07-03-2021, 02:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2021, 02:22 PM by danbrotherston.)
(07-03-2021, 12:53 PM)ac3r Wrote:(07-03-2021, 12:37 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Yeah, I really appreciate you calling my home disgusting and horrible.
That being said, your example is one of the plainest building in KW, few to no other buildings look that way and the proposed building certainly does not.
Of course, I would STILL advocate for housing, because I'd rather live in a home in that city than be homeless in what you feel is a nicer city.
Look, I get your point. All I am saying is that we live in a nation/society where we can (though arguably, we're not doing it ideally) both construct homes and make them look nice. If a building looks bad, why should it get approved? These buildings are going to be here for decades. Do you really want a city filled with ugly high rises everywhere you look? They tried that in Russia and ended up with Khrushchyovka. There is plenty of architectural and psychological research that has been done on how the "aesthetic beauty" (or lack there of) impacts the psychology of those people who live within them. This was one reason why public housing projects in North America generally turned into very undesirable, hostile places. The uglier your surroundings are, the more negative your experience will be. And often, it contributes to a faster decline in desirability.
Now, 890-900 King Street West is not social housing, nor are the student condos in Waterloo. But nonetheless, the uglier the building, the greater the negative impact is on those people who live there. We can have both ample housing and make it look good. This is just extremely lazy architecture. Cheap developers, hiring cheap architects, giving them a very limited budget which results in ugly buildings all so they can make...profit. The people who live there don't matter to them, they just see them as $ signs.
Frankly, I'd rather we develop Waterloo Region in a way where our living, working and shopping spaces are aesthetically pleasing and inviting rather than, well, ugly.
You continue to disparage my home. What I am telling you is that I do not feel most of the condos in our city are "ugly" and that is a matter of opinion. You are welcome to believe that some buildings are ugly. But I am also allowed not to agree. And ultimately looks are a subjective matter.
The condo buildings we are discussing are not plain or austere developments, they nor do they look like the student housing development you highlighted. (Nor for that matter do most of the student developments look like that). They are simply modern buildings. You might not like the look of them, but I don't find them particularly problematic.
As for "if a building looks bad should it get approved"...WHO should decide if a building looks bad? Why do YOU get to make that decision and I don't? Why should ANYONE get to make that decision other than the person building it.