Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
I am far more concerned about the inside of the building that the outside.
As a taxpayer, assuming taxpayer funding is part of the project, I have no interest in paying for an architectural marvel. If I'm bucking up for the building, I'm happy with a plain exterior, with the majority of the money spent on the 'experience' inside the building.
If the Flames are footing the bill, then by all means, let's build the most technologically advanced, avant-garde design a world famous architect can dream up.
|
This is pretty much the opposite of my view. If it's privately funded, then by all means you can have a chewing tabacco tin like Rexall. If the taxpayer is paying for it, then it needs to do something even for the people who won't be using it.
Architecture adds to the public wealth of the city. Whereas private developers have a duty to be cost effecient (at least if they're publically traded), the government can and should go further.