Posted by BRUTUS on September 28, 2002 at 13:46:56:
In Reply to: Re: WTC shortlist posted by d on September 28, 2002 at 10:13:09:
well you said :.....the site did not grow naturally from the underlying geology....
well can we accept as architect this historical+geographical disjunction in an evolution of a "modern" city?
we know from the historical evolution of New York,from the $24 deal between the Dutchman Peter Minuit and the Algonquin Indians in 1626,to the foundation of the Dutch permanent settlement(New Amsterdam)on the southern tip of the island to the days when the British took over what was a promising trading center in 1664,when the population was merely 1500,they renamed it New York.
by 1728 it extented beyond its original Dutch boundaries,without a clear plan,between 1785 to 1789 New York became the capital of the infant United States then by 1807 the commission was set up to the introduction of the grid pattern,without consideration given to the terrain,in the 1890 almost all of Manhattan island was a vast grid till we reached its rapid evolution to became the mother of all vertical city in the world....
well my question is : can a "modern" city creates its own PRESENT cultural identity,a center of "symbolism" as you said independently speaking of its past and topography and history or the cultural continuity and pre-urban context is a something unimportant in the new cultural identity and its current situation?
this is something very critical and should be questioned in details,because the future inhabitants of any city in the world may prefer the deconstructing of our "present" cities in their "present" for the exact same reasons!
Free 3D Models