At 12:08 PM 3/11/96, Scott Gladstone Paterson wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, David Sucher wrote:
>
>> At 9:39 PM 2/29/96, Cistron User Account wrote:
>>
>> >No he isn't arguing for a new style every ten years at all. He thinks it is
>> >stupid (attention Sucher!) and a waste of energy to change 180 degrees in
>> >style every ten year. And that is what we have seen since the 1920's isn't
> it?
>>
>> Comfort is timeless.
>>
>what is comfort for one is likely discomfort for another.
***
Why do you say that?
Do you think that the awning that covers the sidewalk makes anyone suffer?
Do you think that the platting pattern that allows/encourages the child to
be able to walk to school (because there is a dense web of side-streets
that actually go somewhere) hurts anyone?
Do you think that the requiring a 'build-to' line in commercial districts
discomforts anyone?
I think that empirical observation says no one is discomforted by these
patterns and all benefit.
The reason I answer your question as a serious one (I assume you were
simply just making light) is that the 'subjective fallacy' is the great
misfortune of our times and your statement seems to reflect it.
Applied to the built environment, it abjures the notion that there are
proper and improper ways to design cities. It accepts the idea that 'it's
all a matter of taste' when it comes to urban design. I suggest that there
are indeed some urban patterns that work better than others and that they
are not at all subjective but are accepted by the vast majority of people.
Nor are they a zero-sum design in which one loses when another gains.
Please see my book CITY COMFORTS for a more complete explanation.
Dave
=================================
David Sucher
CITY COMFORTS: How to Build an Urban Village
http://www.citycomforts.com/
'New Urbanism...begins with the location of the parking lot.'
**************************************