I just wanted to post this to say that it's not always obvious how much has gone into each work, and to provoke a little more thought about developers being like any other company - defined by their people, who often do care about things that aren't always immediately apparent.
I see what you are saying, but I disagree. Your post is a defense of the individuals within these companies/corporations (who I have no doubt are often great people who are passionate about their work and are doing their very best to have the best results from their projects), more than a defense of the companies themselves. I am not criticizing the people as individuals, or their work. I am making critiques about the final product not doing justice to the hard work of individuals within the system; and a big part of that is bureaucracy and, absolutely, the emphasis placed on the bottom-line. Companies are not a group of
individuals-- they are
systems operating within capitalism. They are their own beast and they take on their own life. And the behaviour of hard-working individuals is bound within the corporation at large; so unfortunately, a lot of professional opinions or passions for a cause are lost in the mix.
I am of the opinion that we need to continue to improve the frameworks that corporations operate in. Politically I have long felt this way, but studying architecture has made it even more clear to me... i.e. In architecture school we learn the best ways to design to various ends, including sustainable design and environmental performance. But none of that matters in the real world if developers do not allow their architects to design sustainable projects and then subsequently invest in-- and build-- them. And generally, if we do not demand it in the planning framework, in the building code, or on a government level, it will not happen en masse, because companies, being driven by profit, will not make that extra investment until it becomes the most profitable way to build. (And that's not a criticism. What else do you expect a developer to do? Their very job is to profit and grow. I am not faulting them for that. That's the reality of the system we exist in.) Our public art program in Toronto has its benefits, but it could be greatly improved.
None of this is a criticism of the individuals that you know and have met who work within these companies. Hell, I am just a cog in the system like any other person in the industry. But it's for that very reason that critique of the corporations we work within are very important. It's how we improve things with time.
A criticism of the
systemic is not a criticism of the
individual. And so long as I see potential not met (especially working at architecture firms where developers consistently cut out the environmentally sustainable features of designs, to re-use that example), I will be critical of the system at hand and seek ways to improve it. In this case it's public art, but sustainability is another thing that we need to keep publicly mandating and supporting as much as possible.
Many writers for UT have the pleasure and privilege of meeting representatives of development corporations. But don't fall for the fiction of corporate personhood. The (often good) actions of individuals within these companies are bound by the company, the planning system/regulations we have in place, and the standard that we hold our developers to. I feel that often when a developer is criticized, many other UTers respond defensively. A criticism of a developer does not mean the individual criticizing them has a one-dimensional view on development corporations. It might in fact mean that we have a very nuanced view of the development industry, and are ourselves bound by it.
I don't post as much here these days but I had to say this. Sorry for the huge wall of text, but thank you for reading.
