Quote:
Originally Posted by realm0854
well i wouldn't say that iconic towers are the ideal solution. but as phallic and ego-assertive as they are, towers are better than sprawl. sprawl de-localizes individual cities and destroys the subtle qualities of scale, texture, use, material, etc. that otherwise define them. towers, at least, identify a place.
as for better solutions, i think the answer on a broad-scale could lie in planning reform that encourages a sort of 'self-build' program, wherein individuals are more involved in the design and development of new projects in their communities and zoning could be made much more flexible to provide for projects that deviate from conventional models. on a small-scale, there has to be increased importance on better materials, details, and design quality. this can only be achieved by reprioritizing our goals when we construct new buildings and will require a (not impossible) social revolution of sorts. i like to think of this as 'responsive development' - buildings that propose new additions to the city which actively try to engage existing conditions and build on them.
|
Maybe, but from the looks of it - I see around 20 to 50 different developers making things around here devoted to suburban development. Of course, some, if not many, of these include apartments, townhouses and rowhouses. Of course, I think Edmonton is a lot more compact than others because there isn't that many people who make more than what a tradesman makes.
*shrug*
All I know is that the houses are architecturally different than elsewhere. Developers still don't deviate all that far from what has been tried and tested, giving a culture of architecture to develop.