- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:13 am
TL/DR – sure, different topics are fun; start a thread!
Basically, things you find interesting will be of interest, things you don’t will be dull. There’s no such thing as objectively interesting, or objectively dull.
I’m interested in tall buildings, interested in the engineering involved, the building techniques and the aesthetics. What’s more, my office looks out across the city centre so clearly (to me) to be able to watch daily the progress of two of the tallest buildings to be built in this city simultaneously is of interest, as is the comparative speed of the slipform vs jumpform techniques. Anyone is, of course, free to discuss any other aspect of development or planning here, but I’m not sure it’s necessary to dismiss those which one, personally, does not find interesting. Just start a thread on whatever it is you want to be discussed – easy.
It's also a common fallacy on internet forums to conclude that, simply because someone discusses one particular thing, they don’t value anything else. I (and doubtless many others on here) am extremely interested in streetscapes, liveability, transport – all aspects of good urban design.
I’d be very interested in a debate on the merits / demerits of high rise. We’re not having a debate about that though. URBANO started from a position of ‘tall buildings in Cardiff are negative and those that like to discuss their construction progress are dull’, and chose to illustrate that with supporting arguments which either demonstrate a logical fallacy (some low rise cities are prosperous and attractive, therefore in order to be prosperous and attractive one should turn one’s back on high rise) , just plain incorrect (Bristol doesn’t have tall buildings – when it has several modern-ish ones of a similar scale to Cardiff’s collection of mid-rises, and in fact has an even taller ancient one in the magnificent St Mary Redcliffe), or irrelevant to the topic (why don’t we plant more trees and get rid of bus lanes). There’s little objectivity on display here.
An interesting discussion might be how high rise impacts on the street level experience, based on objective facts and specifics. Wind tunnel effects and inactive street frontage can be negatives – although these are planning issues as much as anything. Aesthetics, cladding choices, colour, sightlines, clustering effects etc. are all other topics up for discussion. I do think though that a discussion of whether it’s reasonable to say ‘high rise makes a place SEEM more vibrant and prosperous’, whilst maybe a fun debate, will ultimately go nowhere as it’s a purely subjective judgement.
Finally – this is a development forum, so many people who find developments interesting and exciting will be attracted to it, and it just so happens that many of the current crop of major developments are high rise ones. It shouldn’t be surprising then that the forum is currently dominated by people who like this kind of building. Plenty of room for other topics to be started though.
Basically, things you find interesting will be of interest, things you don’t will be dull. There’s no such thing as objectively interesting, or objectively dull.
I’m interested in tall buildings, interested in the engineering involved, the building techniques and the aesthetics. What’s more, my office looks out across the city centre so clearly (to me) to be able to watch daily the progress of two of the tallest buildings to be built in this city simultaneously is of interest, as is the comparative speed of the slipform vs jumpform techniques. Anyone is, of course, free to discuss any other aspect of development or planning here, but I’m not sure it’s necessary to dismiss those which one, personally, does not find interesting. Just start a thread on whatever it is you want to be discussed – easy.
It's also a common fallacy on internet forums to conclude that, simply because someone discusses one particular thing, they don’t value anything else. I (and doubtless many others on here) am extremely interested in streetscapes, liveability, transport – all aspects of good urban design.
I’d be very interested in a debate on the merits / demerits of high rise. We’re not having a debate about that though. URBANO started from a position of ‘tall buildings in Cardiff are negative and those that like to discuss their construction progress are dull’, and chose to illustrate that with supporting arguments which either demonstrate a logical fallacy (some low rise cities are prosperous and attractive, therefore in order to be prosperous and attractive one should turn one’s back on high rise) , just plain incorrect (Bristol doesn’t have tall buildings – when it has several modern-ish ones of a similar scale to Cardiff’s collection of mid-rises, and in fact has an even taller ancient one in the magnificent St Mary Redcliffe), or irrelevant to the topic (why don’t we plant more trees and get rid of bus lanes). There’s little objectivity on display here.
An interesting discussion might be how high rise impacts on the street level experience, based on objective facts and specifics. Wind tunnel effects and inactive street frontage can be negatives – although these are planning issues as much as anything. Aesthetics, cladding choices, colour, sightlines, clustering effects etc. are all other topics up for discussion. I do think though that a discussion of whether it’s reasonable to say ‘high rise makes a place SEEM more vibrant and prosperous’, whilst maybe a fun debate, will ultimately go nowhere as it’s a purely subjective judgement.
Finally – this is a development forum, so many people who find developments interesting and exciting will be attracted to it, and it just so happens that many of the current crop of major developments are high rise ones. It shouldn’t be surprising then that the forum is currently dominated by people who like this kind of building. Plenty of room for other topics to be started though.