns you see
| throughout the rest of Europe. Here's a classic quote from one
| of Haussman's most powerful critics:
|
| _" We weep with our eyes full of tears for the old Paris, the
| Paris of Voltaire, of Desmoulins, the Paris of 1830 and 1848,
| when we see the grand and intolerable new buildings, the costly
| confusion, the triumphant vulgarity, the awful materialism,
| that we are going to pass on to our descendants."_
|
| Fast forward 100+ years and suddenly that quote sounds
| hilariously wrong. Makes you wonder what possibilities we're
| missing out on today by clinging to an aesthetic past.
|
| Just because Corbusier's dystopian prison ideas missed the
| mark, doesn't mean there isn't a better vision out there for a
| livable city just waiting to be implemented.
| ambrozk wrote:
| I don't like Paris' broad boulevards. In my opinion they're
| the least interesting part of the city. The best places to
| congregate are always off the main line of commerce, away
| from cars and trucks. Obviously, proper waste disposal and
| lamps are good, but I don't know why we're taking it for
| granted that criticism of Hausmann's aesthetics is
| "hilariously wrong."
| dopidopHN wrote:
| Those grand boulevards also had a security / social goal :
| to make sure police keep access and make it hard to
| barricade entire blocks. ( as opposed to narrow street that
| are easier to close down)
| agumonkey wrote:
| Not far from the outcry around when the eiffel tower was
| erected.
| eadmund wrote:
| > Fast forward 100+ years and suddenly that quote sounds
| hilariously wrong.
|
| Does it? I prefer those 'cramped mediaeval old towns' to
| Paris.
| andi999 wrote:
| Which cramped mediaeval town are you comparing it to?
| rst wrote:
| Le Corbusier-style tower blocks never happened in Paris, but
| they were built all over the US as part of "urban renewal"
| projects, and there have since been multiple generations
| growing up in those structures, to become nostalgic for them
| if it were ever going to happen. It hasn't happened yet.
| bobthechef wrote:
| I reject the notion that aesthetics is arbitrary. It is not.
| I also reject the mystification and the dismissive
| progressive fallacy that the only reason anyone might oppose
| change is because they're crusty old reactionary humbugs (of
| course, if aesthetics is arbitrary, "progress" has no
| meaning). Le Corbusier's Paris is _objectively_ hideous. It
| is objectively a nightmare. It would objectively be immoral
| to inflict something like that on Parisians. It would
| objectively harm the common good. A nihilistic misanthrope
| consumed with hatred for humanity, and himself, could do no
| better. For this reason, I detest language like "clinging to
| an aesthetic past". It is a hollow comment that begins from
| faulty assumptions about aesthetics.
|
| Of course, we often make aesthetic judgements in a relative
| fashion. People visiting Paris today might say Paris is
| beautiful, but what they mean is more beautiful than some
| other point of reference. Spend enough time in a beautiful
| city and your standards will shift such that you will be
| disappointed by aesthetically inferior cities you had
| previously thought were beautiful when you revisit them. This
| is good. Let our tastes become more refined so that we may
| make the world a more beautiful place. Let us resist
| mediocrity and ugliness.
|
| So perhaps those critics of Haussmanian Paris were making
| such a comparison. I certainly don't think Paris is the
| _most_ beautiful city, but if you had grown up in a Corbusian
| nightmare or some aesthetically lesser locale, then it would
| certainly be an upgrade and perceived as such. Still,
| Haussmanian Paris is at least built according to classical
| _principles_ and that is the most important factor.
|
| Of course, I am not opposed to development in the realm of
| art and architecture and so on, but modernist travesties like
| the ones pictured are not an authentic development, but a
| barbaric revolt against the past rooted in hubris, madness,
| or some other defect.
| zukzuk wrote:
| The parts of Paris that were most affected by Haussmann's
| renovation are arguably still kind of awful.
|
| The Champs-Elysees for example is a horrible place to
| actually spend time in, and is currently undergoing major
| redevelopment to make it a bit more livable.
| Bayart wrote:
| > Fast forward 100+ years and suddenly that quote sounds
| hilariously wrong.
|
| Only if you don't care about history and conservancy. Every
| medievalist is still frothing at the mouth, for good reasons.
| richliss wrote:
| As someone who grew up in a city that did this, it was a terrible
| idea then and remains so. Town planners who like brutalism and
| everything modern are insane. Just look at Birmingham, England -
| they knocked down beautiful buildings to put up brutalist
| eyesores to then knock down brutalist eyesores and replace them
| with a different type of modern architecture that will look awful
| in 20 years.
|
| There's a reason that people want to live in Bath.
| bregma wrote:
| They should tear it down and rewrite it all in Rust.
