Out with the Old, In with the New?

After reading an article on philly.com by Inga Saffron I got to thinking, which can be a dangerous thing for a man to do. However, what I was thinking about was something that does not necessarily harm me, so I figured I was in the clear.

The architecture, buildings, and neighborhoods are what give each city a sense of oneself, an identity if you will. A big part of this identity is the heritage that a city possesses. Heritage is something that is a vital part of our culture and plays a big role in how we think, act, and basically live. Some people want to hold on to the past and some people want to run as far from it as they can.

There is no doubt that the make-up of a city can determine the efficiency of that area. If American cities were set up like Chinese cities, where skyscrapers are crowded as closely together as physically possible, then maybe America would be booming the same way that China is, rather than struggling through a recession. Economist Edward Glaeser believes that cities have a competitive advantage because of their dense, diverse concentrations of people. The closer that people are together, the greater the number of transactions that will take place, which leads to greater efficiency — and everyone knows that efficiency is of vital importance. Just ask Toyota TM. Toyota's efficiency is the reason that companies of all shapes and sizes learn from them. The only problem with building a ton of skyscrapers all over the place is that previously existing neighborhoods need to be destroyed, and pesky preservationists are sure to get in the way of that. Those are the people that want to hold on to the past.

In agreement with Glaeser's philosophy, architect Rem Koolhaus believes that “the world is being frozen in amber by a powerful heritage mafia, which he suggests is one reason Europe and America are falling behind China.” The point Koolhaus is trying to make is that preservationists are causing architects to design a certain way, a fake way, as to appease the “dwellers of the past” and fit in with the old design of the city. They both are looking to achieve a “one-size fits all” approach for cities.

Being a student of business and growing up in a capitalist nation, I find it hard to disagree with their logic. Yes, greater efficiency will indeed create economic benefits for the United States. However, destroying the identity of our cities could come at a great cost, maybe even at a cost greater than the reward. Personally, I would hate it if all cities were similarly drab and boring, following the same prescription for success. Why even bother visiting another city if you already know what to expect?

Individuality is important, especially for Americans, and that extends to cities. In terms of commercial real estate, a wide expanse of row houses might be just as effective as a concentration of skyscrapers. Commercial real estate could very well benefit from increased building of something like condos, but there is always the risk of having them sit half-empty. I do agree that our cities, especially Philadelphia, could be improved to increase efficiency, but at some point one begins to sacrifice our heritage, and ultimately our integrity.

What do you think?

by Daniel Lauder

Original article by Inga Saffron from philly.com

Photo Credit: EASTERBY