City Comforts, the blog

Gehry on Starchitecture (He doesn't like it.)

Has New York Lost Its Great Chance With Frank Gehry?

“Starchitecture” is a glib neologism that reduces hard-won reputations and decadelong undertakings to little dabs of glitz. Gehry can hardly bring himself to utter the word, but the mere mention triggers a tirade revealing deep wells of grandiosity and resentment. “It suggests an egomaniac trying to flaunt his wares at the expense of the public. It’s an opportunistic journalistic trick. There’s so much bad stuff being built that people don’t address, so they fasten on the half of one percent that gets into uncharted territory for humanistic and idealistic reasons. There is ego involved; everyone has to have that, or they don’t do much. But architecture has always been a very idealistic profession. It’s about making the world a better place, and it works over the generations, because people go on vacation and they look for it. When I go to Bilbao, they want to touch me. If I were an egomaniac, I’d just move there.” (italics added)

"...humanistic and idealistic reasons." Giving Gehry the benefit of the doubt, we humans have such power of self-deception. 

A turn?

Lack of quality properties boosts prime Central London real estate market:

Prime central London residential property prices have recorded their first quarterly growth since starting their slide from the peak of September 2007, according to a new report. Pent up buyer demand, which built up through 2008 and the early months of this year, has flowed into a market that is increasingly short of quality stock, says the latest quarterly index from Savills Research.

My conclusion (as of today) about Chelsea Barracks

We should thank Prince Charles for his intervention and ask him not to do it again.

On the substance Charles appears to have been correct about the weakness of Lord Rogers' design. Not only the general public and the Chelsea neighbors but the Qatari investors should thank him for helping avoid a mistake.

But I am still troubled by the constitutional issues involved with unaccountable political power in the hands of a Royal family.

At the human level I sympathize with Prince Charles' activism. He has ideas about how the world can be a better place and wants to see those ideas manifest. Such activism by a member of the Royal family, so far as I understand it, comes up against a British constitutional history covered with blood.

What to do? The obvious choices are silence or abdication. The former deprives us, the worldwide public, of an intelligent voice for sustainable and walkable cities. The latter is of course an enormous personal sacrifice. Perhaps there are other possibilities.

Another view of the Terry/Windsor concept

Here's another view by and courtesy of the Quinlan Terry office:

I am by no means a classicist. I am open to the surprise of a modern building, so long as it is designed to fit-in and to support a walkable, pedestrian-oriented street. I especially like the contrast of modern and traditional, say, bright red metal windows and corrugated siding with stone or (in my experience) cedar shingles.

I am trying to digest the drawing above. The elevation is certainly charming; the Terry plan clearly has vastly more "curb appeal" than does Rogers' — maybe that's why we only saw a bird's-eye view of Roger's in the media? There are no (or minimal) useless setbacks from the sidewalk. 

Terry's also has a lot of practical advantages: 

• what appears to be more usable open space (though I assume it is only for residents and not the public): 

• better light and views from the flats — I assume that they are "through-flats" from street to courtyard:

• lower buildings more in context with the neighborhood (not that I care much about height but neighbors do and the less social tension the better). 

The Qataris and the Candys should thank Prince Charles. He has helped them, I believe, avoid a huge mistake and make a lot of money. The old project looked like a dud. This one is a winner if for no other reason than the vast majority of people love the implied status which goes along with tradition.

Many questions, of course, and the one which jumps out:

• Not to put too fine a point on it but where are the poor people? i.e. the social housing? I am all for subsiding the poor but I think it is nutty to lose the tax benefits of housing for rich people. Why use a primo-luxo site for poor people when you could rent/sell that same space to rich ones, which I believe will produce a greater net social benefit? I think it is patronizing and prissy to think that having poor and rich live cheek-by-jowl is some sort of great thing as if what poor people lack in their lives is propinquity to the rich. Better that the social housing component be market rate and generate more money to subsidize the poor by soaking the rich through property taxes etc etc. (Then again I am retrograde in a lot of ways.)

You decide

Lord Rogers:

Quinlan Terry:

Is there really much to say? If nothing else, Terry's open space will have more value to the residents.

Prince Charles' choice for Chelsea Barracks

Who is Quinlan Terry? Yes, he is the architect pushed-forward by Prince Charles. See Quinlan & Francis Terry Architects. (He practices with his son Francis.)

