Quote:
Originally Posted by itputsthelotionon
I Understand what you are saying here- but then how are other places doing this? How is it in European countries like Netherlands, Denmark, Germany we have social and low income housing that looks interesting? Is their budget much more then ours? Is our budget so low that this is all we can make? or is it a lack of creativity and risk tasking? Often times things do not have to be over the top expensive to look interesting, but too many new buildings in this city take the easy way out. We take zero risks in Hamilton. Often times there are too many voices and opinions and we go with what is safe too often.
|
To be fair, yes, they have more funding. We separate things like art and architecture. Both have value. The government will find millions of dollars in art projects, but when it comes to building designs that impact the built environment they are required to be as cheap as possible because they are social housing. Europe doesn't believe anything should be ugly along with an excuse that it should be because of who it's for.
I can also understand where people are coming from. I'd rather more housing over beauty. But I also think Europe can make those decisions because of relatively better tax usage, and reduced suburban sprawl causing much more stable and sustainable tax base. Hamilton will be in a much better position in 20 years after we stop suburban sprawl, attract employment and stop allowing single family housing, and build proper transit. But it will take decades and political will since so few people want to see this happen.
Threaded Mode