Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center
^100%. We all share this city and the general public bears the joy or burden of looking at these buildings on a daily basis. The public deserves to have architecture that is visually pleasing and inspirational. Buildings are privately owned but still can be a public good. This is why concepts like historical preservation exists.
People have the right to not like something, without having to have a billion dollars of financing ready to go.
|
The public has no right to decide architectural design of a private building on private property. The design of a building is expression - protected by the 1st Amendment and the people (i.e "rabble") have no right to impose a viewpoint on an artist (architect, builder) via government edict.
I would love to be able to make Mart Center go away or to be able to somehow eliminate brutalist architecture (ala 55 W. Wacker), but I don't own the property, so I can't make someone do that.
Having and expressing an opinion is just fine, but no, the public has no right to demand that private parties spend way more money on something than they willl make back in a reasonable time, nor impose an artistic direction on a private party.