My immediate reaction On looking at the firm's web page (and tempered as I looked further) was a mixture of disbelief, humor and I have to admit a little envy. The Terry firm seems to specialize in gorgeous houses for rich people, along with some commercial and public buildings, also for rich people. "Harrumph. Of course a Prince of Wales would choose architects like that. What do they know about the common people" And then I thought well of course Charles would logically suggest such an architect, as the project, Chelsea Barracks, is very much ado about housing for rich people. And of course Prince Charles knows, being one, what rich people like.

(More on the economics of Chelsea Barracks in a succeeding post.)

The envy kicked in when I explored further on the site and saw these absolutely gorgeous houses. houses. Here's one.

You'd have to be an unimaginative barbarian to not like that house. But there is a touch of humor in the site's comments on Ferne Park. (no "e" in "park" btw):

Ferne Park is a modest sized country house constructed in the English Palladian tradition...The front door leads into a large square hall with freestanding Doric columns. The house stands in a central position in a park, its four symmetrical elevations visible from all sides.

A "modest sized country house?" on property large enough so that one can see all 4 elevations from what looks to be at least 100 yards away? Modest? I guess it is if you spend time in palaces.

But there is more than eye candy to the Terrys' classicism. See particularly Quinlan Terry's thoughtful essay "Designing a Sustainable Future" (go to "Essays and Lectures" on left side of  Quinlan & Francis Terry Architects.) One big argument for classicism. as Terry see it, is environmental sustainability. Classical buildings (if built using classical methods) will last longer. The simplest way to save resources is to build to last and build in such a way that the structure minimizes energy use on an initial and ongoing basis i.e. full life-cycle analysis. For example:

2. Second, we ought to consider the expense, in environmental terms, in the manufacture of the materials we specify. Here again, stone, brick, lime mortar, slate and timber all get an A rating whereas steel, reinforced concrete, large areas of glass, aluminium, and pvc get a B or a C rating. Stone is already in the ground and simply needs to be cut out and transported to site, whereas the energy consumed in producing modern materials is phenomenal.

Lots of interesting thoughts here though I think our human propensity to apply a very high discount rate to the future — "the value of a dollar this afternoon versus a dollar ten years from now" — makes it difficult for us to justify spending for the long term. It takes disposal income and sophistication to think ahead; that's why (as one modest example) you see street trees (which are basically very inexpensive to install)  in rich neighborhoods but not in poor ones.

At any rate, there is far more to classicism in the way the Terry firm sees it than visual style, which reinforces my own disappointment with the way the media is handling this Rogers vs Windsor/Terry debate.

The substantive issue between Prince Charles and Lord Rogers

A danger of this clash of titans' — Prince Charles vs. Lord Rogers — is that the colorful personalities and constitutional question will obscure the substantive issues of urban design and planning which presumably lie between them.

So far the media has been predictably derelict in its silence on the substance of the dispute. It has been presented as a dispute of purely visual style: Rogers' modern and Charles/Terry's' classic.

In my mind, for it to be a legitimate dispute of general public interest it must transcend the merely visual or the hackneyed cliché 'of "height, bulks and scale" into compelling matters of overall urban policy, livability, walkability etc etc.  Is this dispute a real one? Well I certainly suspect it might be but who knows for sure.

On the one hand we have world-famous architect Rogers who in other contexts has actively urged and argued for the re-urbanization of England: for revitalized High Streets, less wasteful land use practices, walkable and urbane neighborhoods  etc etc. His design must be tested against such criteria.

On the other hand we have the barest outline of a plan from architect Quinlan Terry, Prince Charles choice for project designer. The Prince has a long history of urging, supporting and even developing (at Pondsbury) traditional pedestrian-oriented communities. So, too, his design (of course, Terry's really) must also be tested against the same criteria as Rogers', along with impact on neighboring historical structures and overall natural resource use -- the "sustainability" issues.

So how do the two designs compare? Darned if I can tell. 

Based on the descriptions and drawings I have been able to find in the media, I find it impossible to say. As I have written, my own prejudice is toward Charles. But I can't show you drawings which show how Terry's design is a true sidewalk-oriented pedestrian-promoting one while Rogers' is not. The data is not available. We need some good site plans and elevations, especially showing the the manner in which the buildings enfront the street and how the walker will encounter them. But such drawings are not easily found (by me, anyway) on the web. If anyone has a suggestion on where to find them, please let me know.

Understanding what is actually proposed in proposed development.

Paul Finch opines on Presenting architecture properly (he's speaking to architects, designers and other project proponents) and many of his sugestions are well-made. My own addition:

“Walk around the proposed building with your audience.”

