So I've been catching up on Pittsblog, and I decided to throw in my own two cents on a perennial subject of hand-wringing, fist-clenching tribulation (at least for the locals): how do we fix Pittsburgh?
First of all, any discussion of the ills of our fair city inherently implies that there's something wrong with it. At least, something wrong enough to outweigh all the good it has. Maybe it's our "smoky steel town" history, our inability to retain young people, the weather, the crazy-ass road system, etc., etc. Let me throw in another suggestion: maybe it's our collective inability to focus on the positives! So what can we do to accentuate the things we do have?
When I think about Downtown, what comes to mind? The stadiums. Point State Park. The total lack of activity after 5pm (Cultural Dist. excepted). The views from Mt. Washington. Three rivers.
My wife and I visited Portland, OR last Memorial Day weekend. I thought it was absolutely beautiful. I think there are a lot of parallels to Pittsburgh there - mid-size city, riverside parks. But one thing that sticks out for me is - we spent practically two full days within the "downtown" city limits, and never ran out of things to do.
Going back to my list of Pittsburgh activities - what is there for a family to do that's a regular downtown draw? Notice I said regular - so the Regatta and the Arts Festival are out. (Portland, btw, has the Rose Festival... stop here if you want to end it at "Steel City" vs "City of Roses" :)
Point State, IMHO, is terribly underused. Yes it's an island of tranquility in the midst of the city, and there's the history of Fort Pitt to boot. But honestly, the whole time I worked downtown I can't say I ever really stopped down to the Point specifically for the peacefulness. It's much more about the green space, to me, and there are a number of neat little spots downtown for a nice lunch in a natural setting. (Trust me - take the Enjoy book and try to hit every downtown restaurant in it. We must have found a dozen little parklets here and there.)
What I would like to see is an area along the river for amusements - something to get everyone out of the house and down to the city on warm spring evenings. Something like the Navy Pier in Chicago or the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore. I'd like a combination of restaurants and outdoor entertainment (maybe under a tent or other open shelter, for when it is the weather holding people back). Bessemer Court is, in typical Pgh fashion, a worthy but insufficient effort in the (general) right direction. Whee - water choreographed to Rick Springsteen!
Ok, so people come and eat, see a live band or ride a ferris wheel - then what? How about shopping? Portland has the Saturday Market, which isn't actually strictly limited to Saturdays. It's similar to the Arts Festival, but it runs practically year round. They don't isolate the food booths from the crafts, either - so there's actually a half decent chance that the Fried Oreo people will *gasp* buy something. This is what I would like to see down at the Point - but please, let's be more mindful of the plastic chairs and the lawn-trampling masses so it's not an eyesore.
Then I would take it one step further. Run a Molly's Trolley, an amphibious WWII relic, or just a plain old PAT bus down Penn/Liberty Ave smack into the Strip, gratis for anyone with a booth voucher. Have them point out all the cool places along the way - the O'Reilly, SPACE, the Wood Street Galleries, the CLP. Mention all those awesome restaurants, hawk that Enjoy book. *cough* local business *cough* While you're at it, talk up the architecture and the walking tours.
How about bike, wagon, and rollerblade rentals? How about a farmer's market - and not up at the City-County Building? How about making the City a weekend destination? Once we've got that, we can start talking about big name retailers. We can think about redesigning downtown living space. We can start making transit connections to Oakland, the North Shore, the East Hills - because the people will be wanting to come here not go there. And they will come not just to see the rivers and the views, but to enjoy themselves while they're here.
The only way any of this would succeed would have to come from the marketing. Not marketing the region, or its identity, or whatever. We have a regional identity crisis, ok? And guess what - the neurosis is coming from us. We've convinced ourselves of our own second-rate, also-ran status. It's us, the people from the suburbs and the surrounding areas, who need to be convinced that downtown is somewhere worth being. Once we've got that, everyone else will follow.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Are All New Ideas Evolutionary?
My creativity seems to be generally cyclic. I’ll be highly creative for a time, and then have a lull for a while. Usually during this lull, at some point I start consuming new media, be it TV shows, movies, games, books, conversations with people, whatever. Once I start consuming this new media I get inspired by a whole set of new ideas that spark the next highly creative period.
