I actually live in an area where a major apartment building collapsed with fatalities that included a coworker, so we should qualify risk.
If a building is unsafe and beyond cost-effective rehabilitation, it should come down. Undoubtedly, this new generation of buildings will grow old and follow this path, as has everything before.
Risk in style and ornamentation is a different matter, and of secondary concern.
I would far prefer to reside in a stylistically hideous but structurally sound building than anything that places my safety at risk, no matter how elegant.
Structural safety standards is pretty much independent of style and design and rarely if ever is the reason why buildings get delayed by process. The standards are well known, widespread, often rational, evaluated by experts and almost never aesthetic beyond "you need railings for stairs" and such. Even countries where building is effectively unrestricted, like Japan, has no problem in enforcing safety standards.
The general safety issues of buildings tend to increase as they age, as new safety standards come into place, so making it hard to replace old buildings actually tends to decrease safety!
Also they tend to be hidden so anybody at a neighborhood review meeting is not even going to understand what was done unsafely.
yes, i definitely meant risk in aesthetic design, not risk in safety or structural design. building codes to specify safety standards are unquestionably a good thing.
If a building is unsafe and beyond cost-effective rehabilitation, it should come down. Undoubtedly, this new generation of buildings will grow old and follow this path, as has everything before.
Risk in style and ornamentation is a different matter, and of secondary concern.
I would far prefer to reside in a stylistically hideous but structurally sound building than anything that places my safety at risk, no matter how elegant.