the sexy curves?

look at this walkway that is right in the middle of this picture!! i mean, just look at it. what's the first thing that comes to your mind?



damn right - why the *hell* is it all so curvy?

what was the 'designer' (or whatever the term for the guy who designs these things is!!) thinking? let me take a guess . . .

"hmm. let's see now . . . where do i want this trail to go? oh i know i know, i'll make it go straight into this building on the right."

after laying the first part, (s)he changes his/her mind . . .

"wait. naaah. this building's too boring. i'll make this trail lead the 'walkers' to that white cylindrical cool-looking rocket like thingy behind those trees. then people walking on this will feel as if they're walking towards a rocket launch pad. yep - that'd be soooooooo cool!!"

after laying another section, (s)he's like . . .

"wait wait! the building's better. this way, people who're like totally busy will simply follow the walk and not even see where they're headed to and bang their heads against the building and fall down on the ground. hee hee hee. that would be sooooooo coooool for all the college kids to watch professors walk into walls everyday"

after laying yet another section towards the building, . . .

"duh, what was i thinking? my devious ploy would never work. i mean, it might work once or twice for sure. but then word would spread among the 'busy clan' about this misleading walkway. i should just merge this into that one there"

and that is how it was done!!

or maybe the 'designers' were being fired one after another and each new one was taking it in his/her own direction?

seriously, why on earth (or elsewhere too) would an engineer draw this layout? maybe the trees were already there and (s)he didn't want to have them cut down? noble, but i can still see a (thousand) straight lines connecting the end points of the path without touching any tree. this is a waste of the raw material used to lay these paths, waste of time and effort, more lights are needed along the length of this curved path, more turns for the poor bicyclists, and what not! the only thing this is 'saving' is the amount of grass by reducing the area of growth, which, again, is bad!!

reason, i want a reason for this. is it curvy because that is more efficient in some weird civil engineery way that i don't understand? is it curvy because curvy is sexy and appealing? is it curvy because, when seen from high above, it happens to be part of a larger figure like the mystic nazca lines?

give me one good reason why this might have been done the way it is. this is a call to all the readers of this blog (all both of you :D . . . . maybe three) to quench my thirst for wisdom. apart from good reasons, funny reasons are welcome in large numbers.

-wiz "the inquisitive" kid