So I got to thinking the other day that what we’re capable of creating is limited by the influences around us. And further, what we can accomplish in our lives is limited by the sum of human knowledge during our lifetime. Archimedes was a super genius Greek mathematician, but he had no chance of figuring out the General Theory of Relativity (E=mc2) that Einstein came up with, simply because physics was in its infancy at that time. Meanwhile I would conjecture that in the 1900's some other physicist would definitely have derived the General Theory of Relativity within 10 years of Einstein had he say – been more interested in going to the bar every night. I make this claim based on the fact that Einstein’s figured out his famous theory while working as a patent clerk. He was a genius – but for him to come up with the theory, the field of physics must have already been pretty close to that breakthrough when he was born.
As another example - The Beatles weren’t ready to write Norwegian Wood in the early 1960’s, because even though they were one of the most talented bands ever, their knowledge of the music scene just wasn’t there in 1960. They had to do a lot of drugs and go to India first.
A lot of times, I think artists and other people get too paranoid about being heavily influenced by outside ideas that they fear anything they create will just be an evolution of different current ideas. But really, that’s people can do. Ideas that seem revolutionary, like the Einstein example, are more about a really talented person living at a time where humanity’s current knowledge sits on the cusp of a development that, though it may not be a huge conceptual jump, it turns out to have huge implications.
That is, Aristotle didn’t live in ancient Newfoundland, he lived in ancient Greece, a place brimming full of philosophers. He was a product of the people and writings that influenced him more than he was an independently revolutionary thinker. Aristotle just did philosophy better than his contemporaries in subtle new ways that suddenly made sense to everyone, and so we remember him.
Imagine what you would be capable of if you grew up on a deserted island with plenty of food, but no interaction with society for your whole life. If you were lucky, you’d come up with something resembling a language. Maybe. That’s about the best you could hope for.
Based on that, it seems that allowing yourself to be selectively influenced by good and new ideas, and keeping up with current developments is more than an acceptable part of creative development – it is an essential ingredient.
I guess what that all means is that original creativity is an addition to the known sum of human knowledge. And that no ideas exist in a vacuum. Or rather that ideas that do exist in a vacuum are starting from scratch, and are therefore extraordinarily unlikely to create something new and significant.
So I got to thinking the other day that what we’re capable of creating is limited by the influences around us. And further, what we can accomplish in our lives is limited by the sum of human knowledge during our lifetime. Archimedes was a super genius Greek mathematician, but he had no chance of figuring out the General Theory of Relativity (E=mc2) that Einstein came up with, simply because physics was in its infancy at that time. Meanwhile I would conjecture that in the 1900's some other physicist would definitely have derived the General Theory of Relativity within 10 years of Einstein had he say – been more interested in going to the bar every night. I make this claim based on the fact that Einstein’s figured out his famous theory while working as a patent clerk. He was a genius – but for him to come up with the theory, the field of physics must have already been pretty close to that breakthrough when he was born.
As another example - The Beatles weren’t ready to write Norwegian Wood in the early 1960’s, because even though they were one of the most talented bands ever, their knowledge of the music scene just wasn’t there in 1960. They had to do a lot of drugs and go to India first.
A lot of times, I think artists and other people get too paranoid about being heavily influenced by outside ideas that they fear anything they create will just be an evolution of different current ideas. But really, that’s people can do. Ideas that seem revolutionary, like the Einstein example, are more about a really talented person living at a time where humanity’s current knowledge sits on the cusp of a development that, though it may not be a huge conceptual jump, it turns out to have huge implications.
That is, Aristotle didn’t live in ancient Newfoundland, he lived in ancient Greece, a place brimming full of philosophers. He was a product of the people and writings that influenced him more than he was an independently revolutionary thinker. Aristotle just did philosophy better than his contemporaries in subtle new ways that suddenly made sense to everyone, and so we remember him.
Imagine what you would be capable of if you grew up on a deserted island with plenty of food, but no interaction with society for your whole life. If you were lucky, you’d come up with something resembling a language. Maybe. That’s about the best you could hope for.
Based on that, it seems that allowing yourself to be selectively influenced by good and new ideas, and keeping up with current developments is more than an acceptable part of creative development – it is an essential ingredient.
I guess what that all means is that original creativity is an addition to the known sum of human knowledge. And that no ideas exist in a vacuum. Or rather that ideas that do exist in a vacuum are starting from scratch, and are therefore extraordinarily unlikely to create something new and significant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)