c-dub's Comments

Terry,

I couldn’t say for sure that there is some provision here for hoisting, but that is the typical approach in Dutch cities. (There wouldn’t be gantry beams in these gables in any case, since those are penthouse structures: you’d only be able to lift materials off the roof terrace, not the street.) And hoisting isn’t as big a deal as you might think. I’ve hoisted pianos and other large items up the exteriors of buildings in a few cities, including midtown Manhattan. It’s actually easier over public property than private; you just have to make a call or two, and follow certain safety precautions. I would imagine it’s even easier in Holland, since it’s so commonplace – and since they aren’t nearly as litigious as we are in the US.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Everyone understands that these are just spiral stairs that are just clad in an interesting way, right? I don’t mean to take anything away from the architects, but some comments here make me think that people don’t even get how they work.

tripleX has it right. Urban houses in the Netherlands often don’t rely on the stairs for moving large items; gantry beams over upper-story windows are used to lift and lower bulky items like mattresses and appliances. It makes perfect sense: why design a building around a need that arises only every year or two? We build too much waste and fat into our housing in the US, and the Dutch are far more clever and capable than we are when it comes to designing both homes and cities. They have too little land to waste any of it to careless design or cheap construction. Here, we can just keep sprawling out further and further into the landscape, so we regard buildings as disposable consumer goods. While we’re wrapping wood 2x4’s in toxic vinyl, they’re wrapping cast concrete in terra cotta tiles.

As far as the aesthetics of the blue exterior go, to each his/her own. You might not want to look at their blue penthouse, but they might not want to look at the soul-deadening monotony of your neighborhood.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Again, I couldn't agree with Na more:

1. People should not be allowed personal time once they've joined the military.
2. People should not donate their own money to causes based on their personal conscience.
3. People with jobs should not have dogs.
4. Animal adoptions should ignore existing emotional bonds.
5. Rules and bureaucracy take precedence over human virtue.
6. Zoomzoom is the fascist.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I think everyone is being unfair to Naa, so let me see if I can rephrase his/her argument:

Say Major Dennis is a spaceman, and Nubs is a slice of delicious space-pie baked by unicorns for Pimwat, the three-headed king of the planet Xerbion 9. Spaceman Dennis loves space-pie so much that he doesn’t care that it belongs to King Pimwat, so he eats Nub anyway. The other pieces of space-pie miss Nub so much that they go sour, and when King Pimwat gets three mouthfuls of sour space-pie, he grows so angry that he destroys Earth with a ray gun that shoots giant, flaming icicles. So what’s this mean? That’s right: it means Major Dennis destroyed Earth. Nice going.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Wood, if cut from sustainable sources and burnt correctly, is far more "eco-friendly" than electric heat, which is notoriously inefficient (particularly if the electricity comes from a coal-fired plant, which it probably would). And I don't know much about Dumfries, Scotland, but there's a good chance they don't get enough sun to make solar heat viable.

There's nothing inherently "wrong" with cutting down trees, just as there's nothing "wrong" with harvesting other crops. It just has to be done as part of a proper, sustainable management program.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Violet:

chaymation's right, but particulates in wood smoke do contribute to poor air quality. Wood stoves have gotten much better in the past twenty years. In particular, stoves equipped with catalytic converters release very "clean" smoke: the smoke itself burns, releasing even more heat in the process.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Wow, ted. You thought my arguments were specious? Sending the dog home, where he knew how it would be cared for, was far more responsible than leaving it behind in an uncertain situation. Invoking his role in the military is nonsense, because he did this as a private citizen, using private resources. And you explain your claim that he was irresponsible with the empty, circular statement that he acted "in the same way when people do things without thinking of the consequences." So, I guess I'll just keep asking the same sorts of questions: what did he DO that was irresponsible? What consequences did he ignore? Sheesh, ted. You don't like being attacked when you think evidence is ignored, but you've done the same thing to Major Dennis.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
ted,

And you're NOT making a judgment on someone else's values? Can you explain the distinction you've created for yourself?

Yes, let's say an elderly woman loves cats. If she can keep them all well-fed and healthy while not bothering the neighbors, then she should keep the cats. Why not? On the other hand, if she can't care for them, or if they cause a nuisance or health hazard for her neighbors, then she should give them up, sure -- because keeping animals in poor conditions, or making trouble for one's neighbors, isn't loving, generous, or loyal. The rules don't exist for the sake of rules, they exist to support the common values of society. Overwhelmingly, those values land squarely on the side of virtues like love, generosity and loyalty (except in certain cases, I suppose, like yours).

In any case, calling this guy irresponsible takes the cake. He showed nothing BUT responsibility. Towards whom did he act irresponsibly? Certainly not towards the dog, and certainly not towards the people he asked for help (and whom offered it of their own will). He did what it took to make sure an animal in his care thrived. Take a look around, ted. Everyone should be so irresponsible.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I'm baffled by people who get riled up about artists wasting food when they use it in their art. Food is a commodity, like any other: the artist bought it with money, just like some other artist would buy paint, or stone, or studio time. So why don't people complain in the same way that money spent on paint, stone, or studio time could have been used to feed kids?

If you don't like the art, that's fine. But getting hung up on food that was "wasted" is a little peculiar.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Na,

Oof, sigh. Do I really have to explain your comments to you? In your post #14, you asked how many kids could be fed with the $3,000 -- and said that the cost of the banana wall art could be put to better use as well. So, I’m asking you, since you’re an artist, why shouldn’t the money spent on your art be used to feed starving kids, too? Why should anyone buy your art, only to have you donate some portion of it, when they could donate the whole amount themselves?

My point is this: yes, people spend money on things that are less important than starving kids. And yes, we should spend MORE money on things like that. But how miserable would the world be if we only valued the necessities? If we deferred all art and creativity until the eradication of suffering, those things simply wouldn’t exist – nor could they be used as tools to build awareness. You, as an artist, should understand that better than any of us.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.


Page 4 of 12     first | prev | next | last

Profile for c-dub

  • Member Since 2012/08/04


Statistics

Comments

  • Threads Started 175
  • Replies Posted 0
  • Likes Received 2
  • Abuse Flags 0
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More