or, to take another tack, if you don’t like brooklyn heights, get the hell out and go somewhere else. It’s a big boro. There are lots of different things in it. Some are historical and residential, some are shitbox nouveau, some are busted ghetto, some are fancy commercial stuff, etc. Pick you ‘hood.
Just because your five block radius is all fancy brownstone, doesn’t mean that the entire boro is somehow stultified.
Or perhaps, with 50,000 tourists a day, Venice just correctly identified that it is mostly a tourist destination, and decided to run with it. It’s an old city built on wooden piles, without extra room to grow, an irrational place to try and base your manufacturing concern or headquarter your business.
Sure, you could fill in your canals and knock down a bunch of old buildings, but you’re going to injure your tourist economy a lot more than you’re going to gain other jobs. It’s an irrational place to try and host an industrial center, and hasn’t been one since the 18th c.
The interestingness of cities comes (imho) from them having a mix of buildings and uses, and Brooklyn has just that. While you somehow believe that LPC is freezing the city in the 1890s, you have only to walk through any brooklyn nabe to see that it’s a smorgasbord of time periods, purposes, etc. Unfettered development leads to boring bullshit, as does period-piece frozen-ness.
Neither is currently going on, much to the boro’s benefit.
Bfarwell;
Brilliant commentary. Too bad you didn’t do some reading of history, however.
Venice had other major sources of wealth until very recently. Many of Italy’s leading insurance companies had their headquarters there, and they traced their roots to the trading days. They started pulling out in the 1980’s. Venice was also a center of manufacture of fine glass and ceramics. Perhaps you’ve heard of Murano glass?
They have all pulled out. The fact that they could not build maodern facilties, due to the rigorous preservation laws, plus the ancient transportation system (as Donatella pointed out) made it completely imparcatical to stay.
As a comparison: the city of Milan used to have as many canals as Venice. The city fathers there decided long ago that they were impractical, and filled them in except for a few here and there. Today Milan is Italy’s leading commercial city, a title once held by Venice. Milan is also much more progressive about the need for modern facilities for commerce and housing.
As fpr Brooklyn, I cited Venice as a cautionary tale of what happens when preservation comes unhinged. I believe we are approaching that point. I suggest you read the works of Edward Glaeser on this issue. One can also see this phenomenon if you look at some of the more established historical districts. Whatever words can be used to describe Brooklyn Heights, “dynamic” is not one of them. One only has to look at the running jokes about it on Brownstoner to confirm this point – and this is a website that is devoted to preservation!
SO true Benson. I was walking around brooklyn noticing how nobody lived here and it was totally only touristic fakery. I forwarded your comments to the LPC, and they’re reversing course.
I mean, somebody did say something about how the economic powerhouseness left venice a long long time ago, and that tourism is the only thing they have going on, and that *that* was they they’re so preservation-crazy, trying to keep the tourists coming.
But they were just a crackpot, I’m sure.
I can’t help think that the marine transportation system in Venice that worked very well for the Doges in the great merchant era of Venice doesn’t translate very well for commerce in a modern city.
“one of the world’s great cities”
Venice once was a great city, built on commerce and trade. It was a forward-looking city. As I’ve remarked before, the buildings facing St. Mark’s square span construction/architectural styles over several hundred years. They believed in continuous building.
Now it is a museum piece, an adult disneyland, which will soon be devoid of any real population. A sad situation, but the zealots there brought it upon themselves.
The last time I visited Venice, I stayed in a hotel that was one of the few modern structures on the main island. It was built in the early 60’s, before the more rigorous preservation laws were passed. I took a tour, and the guide, a native of the city, spent the first 15 minutes bashing my hotel. You know the routine: ugly, non-contextual, blah, blah, blah. She then spent the next 15 minutes lamenting the fact that Venice was becoming a disneyland, and was losing its population. It was amazing to me that she could not see the connection.
My other memory of my visit was taking a boat to the nearby island of Burano. We passed a small island that used to house a large medieval monastery complex. It was a wreck, and was literally falling apart. Our tour guide remarked that the Venetian government was offering the island practically for free to developers, with the provision that the structure would have to be rebuilt to what it was. There were no takers.
That trip opened my eyes to the dangers of preserving large swaths of a city.
“You can just go far upstate and visit Rome and Amsterdam and Rotterdam and Geneva.”
LMFAO, Pete.
“Vencie is close to being a dead city, meaning that its population is rapidly dwindling, and its commerce is now almost exclusively centered around tourism.
Such is the fate of a city that cast its lot completely with “historic” preservation. Take note.”
Oh please, that is such a jaundiced view of a complex city, one of the world’s great cities, to boot. Yes, it’s “historic”. Goes to show that even in a waterlogged city, they knew how to build for the last 700 years. They have every reason to be proud of that, and if people come from all over the world to see it, good for them.
far(right) be it of you to politicize an issue.
