A perfect emblem of how establishment Canadians talk about architecture: This is a good building because people were listened to, the architects said the expected things, I imagine this area could be a hub, and [vague or incorrect claims about the actual architecture]
I witnessed a talk by Condon once. He implied that building an affordable home in Vancouver cost $15,000.
You can’t make my mistakes like that, or do things like this, and expect to be taken seriously as a policy thinker
It’s a bloated shed on a steep hill surrounded by traffic sewers and empty space. It has absolutely nothing in common, on any level, with the Montreal Grande Bibliotheque
“Best of all, the public was consulted in meaningful ways.”
Consultation isA more important than the actual characteristics of the building
you, naive: seattle and NYC elect democratic socialist mayors and win championships
me, wise: seattle and NYC elected pro-single stair mayors and win championships
Context is everything: “The lavish US$850-million project stands apart from the surrounding low-income neighbourhoods. It honours a leader whose career began with community organizing, but delivers architecture that is oppressively monumental.”
– by @alexbozikovic.bsky.social
It’s great to want a mix of activities and people to use public transit. But just because you made a new building and said the magic words does not mean that you will get these things.
It actually matters how a building is designed, and how it’s programmed, and where it is.
The Obama Presidential Center in Chicago’s South Side is a mix of messages
It does not bode well for Patrick Condon's academic talk about Seattle's land use code when he is using AI GENERATED SLOP AS MAPS FOR HIS TALK, and doesn't understand that the whole city's base height is 3-4 stories, not just the fantasy realm colored in here.
This talk is going to be great.
