Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
Given all of the reactionary politics people have around "heritage" buildings, I honestly think it's for the best if we only build bland buildings from here on out. If you make anything remotely nice people will lose their minds if you ever consider tearing it down in the future.
|
Counterpoint: People would be more supportive of new development if the new development was pretty and not ugly. People would be much more supportive of new buildings across the street if it was a nice, ornate, thoughtful building than a glass and steel mess. The argument that we shouldn't build pretty neighbourhoods because people will defend from demolition is not the argument you think it is. People are against development like you say because people fear beautiful buildings being replaced with ugly ones. Nothing is stopping us from continuing to build the nice old buildings people like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
Buildings don't have to be uniform and beautiful to have an extremely livable urban area. If you look at Tokyo or Singapore or hell even Montreal, these are just not very aesthetic cities architecturally but no one would say they're undesirable. Many would say they're the places they'd most like to live. I'd much rather visit Paris or Barcelona than live there.
|
Tokyo is a very ugly city in its built form. It's clean, but ugly (don't post pictures of a nighttime alley or cherry blossoms, that's nothing I haven't already seen before). My argument isn't about livability from a walkability standpoint, but from an aesthetic standpoint. And Montreal? Montreal's older city areas like Plateau are very architecturally thoughtful, and the architecture is quite uniform.
Prev
Linear Mode
