Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

theamericanconservative.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#11

Post by cimmanom »

oftenwrong wrote: post #2

>Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things, without answering to the deeper values of law or…

We've absolutely gone overboard. But certainly there's some balance that could be struck where we can keep the FEW truly unique and beautiful treasures without marking entire neighborhoods as closed to development.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#12

Post by bwanab »

brudgers wrote: post #6
oftenwrong wrote: post #2

>Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things, without answering to the deeper values of law or…

It's impractical to make 'another Beacon Hill' because Boston only has three hills. The other two are occupied by the North End and the Financial District. This problem predates the automobile and parking, e.g. the Back Bay 'is no Beacon Hill' but was developed in the 19th century as the Shawmut Peninsula was expanded by dredging. In some ways an 'efficient market' model is helpful. The 'best' places for new neighbor…

Well, there used to be four. Dorchester Heights was deconstructed in part to fill in the Back Bay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortification_of_Dorchester_He...

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#13

Post by ehnto »

ethebubbeth wrote: post #4
ehnto wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We spend so much space on parking. Our local hospitals most recent achievement is a new parking lot. More floor-space than the rest of hospital, and bigger in footprint than all the rest of the campus. Future archaeologists will probably think we were a society of sentient cars that kept people as pets.

https://youtu.be/wFaHArkYLsM "This animated short proposes what many earthlings have long feared -- that the automobile has inherited the planet. When life on Earth is portrayed as one long, unending conga-line of cars, a crew of extra-terrestrial visitors understandably assume they are the dominant race. While humans, on the other hand, are merely parasites. An Oscar® nominee, this film serves as an entertaining cas…

That was perfect!

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#14

Post by [deleted] »

notfromhere wrote: post #8
oftenwrong wrote: post #2

>Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things, without answering to the deeper values of law or…

American cities are defined by preservation because they were largely abandoned by all but the poorest for the last several decades. Plus, without public transit and the will to build it, there's no alternative to automobiles

[deleted]

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#15

Post by cfmcdonald »

I recommend the book Lost New York by Nathan Silver, to anyone interested in these lost architectural icons of New York City.

It was originally written in the midst of the NYC preservation debate of late 1960s, which resulted from the destruction of buildings like the Singer building, the old Met Opera House, and especially Penn Station.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#16

Post by derekdahmer »

> Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things

Ironically if preservation laws were there in 1908 then the Singer building would likely never have been built because it would mean demolishing some old two-story building in the "historic downtown financial district".

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#17

Post by iguy »

mauvehaus wrote: post #7

In fairness to the powers that dismantled the building, Singer itself was probably on the ropes or well on its way, at least in the sewing machine market. Postwar, the sewing machine market at the low end was flooded with import clones of the classic Singer 15 (see next paragraph), and zigzag machines from abroad were taking a bite out of the higher end of their market[0]. Combine that fact with the fact the needle w…

But lots of buildings find new owners, new uses. Was the building that specialised for sewing-machines? It seems a crying shame to have lost so many of the highlights of an era.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#18

Post by iguy »

derekdahmer wrote: post #16

> Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things Ironically if preservation laws were there in 19…

Indeed. But there's necessarily some judgement in these things, and it's very very hard to judge the 60's concrete blocks as superior to the best works of 1906.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#19

Post by taffer »

iguy wrote: post #18
derekdahmer wrote: post #16

> Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things Ironically if preservation laws were there in 19…

Indeed. But there's necessarily some judgement in these things, and it's very very hard to judge the 60's concrete blocks as superior to the best works of 1906.

I think it's just another irony of history: At all times, people tend to be ambivalent about contemporary buildings, while they hate buildings of the previous generation (50 years old) and love everything older than 100 years. You just have to read what people have said in the past, and you recognize this pattern.

Re: A Lost Monument to Industry and Traditional Urbanism

#20

Post by iguy »

taffer wrote: post #19
iguy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. But there's necessarily some judgement in these things, and it's very very hard to judge the 60's concrete blocks as superior to the best works of 1906.

I think it's just another irony of history: At all times, people tend to be ambivalent about contemporary buildings, while they hate buildings of the previous generation (50 years old) and love everything older than 100 years. You just have to read what people have said in the past, and you recognize this pattern.

You really believe this? That the only difference between the old Penn station and the new one is that we aren't quite nostalgic enough about the new one yet? It's already older than the other one ever was.

Some eras built grand public buildings as symbols of their pride and progress. Some knocked them down.

Post reply on HN