Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
There's truth to this of course, but design isn't just an incentivized quality - it's a culturally ingrained one as well. And in the same way that aesthetics and style are just more deeply ingrained in some cultures than others, so too do some of them have a more advanced design culture.
This affects the entire development & architecture ecosystem, as at all levels - from developer to architect to end buyer - there's a higher taste level, and demand for good design. This subsequently affects market choices, as design is used to sell the product. Poor design becomes a liability to maximizing profit (less demand, so lower prices), so builders avoid building ugly buildings.
We can see how this plays out even just within Canada - the rules, incentives, and economics don't differ drastically from city to city; yet the median level of design quality certainly does.
|
Maybe; I'd have to give that one some more thought tho I'm sure there's additional detail that's hard to account for. And all of the three categories I mentioned have cultural influences at their core. Anything planners and governments prescribe for design is based on the prevailing cultural beliefs about aesthetics in the field of planning as well as by public consultation. And the various ways that the public officials are influenced including feedback from constituents, their own aesthetic norms, and lobbyist influence. And the willingness of corporations to spend extra on things like flagship headquarters for the sake of their image and branding are based on how such branding is received by the public.
And at the same time, I haven't actually noticed a huge difference in quality across the country beyond the differing incentives. There are obviously differences in individual buildings, but differences in the overall average design standards don't seem that different beyond the differences in size. Government buildings don't seem terribly different in quality in Montreal vs Winnipeg or Hamilton while highrise residential towers seem surprisingly consistent as well. There are highrise residential "commie blocks" in every part of the country and every city large enough for highrises seems to have the ubiquitous blue glass spandrel condo towers that prevailed between 2000-2020. Of course places with more residential towers obviously have more. And such buildings in one part of the country are often interchangeable with those in others. I don't find a commie block or blue-glass tower in Montreal - a city associated with high design standards by many - any more attractive than one in the rest of the country on average.
But there are definitely big differences in incentives such as large cities with prominent downtowns seen and visited by more people offer a greater incentive for branding. And of course with B, there are big differences in the economics between markets. Like, something that is economically feasible in Vancouver due to the much higher real estate prices might not be in say, Halifax. Yeah i dunno.
Prev
Linear Mode