| shoo wrote:
| give the people who will live and work in the space ability
| to locally control the design, as espoused by Christopher
| Alexander.
|
| that means getting the end users out in the field and
| teaching them how to build or customise the system to meet
| their needs using simpler and cheaper traditional materials.
| maybe perl, javascript, wordpress. maybe excel. maybe bash &
| cron. smother those high modernist RSI-inducing SaaS user
| interfaces with a layer of malleable user-written robotic
| process automation.
| maborowsky wrote:
| I think it's less about the specific architectural style and
| more about if the building itself is designed well. There are
| both good and bad "modern" buildings. For example, I think the
| Seagram building is beautiful, but I don't like a lot of the
| buildings that ripped off its style. Most buildings I see
| attributed to a "modernist" style are actually just cheap ugly
| buildings.
|
| Furthermore, when we see old buildings there is a lot of
| survival bias going on.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Turns out that people who dislike brutalist living silos are
| often also the same people who think we have a housing crisis.
| You can't have everyone live in Bath unless you demolish it and
| put Pruitt-Igoe 2.0 onto it. And as you've correctly pointed
| out: what then would be the attraction of any desirable place?
| swayvil wrote:
| The problem is too many people.
|
| The question is, what horrible dystopian method are we gonna
| use for those who insist on breeding like rats?
|
| Forced sterilization? Containment ghettos? Euthanasia
| squads?...
|
| Yes, scary. But so are megablocks.
| btbuildem wrote:
| Education of girls and young women. That's it. That's the
| biggest ROI.
| beecafe wrote:
| You should take the first step and kill yourself. Then we
| can talk about what others should do.
| swayvil wrote:
| The first step is to practice a little self-restraint
| with the baby-making, obviously.
| yywwbbn wrote:
| Name a single developed country where to high birth rates
| are an issue? What? You can't?
| swayvil wrote:
| Well usa is getting pretty packed. Visit any big city and
| it's all giant concrete hives and special roads so we can
| crawl over each other.
| snapcaster wrote:
| From your comments I think I understand your feelings on
| this issue, but please understand that you're ignoring
| reality and getting upset about something that isn't even
| happening. The population is dropping in many developed
| countries and fertility rates are plummeting. The world
| with fewer humans you seem to seek is already happening.
| vidarh wrote:
| The US is 185th of 248th on Wikipedia's list of countries
| and dependencies by population density [1], and the US'
| fertility rate is _well below replacement_ at less than
| 1.8 [2] (replacement is ca. 2.1), and hasn 't exceeded
| replacement since 1972, which would imply US population
| growth is down to immigration.
|
| Your statement is also pretty nonsensical. If you visit
| the highest density spots in a country, then it's
| naturally going to be high density, and that tells you
| absolutely nothing about the overall density of the
| country.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_d
| ependen...
|
| [2] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-
| states/fert...
| vidarh wrote:
| Just telling people to exercise self-restraint as a means
| to reduce fertility rates has historically never worked
| anywhere.
| hikingsimulator wrote:
| Bravo, you'll make Malthus and eugenics peddlers proud...
| swayvil wrote:
| Then offer a better solution.
|
| Because humans stacked 1000 per acre emitting rivers of
| sewage is pretty bad too. If it wasn't so normal it would
| be hellish.
| hikingsimulator wrote:
| Why would I offer a solution to a problem that is non-
| existent. The world will have less population by the end
| of the century.
|
| You would make a more cogent point if instead you were
| asking about policies improving the quality of life of
| future people instead of defending genocidal ideas. Sadly
| you don't.
| swayvil wrote:
| First you tell me that my horrible solutions are
| horrible. Then you tell me that there isn't a problem.
| Your end seems to be the unreasonable one.
| 8note wrote:
| Your solutions are bad because they are trying to solve
| problems that don't exist.
|
| Before you start on a solution, understand your
| requirements and existing state of the art
| vidarh wrote:
| The question is rather, what (possibly horrible, dystopian)
| methods will we use to prevent a demographic crisis _as
| fertility rates are plummeting most places in the world_ ,
| as most projections now suggest population decline will
| start within a century.
|
| Turns out the method that have worked the best against
| "those who insist on breeding like rats" is to treat them
| humanely, reduce childhood mortality, increase education
| and provide a more stable economic environment - do that
| and fertility rates plummet - with or without additional
| pressure like China's infamous one-child policy.
