3 ms·
This “democracy requires ugly buildings” sentiment seems to be a meme lately, and it’s not one I like very much. It’s also not true - plenty of periods that wer
by keiferski 3y ago
This “democracy requires ugly buildings” sentiment seems to be a meme lately, and it’s not one I like very much. It’s also not true - plenty of periods that were arguably more democratic had better planned urban spaces than contemporary ones. The problems with architecture are more due to culture and economics than anything else IMO.
- aspenmayer 3y agoThis line of reasoning (“democracy requires ugly buildings”) came up in Lex Fridman's recent interview of Tucker Carlson[0], and was made in reference to Tucker Carlson's admiration of the city of Moscow, especially its subway stations, which Carlson noted in his coverage of the city in a segment after his recent interview with Putin. I don't really understand the rationale. Starve the beast type posturing leading to defunding of public services leads to poorly performing public services, which just becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy, but for some reason this is surprising to some on the right and used as a kind of post-hoc reasoning or justification for the initial defunding. Perhaps some others can shed some light on how this thought process or logic works from the perspective of someone who is conservative. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lRdkH_QoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lRdkH_QoY
- keiferski 3y agoHaving been to a number of cities around the world, I don’t think the issue is funding. Certainly the NYC or SF public transit systems get plenty of funding, much more than say, Poland, which has a very clean metro system in Warsaw. The difference is more attributable to culture and enforcement of laws on littering, graffiti, etc. Somewhere like Tokyo for example doesn’t need an oppressive government to keep the subway clean.