Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronamut
There's no reason you can't have both. Once again the "this is for the less fortunate so the building has to look less fortunate" argument wins out. We're supposed to be a first world country. What the hell are people gonna think of our architecture 100 years from now.. "oh it looked shitty, but hey, functional, amirite?"
I mean they even made orphanages in the past look pretty. Thank god for the building on the right I guess.
|
That's not the argument though. The argument is it's a charity so 1) there's significant less capital upfront to build something nice and 2) very limited resources are better spent on actually looking after the people that will live there.
In 100 years people won't think "oh it looked shitty, but hey, functional, amirite?", but rather "oh look, that facility that did incredible work and looked after people who needed help the most".