div>
---------- Post added at 11:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------
Originally Posted by
az_gila
Same goes for the city/urban planners or whatever they call themselves now.
They follow the world-wide trend of forcing the population into denser housing and to be near "transportation hubs" - but if you ever meet one, ask them where they live.
I think this is a bit different from being forced to live in a house foisted on you by a 'selfish architect' (see below).
Compact cities are a good idea for the planet and I would live in the centre of a city (in a 'vibrant, diverse and walkable' environment) every time
It is about choice (moral and financial). Some people have more choice than others but a city that offers as much variety (ie., choice, to suit different moral stand-points and financial circumstances) as possible will be a winner...
---------- Post added at 11:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------
Originally Posted by
Ged
...You're right in that the architects would never live in these, just try to make selfish personal statements and let some poor other buggers be the guinea pigs.
...I would also have lived in a lot of the buildings that have since become derelict. Including the Radcliffe Estate (before it got trashed).
In fact, there's a bit of a tendency with architects to live in otherwise 'unsatisfactory' designs - from the Trellick Tower to the Barbican Centre which is now very des res (originally 60s council flats - and it's a bit more than a hundred yards to the parking there).
Personally, I have never designed anything that I wouldn’t live or work in and I don’t know any architects that have.
But for sure if someone asked me to design a residential scheme at (say) £100 per sq ft, I’d do it (and do a good job for the money) but at the same time if I could afford to live in a house that cost £105 per sq ft, I’d do that too. I imagine anyone would do the same.
Bookmarks