Take one example. Though never discussed with any precision much less sophistication, urban design writ large is at the center of the Chelsea Barracks dispute between Prince Charles andLord Rogers, about which I have been posting in the past few days. But I bet not one in a hundred citizens of the London neighborhood where the project is to be built (and in itself a well-informed group) could describe with any accuracy what one sees/senses as one walks at street level around and through Rogers’ design. 

And that's true for any one of these development disputes in any nation at any scale. The project is usually presented and then discussed in terms of the 1000-yard view — what it looks like from a great distance. But in reality, people experience a building from close-up. 

So if you are presenting a building to anyone, take a pedestrian level view and “walk around the proposal,” stopping every 20-30 feet to describe what’s there and what one would be seeing.

I promise, you will be quite surprised at what your audience learns and in fact what you, as a project proponent/opponent/analyst, will learn.

If true, it is too much

Developers ‘run plans past Prince Charles’ to avoid rows later

The irony for me is that I happen to largely agree with the substance of Charles' opinions about the urban landscape and think he has provoked extremely useful discussion and sponsored/developed some wonderful things. And in this instance — Chelsea Barracks — and from the little I have been able to glean from a MSM (which btw is doing a terrible job of explaining the substantive issue,) it looks to me as if Charles is correct. On the substance, Lord Rogers design is not very urban. But I think Prince Charles is provoking a larger political issue on the proper bounds of Royal Family participation in politics that the Royals can (and should) only lose. 

And I am also certainly glad I don't live in a country with a Royal Family, even one with a very thoughtful Royal, because what nurture/nature gives nurture/nature can take away: the next Prince of Wales may be an idiot with reactionary views and I don't like the idea that such a one could have a foot-up in the hurly-burly of the public conversation.

You ask whether the scion of any rich and prominent family has such an advantage from the get-go? Doesn't some Duke of Wellington or some Kennedy or Rockefeller also have an enormous advantage and inherits a much louder megaphone than do the vast vast majority of his or her peers? And don't we accept it as just a part of human nature that people of prominence will have a louder voice? Yes, of course. But we accept it grudgingly because we don't know how, in a society of laws, we can draw a principled dividing line between some Duke's private call which will be returned versus my own (and most likely yours) which will be ignored. 

So I guess it just comes down to a matter of degree. There are many many rich, prominent and (in Europe) titled people. There is only one heir to the British throne. Yes, in the case of a silenced Prince Charles we would (in my view) be losing an articulate  voice with which (it just so happens) I largely agree. Of course, he could always do the right thing, maintain his place in the substantive discussion and avoid any constitutional issue by abdicating, thus emphasizing the importance of the issues by as dramatic a personal sacrifice as possible.

Out of the frying pan of modernist orthodoxy into the fire of classical cliche

From my own prejudice and the little I know of Lord Rogers' design, I think we are probably better off with it in the garbage can. But that doesn't mean that we should suffer this sort of foolishness: 

Boris johnson deputy Kit Malthouse relieved by Chelsea Barracks decision

What a relief! An act of large-scale vandalism has been averted. London should be grateful to the Qataris for their wisdom in turning away from yet another glass and steel disaster. It is my fervent hope that the developers will now work on a proposal that enhances and embraces Chelsea and the Royal Hospital. 

This decision should mark a turning point in development in the capital. No more concrete, no more glass and steel. Brick and stone and slate must be the way forward, so that in 100 years time Londoners will still recognise their own city.  (emphasis added, on the absurd and adolescent.)

"...another glass and steel disaster...." and "No more concrete, no more glass and steel. Brick and stone and slate must be the way forward..."

Good grief. More cliche thinking about what makes a good city.

There is far more to urbanism than "brick, stone and slate." In fact, urbanism is more about morphology than materials. Urbanism springs out of the relationship of the building to the street. The materials are secondary. No sooner are we rid of the foolish orthodoxy of modernism than emerges another foolish orthodoxy of classicism.

In particular the idea that concrete is not an appropriate material suggests that the speaker has never considered or looked at concrete. It is a wonderful, flexible material which can be formed and finished and colored in a host of ways.

via Veritas et Venustas

And what about the design?

