I wonder just _who_ were those people making those awful, awful plans. Were they being poisoned by lead? How do they live with themselves.
It is hard to predict the future, but luckily there is now more thought put into which buildings to preserve. But even then I wonder what whill happen to the ugly buildings of the 1960s, will they all be torn apart, or are there some that we already can see as valuable.
In NYC, the World Trade Center was often thought of as an architectural abomination. Two boxes stood on end without soul or character. Once they were gone however (notwithstanding how they were taken down) people had to admit they did have a unique character and were representative of a time and a place.
Again in NYC, the beautiful old Penn Station was destroyed to be replaced soulless office towers and a “modern” sports arena. Train travelers were reduced to a rats nest of a filthy underground station. When the developers came for Grand Central Station the public responded with a hearty “NO!” and it was able to be saved. And yet Penn Station does about double the ridership of Grand Central (and according to Wikipedia is the busiest transport hub in the Western Hemisphere.)
I guess my point is, we’re all trying to do our best — including city planners past and present — and as times change we should endeavor to continue, but cut some slack to the planners of the past and hope those of the future will do likewise with us.
City planning is about managing the interactions of complex functions. It is surprisingly relevant to software engineers!
Must read, really. But only the once.
Fortunately his plans never came to much because of fierce opposition. They are representative of a certain way of thinking at the time though.