Skip to: Content | Sidebar | Footer

Tilting at Windmills

by Michael Fragoso
August 20, 2008

I find it difficult to describe how boneheaded Mike Bloomberg’s newest idea is.  CBS News calls the plan, to put windmills on New York City bridges “bold.”  It’s not bold.  It’s ugly. 

New York’s suspension bridges are part of the artistic patrimony of the United States.  They were made for one specific purpose: allowing people to travel from one point to another without getting wet.  With this goal in mind, engineers designed the bridges to do so safely, while also taking into consideration construction economy, design efficiency and overall aesthetic elegance.  The consideration of these factors, coupled with and driven by economic growth in New York at the turn of the last century, impressive developments in industrial steel production, and sophisticated engineering load-calculation resulted in a wonderful flurry of suspension bridge construction uniting New York City unto itself and its neighbors.

The relationship between form and function in New York bridge engineering can be seen in the difference between the bridges.  Roebling’s Brooklyn Bridge, designed in the days of carts, pedestrians, and trolleys, brings people from the industrial heart of Brooklyn to the financial heart of Manhattan with a stony classical grace.  On the other hand, Ammann’s George Washington Bridge-along with the Chrysler Building, one of the great paeans to the automobile-accommodates 14 lanes of private and commercial motorcar traffic (opposed to the Brooklyn Bridge’s six non-commercial lanes) using the superior mobility granted by automobile travel to span a narrower area of the Hudson with an ingress point at the less bustling Upper Manhattan.  These bridges were designed to facilitate different sorts of movement, and they do so spectacularly and uniquely, while providing beautiful aesthetic experiences in the process.

Now, in Mayor Mike’s preening greening scheme simply allowing people to access his city isn’t good enough for these marvels of engineering.  The spans that linked a series of unruly islands into the greatest city on earth no longer have sufficient economic or cultural value to continue their stolid duties unmolested.  No, they need to be retrofitted with windmills to look like steal islands planted tight with pinwheels.  Their forms, their functions, and their histories have to go by the wayside because Bloomberg wants his city to be the greenest city.

Therein lies the problem with much of the environmentalist movement.  People should conserve; clean energy is a good thing.  But is it such a good thing that it warrants the mutilation of majestic structural art, embedded in the public consciousness and of great historical significance?  Mayor Bloomberg and his cohorts seem to think so.  The posturing moralism of the few leads to banal ugliness for the many.  Wagner had it almost right with his planned book (The Unbeauty of Civilization): What we’re dealing with is the unbeauty of liberal civilization. 


Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.

Comments

By: simon | August 20, 2008 at 4:20 pm

this is an incredibly weak argument. wind energy is one of the least-objectionable tools we have to dig ourselves out of this energy crisis. it’s not running out, it doesn’t require a diversion of food for energy, it doesn’t involve burning fossil fuels, it doesn’t involve disrupting ecosystems, and yet folks on both side of the aisle continue to find silly reasons to object to it. you want people to continue to pay more and more unreasonably high prices for energy because the bridges are pretty? get over it.

By: JamesR | August 20, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Those great bridges were not designed to have wind turbines attached to them!

Sure, go ahead and put wind turbines on the bridges.

See what happens when the bridges collapse!

See how many lives you can take down with the bridge!

Then where will their beloved pinwheels be?

By: Farley | August 21, 2008 at 12:44 pm

So…you don’t want windmills because it takes away the beauty of NY’s landscape, yet you want large off-shore oil-platforms poking up along the horizon in FL and CA?

It is clear that FRC’s political agenda has nothing to do with ‘family’. Take me off your mailing list, please.

By: Chuck Anziulewicz | August 21, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Oh, so wind turbine are nothing more than ugly “pinwheels,” huh? Let me tell you what’s happening here in West Virginia: Our gorgeous, majestic mountains are being blasted away, one by one, and streams and valleys are being filled up with the tailings, just so we can get to the coal underneath. This mountaintop removal mining is more cost-effective for the corporations that own the land, and in the process vast tracts of West Virginia are being reduced to moonscape. Personally I would rather see those mountains sprouting “pinwheels” than being removed forever. At least those “pinwheels” are providing renewable, clean energy, whereas the burning of coal is just contributing to ever-accelerating climate change.

By: JimL | August 27, 2008 at 5:34 pm

I agree with Simon in part. If the only reason to stop the process is the beauty of the bridges the arguement is weak. The same can be said of the mountains of our land or the sea shores. Sounds a bit like NIMBY to me. Actually I would much rather see more man made “beauty” in NYC than in more remote areas. They seem to like it that way, just as many would like remote to stay remote. Everyone will have to give a little in this issue or we will all be cold come winter in the NE Corridor