Well to not set a bomb off... but yes, corporations have a perfectly legitimate double standard.
Short, seemingly dubious responses of why:
The government has endorsed and continues to endorse companies who produce products that have very many different (impact unknown in severity and seriousness) externalities.
Government welfare exists in all strata of society-- one of the largest receivers of government welfare is the automotive industry and aviation (a lesser extent). The welfare these companies receive is tricky... it's infrastructure and hundreds of billions of dollars of it. You know how much the average automaker or airliner pays in the cost and maintenance of roads and airports? nothing.
A culture of investment dictates that ownership is supreme. People need return on investments... otherwise the "American Dream" falls apart rapidly. That's something this country sells far too much and why we can convince immigrants to move to probably one of the most horrendous, hypocritical place on Earth (sorry, don't argue this if you don't know about American history... and don't give me history channel war bullshit).
The single-family, single-unit home is an embodiment of disconnectedness and selfishness. It serves no purpose other than to serve the family and assumes no harm or repercussion in its placement. The single-family home thinks it is independent from worldly issues and disregards the simple fact that a single-family home can not exists purely by itself.
Historically, when business and aristocrats got out of hand... those not landed or money gained strength and freedom by investing in another corporation [local government]. You see a big push in the North Sea Countries in the 17th century of using density and local government as a support and bargaining system.
well, i think negativism can be constructive if you embrace negativity as a catalyst for change.
By not admitting that something is broke, wrong or just plain sucks, you can't fix it. This is a fundamental problem with the concept of planning. You have your denialists (people who refuse any sort of change at all whatsoever) or those people who assume that you should just be plainly grateful for everything.
The sad truth is that most of the cities (at least in the US) are "broken." A majority are irreversibly so. By not actually admitting that there is an iota of doubt in practice, criticism barely leaves the world of academia and fewer and fewer relevant case studies can be carried out to prove the theories behind planning or architecture.
This works with Alcoholics Anonymous. I don't see why it can't work for the built environment, corporate policy or anything else?
“We suck less”
somebody has to say it
Well to not set a bomb off... but yes, corporations have a perfectly legitimate double standard.
Short, seemingly dubious responses of why:
The government has endorsed and continues to endorse companies who produce products that have very many different (impact unknown in severity and seriousness) externalities.
Government welfare exists in all strata of society-- one of the largest receivers of government welfare is the automotive industry and aviation (a lesser extent). The welfare these companies receive is tricky... it's infrastructure and hundreds of billions of dollars of it. You know how much the average automaker or airliner pays in the cost and maintenance of roads and airports? nothing.
A culture of investment dictates that ownership is supreme. People need return on investments... otherwise the "American Dream" falls apart rapidly. That's something this country sells far too much and why we can convince immigrants to move to probably one of the most horrendous, hypocritical place on Earth (sorry, don't argue this if you don't know about American history... and don't give me history channel war bullshit).
The single-family, single-unit home is an embodiment of disconnectedness and selfishness. It serves no purpose other than to serve the family and assumes no harm or repercussion in its placement. The single-family home thinks it is independent from worldly issues and disregards the simple fact that a single-family home can not exists purely by itself.
Historically, when business and aristocrats got out of hand... those not landed or money gained strength and freedom by investing in another corporation [local government]. You see a big push in the North Sea Countries in the 17th century of using density and local government as a support and bargaining system.
You two should be very happy together.
well, i think negativism can be constructive if you embrace negativity as a catalyst for change.
By not admitting that something is broke, wrong or just plain sucks, you can't fix it. This is a fundamental problem with the concept of planning. You have your denialists (people who refuse any sort of change at all whatsoever) or those people who assume that you should just be plainly grateful for everything.
The sad truth is that most of the cities (at least in the US) are "broken." A majority are irreversibly so. By not actually admitting that there is an iota of doubt in practice, criticism barely leaves the world of academia and fewer and fewer relevant case studies can be carried out to prove the theories behind planning or architecture.
This works with Alcoholics Anonymous. I don't see why it can't work for the built environment, corporate policy or anything else?
Are those the panties your mother laid out for you?
City planners for the Zeitgeist of the future in the material economy will have it good.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.