Previously posted on 2/26/07
Here is yet another example of the "residential housing" that is being developed... yet it is not developed for the residents of Las Vegas, but for the "tourist" component of Las Vegas. This article if from the 'Las Vegas Sun' written by Liz Benston.
Here is the link: Rich and famous towering above the masses
Although this type of development is exciting and progressive and has been approved by the City/County, is this really the type of growth Las Vegas needs? The article title says it all, instead of creating separation of the "haves" and "have-nots" with urban sprawl (which many have decided that to be evil and all that is wrong with communities) these developments are doing the same thing in a vertical dimension. How is this to be any better or more successful than the typical urban sprawl? If we re-examine Brickford's essay from the beginning of the semester and apply her principles to the context of these developments; don't we still have the same issues?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
comment posted by GNPN (Glenn NP Nowak) on 3/7/07.
Ken, the blog looks great. There is a link to it from UNLV's ASL-Blog. I'd like to have the bridge studio create or contribute to an architecture blog this semester. Feel free to to write or stop by the studio for a visit. (regarding the vertical sprawl... I would argue there is no such thing. Vertical striation of "social classes" maybe, but sprawl has always had more to do with footprints/land-use. This could be seen as a step in the right direction as the city's "rich and famous" take their first steps of the day amongst some of the city's "masses" vs. the 18th green out in their gated community 40 minutes from what is truly the heart of this particular city. -glenn np nowak Visiting Lecturer SOA, UNLV
Post a Comment