3 ms·

I'm not arguing about what's aesthetic or not. I'm saying that a city should explicitly pick one: either have all the same design because that's how you want th

I'm not arguing about what's aesthetic or not. I'm saying that a city should explicitly pick one: either have all the same design because that's how you want the city to be, or have varied designs because the alternative is the above without the honesty. I would prefer the latter because I think 'modern' designs aren't modern at all and are instead cheaply executed clones of what was transgressive architecture 50 years ago. But I appreciate that the city should make decisions based on what everyone wants-- not just me, but also not just developers.

angarg12 3y ago
But don't they already do? either cities have strict rules about how buildings look like (rare) or they don't. Probably what you are seeing is just a side effect of the slow effect of gentrification. When you have old houses in desirable parts of town, it's often better to level them to ground and build a new one rather than refurbish it. New builds are mostly dominated by contemporary aesthetics because... well, they are what's fashionable now. If this happened in the 90s, you would have a lot of Mc Mansions with 90s aesthetics, and in 20-30 years you'll get houses with whatever style is popular then.