HERITAGE, URBAN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY

Recent media debates on Heritage Building retention in Auckland hilight one of the dilemmas of a growing city.  GOOD URBAN OUTCOMES AND DEMOCRACY ARE NOT GOOD BEDFELLOWS!
Most of the cities we flock to and love in Europe were the result of autocratic impositions by the Church or State - Rome, Paris, Sienna, Washington, London - the list is endless.  The 'people' had little say in the outcome.
The 20th century franchised people power - so here in NZ we have two often opposing forces:
1.  The initiators - usually driven by architects or urban designers.  Much of it is good - real good - but most of the proposed works reflects the current fashions now so brilliantly promted by sycophantic journalists and clever photographers.   It is usually clothed in impressive rhetoric with analyses justifying the outcomes.
2.  The 'opinion of the people' - usually media articles promoting a dissenting view and seeking to sensationalise the issues.   But in so doing, they often provide the necessary interrogation of proposals and a valuable dose of common sense!
So the challenge is to get the benefit of talented and innovative design while retaining the things that matter.   The designers, despite persuasive presentations and glowing rhetoric, are usually following global trends - which is good in that it represents a body of knowledge and experience.   The commentators on the other hand, often represent values that are important to people.   They also often make much out of minority opinions and feed off the general resistance to change.
It all points to the need for enlightened leadership and Governance  - so that the best decision on the outcome is made.  We cannot afford to have our cities designed in newspaper articles - but on the other hand, idealistic designs must be grounded in local needs and aspirations.
The best result will usually fall somewhere in the middle.