51–60 of 136 posts
Everyone's a fucking critic.
Well, her criticism was deemed worthy of inclusion in the US Library of Congress.
I mean, I'm not a big fan of Hudson Yards... ...but this piece doesn't seem to make any coherent argument. Nowhere does she explain why she dislikes it aesthetically. She simply seems to dislike that it was designed to be Instagrammable (is that so bad for art/sculpture which is inherently visual?), has some bizarre thoughts on climbing staircases (she's against climbing the Eiffel Tower as well, does she hate exerci…
The comparison to the Eiffel Tower is to say at least that structure has a restaurant and a shop at the top, so there's a reason to go up there.
The author does not seem to have special hate for elevators, only that an elevator for a sixteen-floor staircase that doesn't actually have anything at the top further reinforces the cynicism behind the design, which is in fact the major thrust of the article.
It's about as helpful an ideology as white supremacy, just with different variables: instead of wanting to destroy other people along racial boundaries, the class supremacist wants to destroy people who aren't members of the sanctioned economic class.
Fuck class supremacy. Let's collectively ignore this kind of hateful screed so we can focus on reducing suffering for all, not just for members of some arbitrary group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed the crux of the argument which is that it’s very proletariat. It does nothing for the community and is designed to benifit the criminally wealthy. Also it’s ugly af. I hope I never have to work with someone with your tastes if you think that’s what beauty is.
To be fair, I'd say that that is is better than any of the 1960s-1990s "Brutalist" style stuff that reminds me of Communist-style nonsense. That being said, given that that the average inhabitant isn't working class but a professional, why? Aren't there better alternatives at your price level?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is relevant to the parent post because there's legitimate reason for the poor to have animus against the rich, and not vice versa The parent poster is specifically referring to a specific type of unfounded animus. Namely: having no argument other than "they have more money than me" to justify said animus.
The parent poster wrote " poor people who have nothing more to hate on rich people about than that they have money ", which sounds like well-founded animus to me. Here's a way to think about it - what is the corresponding thing for the rich to hate on the poor for? Are the rich jealous of not having money? Are they envious of those who cannot pay more for housing simply because a building of questionable merit faces…
Let me make sure I understand, because I fear we may be talking past each other.
Are you suggesting that the simple fact that one has more money than you is sufficient to justify animus?
(I'm happy to discuss the rest of your post once we clear up this particular point; it seems fundamental.)
This article is a perfect encapsulation of our current culture of contempt. It is no longer sufficient, or even possible, to just disagree or have different tastes. "I'm personally not a big fan of that building's aesthetics, but maybe there are others who do like it." That would have been a reasonable opinion to hold... instead we have: "Designed by Thomas Heatherwick, one of architecture’s premier grifters... The d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> an amount that dwarfs the subsidies offered to Amazon one thing I really love about NYC is how easy it is to deflect attention and get what you want exhibit A: "tech workers" make the same amount in NYC as they do in the Bay Area, they fly completely under the radar and the inequality warriors point fingers at finance instead, serving to highlight the fickle nature of an unorganized protest where the cause/perpetua…
Hudson Yards is way more than a standard tax break bonanza. Tax-free City and state authority bonds were issued to finance it. The Amazon deal was all about NYS politics and the changes in leadership in the state legislature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no matter what social position you may have happened to find yourself in People don't "find themselves" in a social position. It isn't like they wandered into the wrong part of town. People suffering poverty are angry about wealth because it represents something withheld from them by an opaque and unfair system (how opaque and how unfair is the only thing under debate). Rich people who think poverty is a moral fail…
“Find themselves” is intentionally passive, without implying any cause... the alternatives would be “got themselves into” or “were placed by someone else” The phrase was used to stay out of the debate about the cause, not to imply there was no cause.
The trophy is a symbol for something more, and so is having hundreds of millions of dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed the crux of the argument which is that it’s very proletariat. It does nothing for the community and is designed to benifit the criminally wealthy. Also it’s ugly af. I hope I never have to work with someone with your tastes if you think that’s what beauty is.
To be fair, I'd say that that is is better than any of the 1960s-1990s "Brutalist" style stuff that reminds me of Communist-style nonsense. That being said, given that that the average inhabitant isn't working class but a professional, why? Aren't there better alternatives at your price level?
That said, I dislike the tone of the article.