|
| As it stands, China is set to face decline within a decade
| or two despite having dropped their previous draconian
| measures to reduce fertility rates - their fertility rates
| are now slowly increasing, but they're still far below
| replacement. India is set to see decline ~3-4 decades later
| - they're now about at replacement, with fertility still
| dropping, but there's a lag of a few of decades from the
| decrease in fertility to population decline. Sub-saharan
| Africa will likely be last, but even those countries are
| seeing declining birth rates (e.g. even Niger, which has
| one of, if not the, highest fertility rates in the world is
| at around 6.6 births per woman now, but the rate peaked at
| 7.9 in 1983 and has been declining consistently since,
| currently at a rate of about 1.3% a year; UN projections
| suggest they'll reach ~4 by 2050, and around ~2.3, slightly
| above replacement, around year 2100)
|
| As a result, expect countries to start competing for
| immigrants, and to start increasingly desperate attempts to
| get people to have more children. E.g. China has gone from
| it's one-child policy to allowing three [1] in an attempt
| to stem the coming decline, with only little effect so far,
| and you can expect China will see additional policy changes
| to try to drive the fertility rates back up.
|
| [1] https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/06/07/chinas-
| declining-po...
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| This is a solved problem - provide education and
| empowerment for women. This is why advanced societies are
| seeing flat birth rates (indeed often declining).
| orthoxerox wrote:
| Why not build more Baths next to the old one instead?
| burlesona wrote:
| I don't know about building codes in Britain, but in almost
| all of the US it would be illegal to build a carbon copy of
| the beloved older cities we have, because huge roads,
| parking lots, and setbacks are all mandatory.
| julz_hk wrote:
| And of course, these short-sighted car-centric ideas are
| all part of the problem.
|
| In North America there are planners and activists trying
| to change this[1] & world-wide, planners can achieve
| walkable, people-centric urban planning [2].
|
| [1] - https://www.strongtowns.org
|
| [2] - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-
| xAvUEO-A
| DocTomoe wrote:
| The Chinese did that. They ended up with still-overcrowded
| megacities and completely empty "new towns", which often
| featured fake, "beautifully" old architecture. It turns out
| that people don't just want affordable housing or nice
| surroundings, they also want pre-existing culture,
| something banlieus often lack.
|
| See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-
| occupied_developments_in...
| [deleted]
| api wrote:
| High modernists are like the somewhat narcissistic recluse
| programmer who thinks everything is crap. They shut themselves
| in and rewrite everything in their own superior paradigm
| without bothering to look at any real world use case or ask
| anyone anything. Then they're surprised that nobody uses what
| they built.
| a-dub wrote:
| "dude. i know that's not what it's supposed to do, but
| actually it's better. it's a feature, not a bug. no, no. it's
| not shitty, and no i'm not refactoring it and neither are
| you. it works better and they'll never be able to fire us.
| it's like jane jacobs and shit. leave it alone. the bits are
| happy."
| snapcaster wrote:
| haha, great comment. This whole thread is full of people
| who enjoyed Seeing Like a State loving the discussion
| shoo wrote:
| this module is a thriving, multi-use community of
| interacting concerns and responsibilities. yes, it would be
| more legible to central administrators like us if we
| evicted all the requirements and implementation details,
| paved it over, then redeveloped it into a high modernist
| Corbusian hexagonal microservices architecture. but truly,
| who would want to live or work inside such a bleak module
| structure, where instead of simply nipping downstairs to
| share surplus resources with unrelated business logic in
| the parent stack frame, you would have to traverse through
| endless tiers of serialization, transit, deserialization &
| be subjected to endless authoritarian checkpoints for
| authorisation by central authorities?
| Oarch wrote:
| As a (software) developer and (building) architect I like
| this analogy a lot.
| Linda703 wrote:
| nemo44x wrote:
| Even the Nazis weren't this ambitious once they took Paris.
| Yikes.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| In fact, the Nazis tried to not damage Paris too much because
| Hitler liked the architecture.
|
| (Yes, when the Americans came, the plan was to demolish the
| city. But that was much later).
| a-dub wrote:
| it's kinda like the silver towers at stuyvesant town scale with
| freeway revolt era transit.
|
| interesting to read that freewayifying the urban cores wasn't
| just an american obsession (although this seems to predate the
| american phenomenon by about 30 years).
|
| i wonder how far it got? was there a french cognate to the
| freeway revolt? iirc, paris already has some of the highest
| housing density in the world.
| lelag wrote:
| I love how even the statue facepalm at the end...
| OpieCunningham wrote:
| Le Corbusier, a pioneer of YIMBYism.
|
| To be fair, housing costs in Paris would be much more reasonable,
| both due to such a glut of housing and the subsequent decreased
| interest in living there.
| adolph wrote:
| Destroy the village in order to save it
|
| http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2010/02/it-became-necessary-t...
| wardedVibe wrote:
| What? No, advocating for destroying the old world and remaking
| it according to a"scientific" vision isn't particularly yimby.
| Ymimby is about not banning people from doing what they want
| with their property.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-20 23:01 UTC)