Pictures you didn't take - Page 71

xoxoxoBruce · 05-23-2017, 11:40 PM

Progress of NYC...

glatt · 05-24-2017, 08:13 AM

The text credits the elevator, but I notice the real change agent in the pictures is the bridge.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-24-2017, 09:37 AM

The bridge caused the skyscrapers? That's even a bigger stretch than the elevators.

glatt · 05-24-2017, 11:13 AM

the bridge brought commerce and increased the land value. So the only way to build was up. The elevators were invented to fill that need.

Flint · 05-24-2017, 01:08 PM

glatt is correct. Bridges are the cause of everything. Bridges bring people.

You don't need buildings or elevators or anything else without people.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-24-2017, 11:10 PM

You don't need bridges to bring people unless you have buildings for them to live and work in. The higher the buildings the more people you need.

glatt · 05-25-2017, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The higher the buildings the more people you need.

You have that backwards. When you have lots of people, you need bigger buildings.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-25-2017, 10:44 AM

No no, people aren't standing in the street waiting for the building to be finished so they'll have some place to work/live.
If it's a company putting up a building for their firm, they always build bigger than they need hoping the business will grow and require more people.
The rest of the buildings are built by real estate speculators to rent space out. 99% of all cities have a surplus of unrented space. You know, vacancies, not built to demand, but in hopes of future demand.
If there is future business expansion, they might even have to build a bridge to accommodate those increases. That would be facilitating those increases not creating them.

Happy Monkey · 05-25-2017, 11:20 AM

Bridges increase the radius of people available to work in office space, which would increase the demand for big office buildings. They might also cause a short-term decrease in housing demand, as homebuyers consider property on the other side of the bridge. That decrease should be eliminated and reversed as the commercial buildup continues, and people realize that commuting across a bridge can quickly become terrible.

Gravdigr · 05-25-2017, 02:59 PM

Bridges are ways over obstacles. And that's all they are.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-25-2017, 04:02 PM

There is no need to increase the radius until the skyscrapers are built and elevated.
Bridges facilitate white flight and the slumming of the hoods they flighted. People coming over the bridge are couthless bumpkins, the city is just where the job is. They jaywalk, take short cuts across the grass, spit on the sidewalk, and cheat on their spouses and/or taxes.

Clodfobble · 05-26-2017, 07:03 AM

Buildings are built by private ventures, bridges by public. In my experience, the private ventures jump out in front of the demand (sometimes fucking up and losing all their money on an empty building) while the public ventures don't build until the situation gets bad enough to warrant it. When has a road ever been built where you were like, "Huh. I guess that could be useful," as opposed to "Jesus fuck, three years of construction traffic for this, and it's barely made a dent."

glatt · 05-26-2017, 08:27 AM

I'm not saying the elevator had no impact. I just think the bridge had a much larger impact.

NYC was always a bustling city. It was the gateway to much (most?) of America for centuries. The Erie Canal was probably the biggest agent for change in NYC. Followed by the Brooklyn Bridge, and then the inevitable elevators.

When you build a road into the wilderness, towns spring up along it. See the Amazon for an example in our lifetime. You can't look at the infill roads and highways built through existing suburbia to find your lessons about growth.

Manhattan was already there and already bustling before the bridge was built, but the bridge linked it to Brooklyn and that provided much needed residential space to house the employees. Brooklyn was already there too, but you had to take a boat (ferry) and the bridge carried exponentially more people. Living in Brooklyn and working in Manhattan made life more economically manageable for the workers, and so more workers came. Brooklyn grew in population very quickly. And Manhattan, where the jobs were, was also growing. But it was on a tiny sliver of land so the only way to build was to go up.

The height of buildings was limited by stairs, but there was a tremendous pressure to figure that problem out. Hoists were well known. Everyone had used them to get buckets of water out of a well. They had been around for thousands of years. This was the height of the industrial revolution, and the task of making a hoist just that much more reliable and safe was a relatively simple one that was inevitable. If Otis hadn't come up with the fix, somebody else would have. Manhattan was bursting at the seams.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-26-2017, 11:21 AM

Would you pay three million dollars for a 100th floor penthouse... walk up?
There wouldn't be tall buildings making room for all those jobs if not for the elevator. You're right, if it hadn't been Otis it would have been someone else, but the fact remains without the safe elevator the city could not have grown to accommodate enough people to warrant a bridge.

BigV · 05-29-2017, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Progress of NYC...

More interesting history about lifts as "mass transportation" systems.

