3 ms·

"A 1960s building is old, but 80 years isn't really enough to inspire awe;" That's absolutely untrue. Plenty of buildings inspire awe immediately upon completi

"A 1960s building is old, but 80 years isn't really enough to inspire awe;" That's absolutely untrue. Plenty of buildings inspire awe immediately upon completion and plenty of them have gone through their entire life-cycle within a span of 60 years. Try Quarry Hill Flats for a start. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=quarry+hill+%2Bflats&t=opera&ia=images&iax=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=quarry+hill+%2Bflats&t=opera&ia=im... "there are plenty of existing structures several hundred to several thousands of years old." This is a bizarrely obvious statement, like, who doesn't know this?

tialaramex 7y ago
Also, we're not just talking about a "structure" like the pyramids or various ancient monuments, Penn Station had an _function_ it was needed for. Not many "several thousand year old" structures with a function exist except as museums now. There's a house somewhere that's been continuously inhabited for about a thousand years (Faroes maybe?) and a few of the forts or religious buildings still in use are older, but most structures this old are, like the pyramids, just a tourist attraction now. New York did not need another museum, it needed a railway station.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  A friend of mine’s dorm room at college was a thousand years old.
subroutine 7y ago
Speaking of bizarrely obvious statements... > Plenty of buildings inspire awe immediately upon completion I'm speaking specifically about the age. Some things are special for [what they are], and some things are special for [what they are given their age]. A 1963 Mustang is 'a classic'; 1993 Mustang is just an old car (even though the '94 mustang was built with 30 additional years of auto innovation, people are much more awestruck when they come across the 64'). So to summarize, Penn Station was architecturally marvelous in 1910 when it was completed, but by 1963 it's likely people just thought of it as an old run-down train station. Like a just-old car. Of course now we are like - with a bit of restoration that shit would be a classic.
- Cougher 7y ago
  "I'm speaking specifically about the age." Yes. You specifically said that a 60 year old building is not old enough to inspire awe. And I rightfully replied that that is nonsense. My statement was obviously not obvious to you.
  - subroutine 7y ago
    Nope. I said "80 years isn't enough to inspire awe". Do you honestly think someone wouldn't consider any building whatsoever to be awe inspiring unless it is over 80 years old? Let me put it this way - is there any car from 1995 that is awe inspiring? Maybe yes, perhaps some lambos or rolls royce models. But those were killer cars in 1995. Even better brand new. 25 years isnt enough to make them more cherished than when they were new though. They go down in value through those 25 years. But 50 years... they start to surge back up in price. Why? Because the age factor starts to inspire awe - cars if that age driving around are rare sights. With buildings, 80 years or less doesnt quite do it, particularly when there are lots of buildings that are hundreds of years old. If Penn Station was 300 years old, and someone proposed tearing it down, people would laugh. But in 1960, at 80 years old, Penn was just an old train station in disrepair.

tialaramex 7y ago

Also, we're not just talking about a "structure" like the pyramids or various ancient monuments, Penn Station had an _function_ it was needed for. Not many "several thousand year old" structures with a function exist except as museums now. There's a house somewhere that's been continuously inhabited for about a thousand years (Faroes maybe?) and a few of the forts or religious buildings still in use are older, but most structures this old are, like the pyramids, just a tourist attraction now. New York did not need another museum, it needed a railway station.

chrisseaton 7y ago
A friend of mine’s dorm room at college was a thousand years old.

subroutine 7y ago

Speaking of bizarrely obvious statements... > Plenty of buildings inspire awe immediately upon completion I'm speaking specifically about the age. Some things are special for [what they are], and some things are special for [what they are given their age]. A 1963 Mustang is 'a classic'; 1993 Mustang is just an old car (even though the '94 mustang was built with 30 additional years of auto innovation, people are much more awestruck when they come across the 64'). So to summarize, Penn Station was architecturally marvelous in 1910 when it was completed, but by 1963 it's likely people just thought of it as an old run-down train station. Like a just-old car. Of course now we are like - with a bit of restoration that shit would be a classic.

Cougher 7y ago
"I'm speaking specifically about the age." Yes. You specifically said that a 60 year old building is not old enough to inspire awe. And I rightfully replied that that is nonsense. My statement was obviously not obvious to you.
- subroutine 7y ago
  Nope. I said "80 years isn't enough to inspire awe". Do you honestly think someone wouldn't consider any building whatsoever to be awe inspiring unless it is over 80 years old? Let me put it this way - is there any car from 1995 that is awe inspiring? Maybe yes, perhaps some lambos or rolls royce models. But those were killer cars in 1995. Even better brand new. 25 years isnt enough to make them more cherished than when they were new though. They go down in value through those 25 years. But 50 years... they start to surge back up in price. Why? Because the age factor starts to inspire awe - cars if that age driving around are rare sights. With buildings, 80 years or less doesnt quite do it, particularly when there are lots of buildings that are hundreds of years old. If Penn Station was 300 years old, and someone proposed tearing it down, people would laugh. But in 1960, at 80 years old, Penn was just an old train station in disrepair.