In Case of Armageddon, Break Out the GIS

ADiva writes "There's a detailed, three-dimensional, interactive map of New York City which captures the five boroughs down to the square foot, incorporating everything from building floor plans to subway and sewer tubes. Could the city be rebuilt if destroyed? Should it?" As a New York resident, let me say that if something Bad happened to the city, I hope it is built anew rather than trying to recreate the 1910-era buildings that make up half the city's housing. An "Old New York" in the Metaverse might be fun to visit, though.

Comments

Re:I vote for 100 year old designs

[rgmoore]

There's a degree of false sorting in the belief that the things built that long ago are better. Part of the reason that those 100 year old buildings seem to be so well built is because the badly built buildings from the same time period have all been replaced already. The 1900 equivalent of our lousy apartment buildings and cheaply built houses have either been knocked down for those newer developments or have degenerated into the awful old slum housing that you've probably never visited.

Also, when you look at the wonderful 100 year old buildings that impress you so much, you have to remember that they're not necessarily exactly like they were when they were built. Buildings are not static. The structure may remain largely the same but the interiors undergo periodic renovation and reconstruction. In the process, people change the things that annoy them or they think are badly done. Space gets redistributed to different needs, design flaws get smoothed over, and things are generally improved. Many, many buildings become gradually more functional over time as they're adapted to the way that people actually do things, rather than the way that architects imagined that they'd do things.