05-23-2017, 11:40 PM	#1051
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Progress of NYC... Attached Images __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-24-2017, 09:37 AM	#1053
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	The bridge caused the skyscrapers? That's even a bigger stretch than the elevators. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-24-2017, 01:08 PM	#1055
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	glatt is correct. Bridges are the cause of everything. Bridges bring people. You don't need buildings or elevators or anything else without people. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

05-24-2017, 11:10 PM	#1056
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	You don't need bridges to bring people unless you have buildings for them to live and work in. The higher the buildings the more people you need. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-25-2017, 10:44 AM	#1058
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	No no, people aren't standing in the street waiting for the building to be finished so they'll have some place to work/live. If it's a company putting up a building for their firm, they always build bigger than they need hoping the business will grow and require more people. The rest of the buildings are built by real estate speculators to rent space out. 99% of all cities have a surplus of unrented space. You know, vacancies, not built to demand, but in hopes of future demand. If there is future business expansion, they might even have to build a bridge to accommodate those increases. That would be facilitating those increases not creating them. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-24-2017, 08:13 AM	#1052
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	The text credits the elevator, but I notice the real change agent in the pictures is the bridge.

05-24-2017, 11:13 AM	#1054
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	the bridge brought commerce and increased the land value. So the only way to build was up. The elevators were invented to fill that need.

05-25-2017, 11:20 AM	#1059
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Bridges increase the radius of people available to work in office space, which would increase the demand for big office buildings. They might also cause a short-term decrease in housing demand, as homebuyers consider property on the other side of the bridge. That decrease should be eliminated and reversed as the commercial buildup continues, and people realize that commuting across a bridge can quickly become terrible. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

05-25-2017, 02:59 PM	#1060
Gravdigr The Un-Tuckian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: South Central...KY that is Posts: 39,517	Bridges are ways over obstacles. And that's all they are. __________________ These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, CDC, or FDIC. These statements are not intended to diagnose, cause, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. If you feel you have been harmed/offended by, or, disagree with any of the above statements or images, please feel free to fuck right off.

05-25-2017, 04:02 PM	#1061
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	There is no need to increase the radius until the skyscrapers are built and elevated. Bridges facilitate white flight and the slumming of the hoods they flighted. People coming over the bridge are couthless bumpkins, the city is just where the job is. They jaywalk, take short cuts across the grass, spit on the sidewalk, and cheat on their spouses and/or taxes. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-26-2017, 07:03 AM	#1062
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Buildings are built by private ventures, bridges by public. In my experience, the private ventures jump out in front of the demand (sometimes fucking up and losing all their money on an empty building) while the public ventures don't build until the situation gets bad enough to warrant it. When has a road ever been built where you were like, "Huh. I guess that could be useful," as opposed to "Jesus fuck, three years of construction traffic for this, and it's barely made a dent." __________________ My book My other book My spirit animal

05-26-2017, 08:27 AM	#1063
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	I'm not saying the elevator had no impact. I just think the bridge had a much larger impact. NYC was always a bustling city. It was the gateway to much (most?) of America for centuries. The Erie Canal was probably the biggest agent for change in NYC. Followed by the Brooklyn Bridge, and then the inevitable elevators. When you build a road into the wilderness, towns spring up along it. See the Amazon for an example in our lifetime. You can't look at the infill roads and highways built through existing suburbia to find your lessons about growth. Manhattan was already there and already bustling before the bridge was built, but the bridge linked it to Brooklyn and that provided much needed residential space to house the employees. Brooklyn was already there too, but you had to take a boat (ferry) and the bridge carried exponentially more people. Living in Brooklyn and working in Manhattan made life more economically manageable for the workers, and so more workers came. Brooklyn grew in population very quickly. And Manhattan, where the jobs were, was also growing. But it was on a tiny sliver of land so the only way to build was to go up. The height of buildings was limited by stairs, but there was a tremendous pressure to figure that problem out. Hoists were well known. Everyone had used them to get buckets of water out of a well. They had been around for thousands of years. This was the height of the industrial revolution, and the task of making a hoist just that much more reliable and safe was a relatively simple one that was inevitable. If Otis hadn't come up with the fix, somebody else would have. Manhattan was bursting at the seams.

05-26-2017, 11:21 AM	#1064
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Would you pay three million dollars for a 100th floor penthouse... walk up? There wouldn't be tall buildings making room for all those jobs if not for the elevator. You're right, if it hadn't been Otis it would have been someone else, but the fact remains without the safe elevator the city could not have grown to accommodate enough people to warrant a bridge. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (0 members and 9 guests)