Lord Rogers’s attack on Prince Charles dismissed by one constitutional expert

ernon Bogdanor, Professor of Politics and Government at the University of Oxford, and one of the experts who might be approached for such a panel, said Lord Rogers was mistaken. “The Prince can make what contribution he wishes to public debate, as long as he is not partisan. It would only be unconstitutional if he was taking part in a party political debate, or was doing something that would undermine the position of the Queen, which he would never do. The fact that one does not agree with what he says does not make it unconstitutional.” However, once Prince Charles became King the position would change completely, Professor Bogdanor said. All of his public statements would have to be made on the advice of ministers, who would be able to stop him from saying something if they saw fit.  

But other experts see it differently.

There are also constitutional experts who take a less robust view of the Prince’s right to speak out than Professor Bogdanor. Robert Blackburn, Professor of Constitutional Law at King’s College London and author of King and Country: Monarchy and the Future King Charles III, said: “Before one becomes a constitutional King, one must be a constitutional Prince of Wales — meaning a prince must maintain strict political neutrality and avoid criticism from elected politicians holding public office . . . Once a proactive, interventionist mentality is adopted, he may come to think he can intervene on difficult matters of state where he will hold direct constitutional powers.”

The Prince and the Lord

Architect Rogers angry at prince

The developer had planned to spend £1bn building a complex of 552 flats in 17 blocks. It had favoured Lord Rogers' modernist glass and steel design, but in March, the Prince of Wales told Qatar's royal family it was "unsuitable". The prince is not willing to debate Lord Rogers, architect He said he preferred an alternative classical design for the site by architect Quinlan Terry.

So many themes afoot that it is almost Shakespearean. The major issues are design and constitutional nicety.

Is the dispute one which makes a difference to the comfort of London? Of course I don't know as I haven't seen the plans. The Prince's classicism can be anti-urban and Lord Rogers' glass-&-steel could in theory be quite urban. "Classicism without urbanism" leaves me cold. Prince Charles, by my observation, doesn't distinguish enough between classical style (colonnades and columns etc etc) and classical urbanism (a city in which the building is tied to the street). But Lord Rogers is not renowned as an urbanist — witness the inward-looking Pompidou Center. So is this dispute about something of real value — the shape of the city? or merely "style?" I don't know.

Color me laughing

Architect Libeskind turns to trend of the week

Renowned architect Daniel Libeskind has ventured into the prefabricated home market with his latest project, a 5,500-square-foot villa that can be shipped and assembled anywhere in the world. The four-bedroom, four-bathroom villa will cost between $2.8 million and $4.2 million, depending on where it is being shipped.

That's without land and (I assume) site work, foundation, permits etc etc. 

Suburbs "less flexible?"

Ryan Avent says so:

...development patterns in the suburbs and exurbs are remarkably inflexible. Just as there’s no way to adjust suburban single-family subdivisions for higher densities, there’s not really any good way to turn a big box space into something other than a big box store. Buildings at strip malls designed for stand alone restaurants or drive-throughs don’t repurpose well; they stay restaurants or they sit vacant.

I am dubious and I leave the start of what needs to be a longer post at Ryan's site, in comments.

But just as the simplest possible example, the huge parking lots of suburban big-box development offer tremendous opportunities for in-fill.

Hard to believe

Office Building Sells at 40% Below Construction Costs

The building is roughly estimated to have cost about $500 a square foot,

What's hard to believe (i.e. I don't believe it) is that the building cost $500/SF, even including land.

The Talented Ms. Highsmith

This Woman Is Dangerous

A nice review (NYRB)  of the The Ripliad.

I liked all the books and the films but especially John Malkovich's superb  Ripley's Game. Malkovich was born to play Tom Ripley.

Common cause in the interest of universal amity

Riots erupt in Tehran over 'stolen' election

"...hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was confirmed today as the winner of the presidential election..."

"Mr. Netanyahu, please meet Mr. Ahmadinejad, your new best friend."

Story is interesting

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

Comments scary.

Do not read read these reviews unless you like to laugh

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews for the Denon AKDL1 Dedicated Link Cable

sample review:

98 of 99 people found the following review helpful:  Great cable, but too fast., June 23, 2008 By  Matthew Sidor "seadour" (Boulder, CO USA) - See all my reviews     Transmission of music data at rates faster than the speed of light seemed convenient, until I realized I was hearing the music before I actually wanted to play it. Apparently Denon forgot how accustomed most of us are to unidirectional time and the general laws of physics. I tried to get used to this effect but hearing songs play before I even realized I was in the mood for them just really screwed up my preconceptions of choice and free will. I'm still having a major existential hangover.  Would not purchase again.

Would it make any difference if Charles were merely a non-royal "Duke of Poundsbury?"

