Originally Posted by
Detroitnerd
My panties? In a bunch? Awww, that's sweet of you to be so concerned about my equanimity. Guess what, though? I'm just fine. :D
Your point A is that since somebody has been making buildings like this for a long time, they aren't experimental. Maybe so. But I gotta say, this is not your run-of-the-mill structure is it? The percentage of completed structures of this construction must be infinitesimal. You argue that it's been perfected? Geez, judging by the way it's going up right now, it sure looks like an experiment gone wrong. But the point is that they didn't go for a conventional solution; they chose something that's not even a "building." To my way of thinking, this is an experiment. And I don't doubt for a second that somebody, somewhere, described it as "bold" or "outside the box" in some design meeting.
Anyway, you're just arguing semantics, because my original point is that this building represents the middle ground between brick-and-mortar investment that will last generations [[you know, how they *used* to do things) and a quick fix that will look impressive but won't really last, which brings us to your point B, that the structure isn't "temporary." All I can say is, you really are a true believer. You believe that Detroit has any plans for that "tensile structure" to last 30 years? Haha. I am amused by this. If they really wanted a building to last 30 years, they would have built a "building," not a "structure."
As for point C, that it will not last very long. Umm, it's already not lasting very long. The first figure budgeted for the structure was $15 million. By the time they broke ground, the figure was $18.3 million. I wonder how much more it will cost! It is six months behind schedule and already falling apart! I must say I admire your optimism. ;)
As for making fun of you, why not? You are ignoring one of the key points. This is not an academic debate. We are *paying* for this, through state and federal grants. It looks like crap and it smells like a boondoggle. I'm also irritated by the disingenuousness of the designers over at Parsons Brinckerhoff, who call it an "enclosed public square," even though it's totally walled-off from the city. You'd think people based in New York would know better.
Anyway, nice try to play the emotion card. Usually, in a courtly debate, it's a good tactic to accuse people of being overly emotional. [[Although that sort of head-patting, "with all due respect" or teasing about "panties in a bunch" is supposed to elicit an emotional reaction, n'est pas? Tsk, tsk. Poor form.) But here's why your accusations about emotional responses doesn't fit: I live and work in Detroit, and I see an obnoxious, ugly structure that's freakin' falling apart before it even opens and I'm supposed to not get emotional about that? I'm supposed to mull over the history of these structures, try to believe that this represents something other than graft, idiocy or lunacy? [[Ah, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. *lights pipe* Ah, yes, let's see. I may have to take a course in that before I have a right to an opinion.) Well, that may be asking too much of us little people who have to pay for it all... ;)