"but I'll take unregulated variety over forced aesthetics anyday" I doubt it really. The 'enforced aesthetic' in North American regions generally are very poo

"but I'll take unregulated variety over forced aesthetics anyday" I doubt it really. The 'enforced aesthetic' in North American regions generally are very poorly conceived in the first place and are usually utilitarian, not actually aesthetic. Typically 'forced aesthetic' only happens in places wherein there is a strong and obvious history in the area. Vienna, Stockholm, Zurich as easy and obvious examples. This 'forced aesthetic' is also culturally impinged, meaning that it's kind of what people would do anyhow. Would you seriously consider knocking down and old building in Zurich and putting up a McMansion? I doubt it. It might be an impossible thing to do from scratch, wherein there are no obvious references either. A 'new development' in Switzerland could easily have it. A suburb of Chicago ... probably not. It would take an enormous degree of thoughtfulness and careful consideration to do in most places in North America, but it might be possible, particularly in places like New England. I could see a village in Maine saying 'no new development within the township unless it meets colonial era criteria' or something like that. Without it, you get a deluge a true kind of blandness of hyper mediocrity. A lack of critical mass around cultural ideals, meaning corporate developments rule: a shopping mall on every corner. Every city council and local government official wants to 'increase the GDP', and a few new Wallmarts and a 'Starbucks on Every Corner of our Community' would do just that - so it takes quite a lot of cultural momentum to keep those things in check. And I'm just scratching the surface: how we design our living spaces goes a long way to defining who we are as a people as well.