Prince under fire from architects

Well being under fire from some architects is no big news for Charles.

A former planning minister said the prince had set a "very dangerous precedent" by using his contacts with the Qatari Royal Family to intervene. 

The firm Qatari Diar commissioned architect Lord Rogers to design the £3bn flats near the River Thames. 

The Middle Eastern owners withdrew their planning application on Friday. 

The decision followed a direct intervention by the prince, who wrote to the chairman of Qatari Diar, urging him to consider alternatives to the modern design created by Lord Rogers's firm of architects. 

It is believed the prince wanted a more classical, traditional scheme.

 Labour MP Nick Raynsford said Prince Charles' behaviour had been "almost feudal". 

"I do believe there is a very dangerous precedent here when the heir to the throne intervenes in a decision which should be taken through normal democratic processes, " he told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "There is a very real constitutional issue when the heir to the throne becomes engaged in political controversy cutting across the normal democratic processes by which planning decisions should be taken in this country," he added.

Well, it is not even "almost"feudal as if it were so Charles would simply have ordered that the design be changed, But I do see and am sympathetic to the issue: what is the proper role for a constitutional monarch? While I am largely in accord with Charles' views on urban design and the built environment etc (though I think he carries the classical style but too far). And in this instance I do wonder if his best personal course would be to forswear the throne so as to offer genuine contribution to his country through free-wheeling public conversation unencumbered by constitutional issues. And to set a longer-term example that a British royal who seeks to take active part in the political life of the nation (and yes opining from a station as high as Charles is clearly political) should resign the throne or chance for it.

But to get the boundaries of such issue and to avoid "results-oriented" analysis (i.e. where the rule is applied so as to achieve a specific outcome in a particular situation) let's ask some questions:

Would Charles' intervention (assuming it is so, which is certainly plausible) be OK if he were an extremely wealthy private citizen? A billionaire heir to those 19th century beer-baron Windsors?

Clearly not.

Would his behavior be acceptable if he had made the same contact but he was a non-royal aristocrat? Say the "Duke of Poundsbury?" I assume so of course. Anyone is allowed to make any call one wants and it is up to the receiver to pick up the phone or not. Obviously all people (including other rich and famous people) are more likely to up Charles' call than mine. But they are also likely to pick up the phone for some rich commoner from Kent. All rich, or famous or connected people have enormous advantages in our society. Can we require them all to shut up? Hardly.

If Charles participation in the overall process had been to write letters or even testify to the Planning Board? I assume so, though frankly that sort of contact strikes me as being even more troublesome. Is private participation worse or the same as public pronouncements? No idea for sure.

Suppose Charles had intervened in the overall political process in  expressing his own personal opinion and was pro same-sex marriage? (To take an issue of the day.)

I don't know the real parameters of "correct" royal behavior in British constitutional law; I assume that Charles is most likely acting strictly within its letter as his advisors would have pointed out the breach so as to avoid serious constitutional crisis. The Royals are (were?) in enough trouble with the public; they don't need legitimate political problems.

But the issue is an interesting one: what is the role for a Constitutional Royal?  It's a conundrum with, for me, only one obvious answer. My own prejudice is that there should be no royals at all; it's bad for Britain. and frankly for the rest of us as it sets a bad tone. As for the royals themselves, being a "Duke of Poundsbury" and being able to point to a long-line of  royal forbears promises entrance to Eton and good seats at any table for generations hence. And it is probably a lot easier: I'd much rather be an anonymous Duke of Marlborough than a life-in-a-fishbowl Prince of Wales. But that is their (the British) business. 

So if you are going to have a "Royal Family," what do you want them to do? Nothing? Remain silent? Mum? Literally show up at public events and mouth absolute platitudes? If they do anything at all of substance, make any calls, offer any opinions, write any articles about specifics, the opposition (and there is always opposition) will cry foul.

I wonder what British law actually says.

Read ten times and memorize

Ryan Avent on Building Speculatively:

A reader emailed this along, noting that Chicago Transit Authority was looking to make “speculative” expansions, that is, in anticipation of future growth. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this. Given the relatively small geographic footprint of current dense, walkable areas, it has to be true that most future growth will take place in suburbs or exurbs. That doesn’t mean that new suburban growth has to look like old suburban growth. Much of it will be reengineering of old drivable areas into new walkable areas, a la Tysons Corner. Other development will be greenfield development, but even then such plans could look much more like the greenfield streetcar suburbs of yore rather than the tract-housing-by-freeway models popular among developers in recent decades. A principle factor enabling green development or redevelopment will obviously be transit-proximity.

