Mark
Lamster makes some excellent points but just misses the single issue that does
drive the creation of crappy architecture. For private development, a project’s
economic viability is determined by how much investment capital (or at what
terms) the pro-forma attracts. From what I understand, the quality of design
will be referenced in a very abstract manner, if at all. The community, social
and environmental impacts that determine a project’s success over time and in
the eyes of the public are not explicitly valued. This begets the race to the
bottom of code and zoning compliance that we see every day. So long as that
remains the case, you can expect crappy architecture to continue to flourish.
A friend recently posted a meme about rising income inequality to Facebook. One of the comments was a link to a piece from Economics Explained with the provocative title " How The Dutch Economy Shows We Can't Reduce Wealth Inequality With Taxes " I'm starting to see a pattern in these sorts of economics articles: 1. Make a pointed and contrarian claim about the power of economics to address a major issue in contemporary society (taxes won't fix inequality). 2. Compare related economics concepts that have much narrower definitions than the ones that drew in the reader (GINI vs income & wealth inequality vs a few specific aspects of Dutch taxes and culture). 3. Add some artfully selected facts to keep people interested (Heineken family info). 4. Also artfully avoid saying explicitly that the narrow comparison proves or disproves anything specific about the broader societal problem. 5. Make a generally agreeable statement about the world: Inequality doesn't ...
Comments
Post a Comment