5 ms·

Why do they 'hate' them?

by zeruch 4y ago

nickdothutton 4y ago
A great question. I’ve never had a coherent explanation from anyone. Maybe they think “more” (people, buildings, technology) necessarily means more destruction of the natural world and “consumption” of nature (ignoring the fact it’s more efficient in almost every way to service a dense population than that same population spread out thinly). Maybe they are somehow generally “anti-future” (strange since our past has been a very dirty one which we are now dealing with). Maybe they don’t believe that gleaming skyscrapers of nanowire and bio-crete, with “living walls” will ever be possible. Maybe they think all of this will only hasten the arrival of the dystopian type of future city. I wish I knew, but the reaction is often quite visceral. This leads me to believe it is driven by something deep and pre-rational. Maybe they feel that they will be alienated, that there is no place for them in such a futuristic place.
- rob74 4y ago
  I would bet that most environmentalists would prefer skyscrapers (dense housing) over suburban sprawl. The real problem is that your average middle-class citizen would rather have a nice suburban house and the car that must accompany it than an apartment in a skyscraper...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- _dain_ 4y ago
  If you're talking about the same genre of concept art as I think you are, this twitter thread has some good reasons to dislike them (and more importantly, offers an alternative future aesthetic): https://nitter.1d4.us/380kmh/status/935965568670273537 https://nitter.1d4.us/380kmh/status/935965568670273537 >if your idea of a future city involves: >- towers inna park >- flying cars >- flashy geometric buildings >- few or no people >then it is not a very serious idea --- >what do people do in these cities? walk around in the Green Space (tm), or sit in their Glass Box (tm) and admire the Futuristic Cityscape (tm) >work? lol of course not --- >as architecturally implausible as they are, one thing I love about Imperial Boy's cityscapes is that they actually look like, you know, SOCIETY >there are shops, there are workers, there are improvisations and decorations, there are cheap structures and ornate ones, etc etc --- > most important of all, they focus on how the city looks from the perspective of the people who live in it --- >The sterile glass renderings earlier in the thread suggest an artist who >1) doesn't understand why people live in cities, and/or >2) doesn't understand what people do for fun ---------- (back to me now) the "towers inna park" quip is really at the heart of it; these kinds of places exist in real life and they're just terrible. it doesn't matter how much grass and greenery there is in between the gigahuge buildings if there's nothing to do there. it's not a new idea[1], we tried it and it sucks[2]. it looks good in concept art until you think about it for five minutes and imagine living in this place at ground level. it's utopia as imagined by some omnipotent top-down planner (literally, we nearly always see these places from above). it really has nothing to do with environmentalism one way or the other; they just look like awful places to be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia
  - kragen 4y ago
    to a significant extent the modern environmental movement is not only a rebellion against the actual environmental destruction wrought by things like the cuyahoga river getting so polluted it could catch on fire, damming glen canyon, and ddt pushing the bald eagle to the brink of extinction; it is also a rebellion against the unrestrained power to destroy that brought them about when people move to off-grid solar cabins in the mountains, support laws that make it impossible to build nuclear power plants, or take up organic farming, they're not just trying to save the planet; they're seeking refuge from that unrestrained power of destruction, which they have come to see as malignant they are seeking autonomy in which to construct a harmonious life but the power to destroy, pouvoir de nuisance, overlaps greatly with the power to create; you cannot build a hydroelectric power plant without destroying the land upstream, you cannot build pruitt-igoe without bulldozing poor neighborhoods, and you cannot invent nontoxic firesafe refrigerants without taking the risk of destroying the ozone layer so, when these 'environmentalists' seeking autonomy look at high-modernist 'cities of the future' visions of towers in a park whose polyhedral geometry is a boast of the architect's rationality, they correctly see them as the epitome of central planning with the unrestrained power to destroy which, to return to the alternate history imagined at the beginning of the article, really doesn't have a great track record, even aside from environmental damage
sideshowb 4y ago
I suggest because such a cityscape implies a vision where we solve all environmental problems with tech. Whether we can do that or not is a moot point, because - from the opponents view point - 1. numerous historical attempts to solve things with tech have led to more problems down the line 2. "We'll solve it with tech" has also been used as an empty promise and excuse by those with vested interests who want to continue the status quo
- zeruch 4y ago
  THis feels like the most salient assessment.

