Rant: Inertia represent!
Mar. 21st, 2006 11:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zdashamberOn Sunday we watched "I, Robot," which as Mike said was a good flick that was entirely unrelated to its title. It reminded me of something that annoys me about a lot of science fiction, though: there is no way that the world will look futuristic at any point in the next 300 years. No. Way.
I live in the Bay Area. There was a big earthquake here in 1989, 17 years ago. I was in elementary school in Colorado at the time, but even so I sort of remember the disruption of the World Series.
During that earthquake, a chunk fell out of the Oakland side of the Bay Bridge. They patched it.
6 years later, they decided it needed to be replaced. In 1997, 8 years after that, they introduced a plan they said could replace the bridge in 7 years, opening 2004. The plan was ugly, and mayors and people spent 15 months and picked a prettier plan in 1998. The prettier plan did not allow for good access to the island that marks the difference between the San Francisco part of the bridge and the Oakland part of the bridge. The Navy was giving the island to San Francisco, and the mayor of SF wanted to develop it. So he and the Navy literally chased off engineers doing necessary preliminary work.
In 2000, someone realized they could legally steal the land from the Navy and give it to the Department of Transportation. Voila! But Asia is building like crazy and engineering firms have all the work they like, and steel becomes expensive. And a depression hits and California runs out of money. And terrorists blow up buildings in New York and insurance for bigass projects becomes exorbitant.
When bidding for the job ends in 2004, the price is appalling. Footdragging ensues, along with the suggestion of throwing the design out and trying yet again. Accomodation is finally reached in 2005. A new round of bidding is initiated in 2006.
Projected date of bridge opening: 2013. 18 years after it was deemed necessary to build the bridge. 24 years after a lot of people realized, "Hm, there might be a problem." And who wants to bet the projection is accurate? C'mon, who'll take that bet? (Or you could read the SF Chronicle article where I'm getting all this info.)
And here's the moral of the story: This shit is not unusual!!
Every city can tell you the same stories. Politicians grandstanding. Important driving forces moving on to other projects. Economic surprises.
There is no way in hell that 30 years from now Chicago will have an under-city highway system.
I mean, I was happy with the start of the movie. He has an alarm clock, he lifts weights in the morning, his flat has hardwood floors. But then we learn he's a throwback to our era. Goddammit, I'm looking around my room. My feet are propped up on a La-Z-Boy from the 70s. Next to it is a space heater from the late 60s. My desk may well be from the 40s. I plan to keep my new non-circuit-blowing space heater for 30-some years.
Stuff endures. Buildings endure. Infrastructure endures with massive unmoving stubbornness.
Maybe in 30 years buildings will generally be quite a bit different from today's buildings. I doubt it; how different are today's buildings from 70s-80s buildings? Hardly at all. But maybe all the nice things I'd like to see in buildings will become desirable to the cheapass property owners in the next 30 years, and with them a new "futuristic" aesthetic.
What's the half-life of a building? For SF, with earthquakes and intense development pressure, let's guess 100 years. So maybe I should revise my 300 year number down... But I don't think I will. If things continue as they are, there will not be one aesthetic and many buildings, even if incorporating futuristic comforts, will still look basically old-fashioned. If things continue as they are, futuristic comforts will be considered unnecessary fripperies. How long have we had the internet? Are new buildings wired for internet? How long since the oil crisis? Do new buildings consider passive solar? No!
Inertia! Goddamnit, sci-fi creators, recognize inertia!
I live in the Bay Area. There was a big earthquake here in 1989, 17 years ago. I was in elementary school in Colorado at the time, but even so I sort of remember the disruption of the World Series.
During that earthquake, a chunk fell out of the Oakland side of the Bay Bridge. They patched it.
6 years later, they decided it needed to be replaced. In 1997, 8 years after that, they introduced a plan they said could replace the bridge in 7 years, opening 2004. The plan was ugly, and mayors and people spent 15 months and picked a prettier plan in 1998. The prettier plan did not allow for good access to the island that marks the difference between the San Francisco part of the bridge and the Oakland part of the bridge. The Navy was giving the island to San Francisco, and the mayor of SF wanted to develop it. So he and the Navy literally chased off engineers doing necessary preliminary work.
In 2000, someone realized they could legally steal the land from the Navy and give it to the Department of Transportation. Voila! But Asia is building like crazy and engineering firms have all the work they like, and steel becomes expensive. And a depression hits and California runs out of money. And terrorists blow up buildings in New York and insurance for bigass projects becomes exorbitant.
When bidding for the job ends in 2004, the price is appalling. Footdragging ensues, along with the suggestion of throwing the design out and trying yet again. Accomodation is finally reached in 2005. A new round of bidding is initiated in 2006.
Projected date of bridge opening: 2013. 18 years after it was deemed necessary to build the bridge. 24 years after a lot of people realized, "Hm, there might be a problem." And who wants to bet the projection is accurate? C'mon, who'll take that bet? (Or you could read the SF Chronicle article where I'm getting all this info.)
Every city can tell you the same stories. Politicians grandstanding. Important driving forces moving on to other projects. Economic surprises.
There is no way in hell that 30 years from now Chicago will have an under-city highway system.
I mean, I was happy with the start of the movie. He has an alarm clock, he lifts weights in the morning, his flat has hardwood floors. But then we learn he's a throwback to our era. Goddammit, I'm looking around my room. My feet are propped up on a La-Z-Boy from the 70s. Next to it is a space heater from the late 60s. My desk may well be from the 40s. I plan to keep my new non-circuit-blowing space heater for 30-some years.
Stuff endures. Buildings endure. Infrastructure endures with massive unmoving stubbornness.
Maybe in 30 years buildings will generally be quite a bit different from today's buildings. I doubt it; how different are today's buildings from 70s-80s buildings? Hardly at all. But maybe all the nice things I'd like to see in buildings will become desirable to the cheapass property owners in the next 30 years, and with them a new "futuristic" aesthetic.
What's the half-life of a building? For SF, with earthquakes and intense development pressure, let's guess 100 years. So maybe I should revise my 300 year number down... But I don't think I will. If things continue as they are, there will not be one aesthetic and many buildings, even if incorporating futuristic comforts, will still look basically old-fashioned. If things continue as they are, futuristic comforts will be considered unnecessary fripperies. How long have we had the internet? Are new buildings wired for internet? How long since the oil crisis? Do new buildings consider passive solar? No!
Inertia! Goddamnit, sci-fi creators, recognize inertia!