3 ms·

Nothing you say is necessarily wrong or bad, but it is why we can’t have beautiful things and only utilitarian shit.

clickety_clack 2mo ago
Utilitarians see the utility of everything and the value of nothing.
bluGill 2mo ago
Some things should be a utility. Nice is important but transit should fade into the background while you live life. Don't make them ugly but utility needs to be first.
- rob74 2mo ago
  Well, some people spend a significant amount of their time on transit. Of course, utility should come first, but I also would totally support trying to make them look nice (even if most people wouldn't notice nowadays because they stare at their phones the whole time).
  - bluGill 2mo ago
    The us spends 4 to 7 times as much as anyone else to build transit. While consultants and labor get the money a lot of the overruns is really a desire for grand art. As others show, nice can be had much for much cheaper. The choice isn't ugly be beautiful, it is how much to spend in beautiful. I want to get places and the money spent on beautiful means despite being a rich country the us cannot afford great transit.
Schiendelman 2mo ago
You can have lots of beautiful things. You can't REQUIRE beautiful things. Government services are a requirement.
- rob74 2mo ago
  Thinking like this is exactly what's wrong with public transport in most of the world. It has to be there, but god forbid you make it actually attractive, then people might use it more and it would cost even more. Better to keep it at a barely tolerable level and save the money for what really matters, like road projects.
- reaperducer 2mo ago
  You can't REQUIRE beautiful things. Sure you can. At least in the United States, there are many state and local laws requiring a certain percentage of the money spent on building projects be dedicated to making them look good, and to putting art inside them. One example of many: https://sfca.hawaii.gov/art-in-public-places-program/percent-for-art/ https://sfca.hawaii.gov/art-in-public-places-program/percent... Usually it's public projects, but often it's both public and private construction.

Utilitarians see the utility of everything and the value of nothing.

Some things should be a utility. Nice is important but transit should fade into the background while you live life. Don't make them ugly but utility needs to be first.

rob74 2mo ago
Well, some people spend a significant amount of their time on transit. Of course, utility should come first, but I also would totally support trying to make them look nice (even if most people wouldn't notice nowadays because they stare at their phones the whole time).
- bluGill 2mo ago
  The us spends 4 to 7 times as much as anyone else to build transit. While consultants and labor get the money a lot of the overruns is really a desire for grand art. As others show, nice can be had much for much cheaper. The choice isn't ugly be beautiful, it is how much to spend in beautiful. I want to get places and the money spent on beautiful means despite being a rich country the us cannot afford great transit.

Schiendelman 2mo ago

You can have lots of beautiful things. You can't REQUIRE beautiful things. Government services are a requirement.

rob74 2mo ago
Thinking like this is exactly what's wrong with public transport in most of the world. It has to be there, but god forbid you make it actually attractive, then people might use it more and it would cost even more. Better to keep it at a barely tolerable level and save the money for what really matters, like road projects.
reaperducer 2mo ago
You can't REQUIRE beautiful things. Sure you can. At least in the United States, there are many state and local laws requiring a certain percentage of the money spent on building projects be dedicated to making them look good, and to putting art inside them. One example of many: https://sfca.hawaii.gov/art-in-public-places-program/percent-for-art/ https://sfca.hawaii.gov/art-in-public-places-program/percent... Usually it's public projects, but often it's both public and private construction.