Why do they 'hate' them?

by zeruch 4y ago

Why do they 'hate' them?

A great question. I’ve never had a coherent explanation from anyone. Maybe they think “more” (people, buildings, technology) necessarily means more destruction of the natural world and “consumption” of nature (ignoring the fact it’s more efficient in almost every way to service a dense population than that same population spread out thinly). Maybe they are somehow generally “anti-future” (strange since our past has been a very dirty one which we are now dealing with). Maybe they don’t believe that gleaming skyscrapers of nanowire and bio-crete, with “living walls” will ever be possible. Maybe they think all of this will only hasten the arrival of the dystopian type of future city. I wish I knew, but the reaction is often quite visceral. This leads me to believe it is driven by something deep and pre-rational. Maybe they feel that they will be alienated, that there is no place for them in such a futuristic place.

rob74 4y ago
I would bet that most environmentalists would prefer skyscrapers (dense housing) over suburban sprawl. The real problem is that your average middle-class citizen would rather have a nice suburban house and the car that must accompany it than an apartment in a skyscraper...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_dain_ 4y ago
If you're talking about the same genre of concept art as I think you are, this twitter thread has some good reasons to dislike them (and more importantly, offers an alternative future aesthetic): https://nitter.1d4.us/380kmh/status/935965568670273537 https://nitter.1d4.us/380kmh/status/935965568670273537 >if your idea of a future city involves: >- towers inna park >- flying cars >- flashy geometric buildings >- few or no people >then it is not a very serious idea --- >what do people do in these cities? walk around in the Green Space (tm), or sit in their Glass Box (tm) and admire the Futuristic Cityscape (tm) >work? lol of course not --- >as architecturally implausible as they are, one thing I love about Imperial Boy's cityscapes is that they actually look like, you know, SOCIETY >there are shops, there are workers, there are improvisations and decorations, there are cheap structures and ornate ones, etc etc --- > most important of all, they focus on how the city looks from the perspective of the people who live in it --- >The sterile glass renderings earlier in the thread suggest an artist who >1) doesn't understand why people live in cities, and/or >2) doesn't understand what people do for fun ---------- (back to me now) the "towers inna park" quip is really at the heart of it; these kinds of places exist in real life and they're just terrible. it doesn't matter how much grass and greenery there is in between the gigahuge buildings if there's nothing to do there. it's not a new idea[1], we tried it and it sucks[2]. it looks good in concept art until you think about it for five minutes and imagine living in this place at ground level. it's utopia as imagined by some omnipotent top-down planner (literally, we nearly always see these places from above). it really has nothing to do with environmentalism one way or the other; they just look like awful places to be. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bras%C3%ADlia
- kragen 4y ago
  to a significant extent the modern environmental movement is not only a rebellion against the actual environmental destruction wrought by things like the cuyahoga river getting so polluted it could catch on fire, damming glen canyon, and ddt pushing the bald eagle to the brink of extinction; it is also a rebellion against the unrestrained power to destroy that brought them about when people move to off-grid solar cabins in the mountains, support laws that make it impossible to build nuclear power plants, or take up organic farming, they're not just trying to save the planet; they're seeking refuge from that unrestrained power of destruction, which they have come to see as malignant they are seeking autonomy in which to construct a harmonious life but the power to destroy, pouvoir de nuisance, overlaps greatly with the power to create; you cannot build a hydroelectric power plant without destroying the land upstream, you cannot build pruitt-igoe without bulldozing poor neighborhoods, and you cannot invent nontoxic firesafe refrigerants without taking the risk of destroying the ozone layer so, when these 'environmentalists' seeking autonomy look at high-modernist 'cities of the future' visions of towers in a park whose polyhedral geometry is a boast of the architect's rationality, they correctly see them as the epitome of central planning with the unrestrained power to destroy which, to return to the alternate history imagined at the beginning of the article, really doesn't have a great track record, even aside from environmental damage

sideshowb 4y ago

I suggest because such a cityscape implies a vision where we solve all environmental problems with tech. Whether we can do that or not is a moot point, because - from the opponents view point - 1. numerous historical attempts to solve things with tech have led to more problems down the line 2. "We'll solve it with tech" has also been used as an empty promise and excuse by those with vested interests who want to continue the status quo

zeruch 4y ago
THis feels like the most salient assessment.