Comment of the Day: Tatters Tale

COMMENT OF THE DAY: TATTERS TALE “. . . I rather like greater Houston’s add-it-as-you-need it layout. I mean, I definitely see the distinct advantages that other cities have in their planning, so I’m not knocking them, but I think Houston has advantages, too. I couldn’t ever put my finger on why until reading this article, but I like that Houston doesn’t seem like some piece of created artifice, regulated in such a way as to preserve it in a frame. A “mediation between private homes and the impersonal corporate world” feels like some sort of sop. Like, if the city looks like something I see on TV, then everything must be fine here. No place is perfect, and no one should be lulled into thinking it is. Some more beauty would be nice (I can remember when this town had a lot more trees, for example), but our citizens are so disparate that I’m not even sure we can all agree on what ‘beauty’ is. We’re not homogenous, which gives us some great advantages, but it makes our public spaces kind of bland, even while the private ones are eye-popping. The city (including its many suburbs) wears its elbow pads on the outside of its jacket, showing off the tatters. It keeps the valuables on the inside, in hidden pockets. That won’t change for a long, long time.” [Sihaya, commenting on ‘The Galleria Is My Idea of Hell’ and Other Houston Stories]

One Comment

  • Well put. The assumption of zones and city plans being better also assumes that a government committee can somehow decide what’s “best” for an area rather than free people making their own decisions.
    If the market makes a wrong decision, they’re economically punished, else they’re economically rewarded.
    The result might not always be what you or I want built, but I think the chance that the “right” thing is built is better if that decision is made by someone with their own livelihood on the line.