Archive for August 9th, 2007

2007.08.09

San Francisco Skyscraper Proposals

So the proposals are in for buildings to replace the ailing and aged Transbay Terminal south of Market, and all three proposals suck. What the hell is up with architects these days? Bigger does not mean better except in A) personal income and B) portions of anatomy. Take a look at pictures of the three proposals then come back.

The Pelli Clarke Pelli design looks like a giant vibrator or high tech phallus. Given that none of the buildings in the area are giant, reflective testicles this thing just sticks up in the sky pronouncing its penis inferiority complex. Put a giant SUV on top and the image is complete. Sadly the interior looks like it would be better suited for a rest home for insane persons than a bus terminal. Oh wait, it’s a bus terminal! Spot on design.

Someone else has already pointed out that the Rogers Stirk Harbour building looks like the Tower of Barud Dur from the Lord of the Rings (and illustrated it!) so I won’t say much more than that the architects obviously played with an Erector Set when they were kids.

It’s hard to tell what the Skidmore Owings Merrill proposal really looks like in whole. Right now it looks like a giant shaft of light, all softly lit and white yet hard and long. Like the Pelli Clarke Pelli design, there is a distinct lack of testicles, though you could be sure they would be smooth, round and translucent.

Looking more at theSkidmore Owings Merrill I kind of like it but I have to say I’m partial to the Tower of Barad Dur. I love Tolkien! While the building is still at least twice as tall as it needs to be Sauron, being only a flaming lidless eye, can be forgiven for making up for his lack of other anatomy. I can’t wait to start calling San Francisco the Mordor of the West!

2007.08.09

A Cure for Cancer

Here’s a question for you. Why is it with all the billions of dollars (more than US$5.165 billion) poured into cancer research have we not cured a good portion of the various forms of this disease? Because the pharmaceutical companies won’t make money with a cure. They make money with treatments. You know, pills that cost hundreds of dollars a piece and therapies that may or may not kill the cancer growing in your body. Where is the financial incentive to cure such a lucritive market?

I’m not saying that researchers aren’t interested in curing these things. After all, they and their loved ones are just as susceptible as the rest of us. But they often work for corporations who thrive on money to exist. In the case of for-profit companies this is obvious. The bottom line profit growth brought about by an ongoing disease is more important than a cure which will bring an end to those profits. For non-profits the goal is to exist. It’s the fix-it guy who doesn’t perfectly fix things so he can be employed to fix the thing again.

I don’t know how to fix this issue, and certainly in my place in society there isn’t much I can do aside from point out that something is -horribly, terribly, morally, ethically- wrong with the situation. Too much money goes into research that brings forth no solutions and cures. If the billions of dollars of research from one single year were used to aid in tobacco cessation, that alone would be more effective than all the “research” to date. The next year the money could be spent on engineering a pollution trapping automobile engine (good for urban health and the environment!).

Getting rid of the incentive to make money would also help. Capitalism and “free markets” are great for getting you to come up with the next great consumer product, but useless for our health.

Apparently I’m not the only one thinking these things. These ideas have been around for a long time. Until profit is taken out of the equation, there will never be a “cure” for cancer; the cure for cancer is removing corporation’s bottom line.