The money quote:

Given the relatively small geographic footprint of current dense, walkable areas, it has to be true that most future growth will take place in suburbs or exurbs. That doesn’t mean that new suburban growth has to look like old suburban growth. Much of it will be reengineering of old drivable areas into new walkable areas, a la Tysons Corner. 

Just in case anyone missed the concept, and yes I am rephrasing it slightly:

reengineering of old drive-only areas into new walkable areas,

More trendy copy-catting

High time for a High Line? in Seattle? I hope not.

I agree that it would be unwise to save the Seattle Viaduct for use as a linear park. It is far more valuable for movement of vehicles — and will continue as a vehicle transportation corridor for many decades to come. But the Promenade Plantee does have something to offer by way of example -- use of the space beneath the Viaduct for shops, artists spaces, or whatever. Chopp's plan astutely incorporates that element. And to the larger picture no one (I think) with any sense of urban street dynamics and security would suggest building a new "elevated linear park." It's a Robert Moses thing -- you are dating yourself. :) The High Line (which may work -- the evidence is not in) and the Promenade Plantee are examples of "discovered spaces" and were not purpose-built. They are unique, sui generis and not easy or perhaps possible to copy. The money is (thankfully) not there for "elevated linear parks" when we don't have sidewalks throughout the city; a sense of proportion and priority, please.

UPDATE:

There have been some additional comments on the post I link to above. My own response:

David Brewster writes "As for Freeway Park's design, it happens to be celebrated around the world and is a master work by America's finest landscape architect, Lawrence Halprin."

We must each judge Freeway Park for ourselves. Reliance on authority such as "celebrated around the world" much less the conclusory "master work by America's finest landscape architect..." avoids analyzing the issue. Judged by contemporary urbanism, which values "place-making for human interaction," Freeway Park was and is a very poor design.

Several important points to consider:

* In judging Freeway Park you need to distinguish between 
1. the initial and very brilliant concept for bridging I-5 and using its airspace to re-connect two neighborhoods 
versus
2. the implementation of that concept (by Halprin and his design team) which was motivated by the entirely foolish, wrong-headed and inappropriate conceit of "creating a little bit of wilderness" in the middle of a major central business district.

* Brewster is dead-on accurate in your analysis of what is (or was) wrong with Freeway Park — the design indeed lacked of a "sense of connection to other places" i.e. the park is inward-looking and attempts to isolate itself and its users. But that lack is not accidental but stems from the initial design. The thought way back then in the 1970s was to create a park where an individual could get away from other people and the presumed annoying "hustle-bustle" of a city: hence the wilderness motif. The correct motif for such an urban park should have been one which promotes human interaction, conversation, communication — not one which further isolates people.

Maybe the recent improvements he mentioned elsewhere in his comments have changed the character of the park and the "new Freeway Park" is entirely rethought. I would be pleased to hear that. But that doesn't change the fact that the original design implementation by Halprin's firm was deeply flawed.

Spare me the violins

Taking Back the Vacant Lots

...could this event be construed as evidence a shift from auto-centric and generally top-down development patterns to a more community-based future, focusing on the needs and desires of current residents?

No. Or "No" until "the neighborhood" puts up the cash and competence to build things. Which amounts to "No."

"Sustainable development" has got to make money to be sustainable

Better living through archeology:

Sustainable Preservation Initiative is all about taking architectural sites in poor countries and making them generate cash for the locals — thereby giving them a real monetary incentive (rather than a high-minded lecture) aimed at preserving archeological treasures. It’s “economic development in an archeological guise,” he likes to say.

Bravo!

Even really bright people like to pursue foolish questions

Lunch with Felix Salmon

Felix asked me who were the three greatest living contemporary artists. Although we had never discussed this question before (and we had barely met before), we agreed immediately on picks #1 and #2 and required only a short while before settling the more difficult question of who should be #3.

Tyler. You do realize realize how foolish a question "greatest" is. I hope. If you'd phrased it as "best known" or "highest priced" or "with best marketing and promotion" it would make sense. But phrased as you have? No. (As well as confusing the more general "artist" for the specific "painter.")

Now "foolish" may be a strong word. And yes, the essence of being human is to differentiate and discriminate. But such a list encourages temporal self-centeredness. in that we can know now who will have long-term value. It also assumes that making rank-order lists of qualitative value makes sense. I don't really know how to put it into words

Then again, it can be fun.