Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
I think it does. I think you get a more interesting variety of projects with a more diverse appearance rather than all buildings looking almost the same as in so much new construction in San Francisco, built to satisfy the tastes of a few people in the Planning Dept. And I think the marketplace would prod developers to compete on aesthetics and quality. Some may go for schlock--and they will have trouble selling or renting in their projects.
I think London's buildings are, on the whole, far more interesting that San Francisco's. But I also think it doesn't much matter what you or I as individuals think. In a city of a million people, there are a million opinions about what is attractive or desirable.
|
I understand where your head is but I don't think anyone wants the entire city to look the same all over.
My original point was that these value-engineered projects might not be aesthetically 'interesting' but a higher standard for qualifiable materials would help them age better, fit contextually, and likely be more visually appealing AND retain their value—both the now and decades from now.
A perfect example of quality materials aiding in the success of a project is
Kennerly's Bill Sorro or even
DBA's 500 Turk. Whether you think they're visually appealing or not, they're a great precedent for how much nicer (even below market rate) projects would turn out if the city encouraged better finishes. i.e. No matter how many opinions there are about what's 'attractive or desirable' there's a massive difference between terracotta and stucco.