[ametz]

I've been browsing but haven't come upon a satisfactory answer to a question- why is it that more 'radical' designs don't come to fruition? I don't work in a field that's in any way related to architecture (I'm a casual fan), so i'm not privy to what might pass as conventional wisdom on the topic....my dabblings (& common sense) tell me it's surely based in economics, but isn't there economic incentive to build something even the slightest bit daring? Even looking at Lebbeus Woods' sketches here- I tend to doubt that engineering is a major obstacle....if we can throw up (pun intended) some of Frank Ghery's imaginings, there has to be room, and a public appetite, for others who are similarly inclined (but, you know, better)? I understand there's a fine line and, at least in the U.S., an almost obnoxious imperative to 'maximize' square footage, but hasn't history taught us that art can create value beyond the old real estate adage of "location location location"? This isn't rhetorical- I'm asking....in a nutshell, why isn't more cutting edge design executed? Why do we feel lucky if there are more than a handful decent, soul-feeding projects under construction around the globe? I don't think good design is inaccessible- I live in Chicago, have spent some time in the tourism industry, and have seen people from all walks of life recognize great, good, bad, and ugly architecture (if you live or have ever studied my fair city, you should be able to populate each category!). To couch my point in Chicago examples, I can understand when someone puts out something like Trump or OMP- I'm not a big fan of either, but there's an attempt to do something, to create something....and then you go to river north and take a gander at the utter monstrosities that have sprouted in recent years and I think to myself "self, who, exactly, allowed a handful of illiterate, unimaginative 5th graders to design condo towers?? Seriously, sometimes it seems like horrible design is purposely thrust upon us.