Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee
Of course it's cheap. In order to make the numbers work, developers of sizable commercial projects in small cities will more often than not choose something lame, claiming they can't afford masonry or assuming city officials and townspeople desperate for economic development won't care or won't know the difference. It's not universally true but widespread and an unfortunate reality. A lot of smaller cities in the last 10, 15 years have seen TOD or "urban style mixed use", usually pitched as some sort of novel concept, and a big chunk of it is truly dreadful architecturally. Pretty much the worst 2000ese clichés and trends that are on their way to looking bad or already are. Not to be gloomy but many will look at some of the stuff currently going up 20 years from now and think "what were they thinking?" in the very same way people look at crap from the 70s and 80s.
|
That's pretty reductive and pessimistic. Smaller urban cities like Easton and Allentown have absolutely seen some very solid high-rise construction with masonry/higher-end materials, so it's absolutely possible in a city like Lancaster, which is at least or more economically sound as the former two.
Lancaster is also a city that very much prides itself on its architecture and historic form, so it's disappointing if this project somehow "fell through the cracks," so to speak regarding an agreement or conditions for material type.
Ballooning material costs I'm sure played a role, as well, but still important to hold developers to account.