I thought you referring to venice, florida when talking
‘historic preservation’ (insult to retired folks) and tourism.
or, to take another tack, if you don’t like brooklyn heights, get the hell out and go somewhere else. It’s a big boro. There are lots of different things in it. Some are historical and residential, some are shitbox nouveau, some are busted ghetto, some are fancy commercial stuff, etc. Pick you ‘hood.
Just because your five block radius is all fancy brownstone, doesn’t mean that the entire boro is somehow stultified.
Or perhaps, with 50,000 tourists a day, Venice just correctly identified that it is mostly a tourist destination, and decided to run with it. It’s an old city built on wooden piles, without extra room to grow, an irrational place to try and base your manufacturing concern or headquarter your business.
Sure, you could fill in your canals and knock down a bunch of old buildings, but you’re going to injure your tourist economy a lot more than you’re going to gain other jobs. It’s an irrational place to try and host an industrial center, and hasn’t been one since the 18th c.
The interestingness of cities comes (imho) from them having a mix of buildings and uses, and Brooklyn has just that. While you somehow believe that LPC is freezing the city in the 1890s, you have only to walk through any brooklyn nabe to see that it’s a smorgasbord of time periods, purposes, etc. Unfettered development leads to boring bullshit, as does period-piece frozen-ness.
Neither is currently going on, much to the boro’s benefit.
Bfarwell;
Brilliant commentary. Too bad you didn’t do some reading of history, however.
Venice had other major sources of wealth until very recently. Many of Italy’s leading insurance companies had their headquarters there, and they traced their roots to the trading days. They started pulling out in the 1980’s. Venice was also a center of manufacture of fine glass and ceramics. Perhaps you’ve heard of Murano glass?
They have all pulled out. The fact that they could not build maodern facilties, due to the rigorous preservation laws, plus the ancient transportation system (as Donatella pointed out) made it completely imparcatical to stay.
As a comparison: the city of Milan used to have as many canals as Venice. The city fathers there decided long ago that they were impractical, and filled them in except for a few here and there. Today Milan is Italy’s leading commercial city, a title once held by Venice. Milan is also much more progressive about the need for modern facilities for commerce and housing.
As fpr Brooklyn, I cited Venice as a cautionary tale of what happens when preservation comes unhinged. I believe we are approaching that point. I suggest you read the works of Edward Glaeser on this issue. One can also see this phenomenon if you look at some of the more established historical districts. Whatever words can be used to describe Brooklyn Heights, “dynamic” is not one of them. One only has to look at the running jokes about it on Brownstoner to confirm this point – and this is a website that is devoted to preservation!
SO true Benson. I was walking around brooklyn noticing how nobody lived here and it was totally only touristic fakery. I forwarded your comments to the LPC, and they’re reversing course.
I mean, somebody did say something about how the economic powerhouseness left venice a long long time ago, and that tourism is the only thing they have going on, and that *that* was they they’re so preservation-crazy, trying to keep the tourists coming.
But they were just a crackpot, I’m sure.
I can’t help think that the marine transportation system in Venice that worked very well for the Doges in the great merchant era of Venice doesn’t translate very well for commerce in a modern city.
“one of the world’s great cities”
Venice once was a great city, built on commerce and trade. It was a forward-looking city. As I’ve remarked before, the buildings facing St. Mark’s square span construction/architectural styles over several hundred years. They believed in continuous building.
Now it is a museum piece, an adult disneyland, which will soon be devoid of any real population. A sad situation, but the zealots there brought it upon themselves.
The last time I visited Venice, I stayed in a hotel that was one of the few modern structures on the main island. It was built in the early 60’s, before the more rigorous preservation laws were passed. I took a tour, and the guide, a native of the city, spent the first 15 minutes bashing my hotel. You know the routine: ugly, non-contextual, blah, blah, blah. She then spent the next 15 minutes lamenting the fact that Venice was becoming a disneyland, and was losing its population. It was amazing to me that she could not see the connection.
My other memory of my visit was taking a boat to the nearby island of Burano. We passed a small island that used to house a large medieval monastery complex. It was a wreck, and was literally falling apart. Our tour guide remarked that the Venetian government was offering the island practically for free to developers, with the provision that the structure would have to be rebuilt to what it was. There were no takers.
That trip opened my eyes to the dangers of preserving large swaths of a city.
“You can just go far upstate and visit Rome and Amsterdam and Rotterdam and Geneva.”
LMFAO, Pete.
“Vencie is close to being a dead city, meaning that its population is rapidly dwindling, and its commerce is now almost exclusively centered around tourism.
Such is the fate of a city that cast its lot completely with “historic” preservation. Take note.”
Oh please, that is such a jaundiced view of a complex city, one of the world’s great cities, to boot. Yes, it’s “historic”. Goes to show that even in a waterlogged city, they knew how to build for the last 700 years. They have every reason to be proud of that, and if people come from all over the world to see it, good for them.
far(right) be it of you to politicize an issue.
I thought you referring to venice, florida when talking
‘historic preservation’ (insult to retired folks) and tourism.