Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkawall
Simplicity, having just joined this forum, I have a pretty good sense of what you don't like, but what is your take on what makes a successful building, development, neighbourhood or city? What local or national examples should we looking to follow?
Should we be suspicious of architects -- reasonably so in some circumstances undoubtedly -- but not also of developers? Do developers benefit from some Friedmanesque independence from the biases that plague architects, planners and governments and make for poor decisions and bad buildings?
The sentiment that "developers don't owe you [all of us? just architects?] —" strikes me as worrying if true. It seems to me that those entrusted with large tracts of public space in cities have a larger responsibility because it affects the whole city, potentially. They aren't running a corner store. So yes, it seems to me that even if "—" is what we often seem to get, it's a whole lot less than we're owed. So how do we improve things, from design and planning through to the everyday habitation of these buildings and spaces?
I guess I joined at the wrong time. I think of these forums as places for the progressive discussion and healthy debate on where to go from here as a city and a province. But lately it's reading more like the (unmoderated) op-ed/comments pages of our local newspapers.
best,
k
|
Why? Because everything costs money. Because every square foot of space that isn't completely leasable or saleable becomes the developer's problem.
Since margins are as thin as they are, whose problem should this become? Are developers a public service?
This idea that free lunches are just around the corner but are being ignored needs to stop already.
Every person at every end of every development transaction is a hand out that needs to get paid. That's their livelihood. Who is going to take the discount to fund your 'progressive' ideas of public spaces at private expense and luxuries nobody is willing to pay for? I hear architects talking about this stuff all the time. Well, let's not kid ourselves. If the architects kicked in their typical 10% or so on a large project downtown where what you're suggesting applies, lots could be done for that. But they won't work for free, will they. But the
developer should? The person taking all of the
actual risk? Come on.
I'm always hearing about what developers ought to do for the public good. I'm absolutely
never hearing how it's going to be paid for and how somebody intends to bend the laws of incentives in a way that will encourage private investment into something as exceptionally risky as development while ensuring even less return than is already out there.
Please. Next time somebody wants to make a comment about how a developer should be doing this, or doing that, I want some actual (knowledgeable) commentary on how there is a business case to support it.
All this — about developers owing the greater good is no different than people demanding restaurants feed the homeless for free because their refrigerators are full...
If you want to improve things, you'll need to figure out a way to make everybody take less than a living wage: architects down to the guy wiring the plugs. Then, when you're done with that, you can try to engineer demand in a way that makes people pay far more than they currently are. I wish you the best of luck with that.
We get what we get here because our economy is what it is. It produces high labour rates and relatively low corresponding values. If you want something more, move to a bigger city with a more vibrant economy.
Prev
Linear Mode
