I'm skeptical of architectural preservationism but I don't think the "Most Beautiful McDonalds In America" really helped his case, because I can't imagine anyone preferring a standard McDonalds to the retrofit Georgian Mansion he's singled out.
The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
41–50 of 56 posts
Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
#42> Locals seem to be content with all four developments If the locals like it, and they're the ones who are going to be using it and looking at it all the time, then frankly who cares what the "reception online" is?
Irony alert: I suspect if you asked those behind a thing titled "American Conservative" if they liked federalism, they would say yes. But the gist of this article seems to be that they don't like local control of regulation.
This is all very off-topic, but if it clarifies: libertarian-conservatives (the kind this publication caters to) prefer local control over centralized control, and also prefer less regulation to more regulation. So a libertarian-conservative would rather Arizona control beautician licensing standards than the federal government, but would also prefer the abolition of beautician licensing altogether. It's a coherent world view.
Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
#43The one in Bergen, Norway is in a historical building and has avoided the excessive branding: https://www.google.dk/maps/place/McDonald's+Bryggesporen/@60...
Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
#44The one in Bergen, Norway is in a historical building and has avoided the excessive branding: https://www.google.dk/maps/place/McDonald's+Bryggesporen/@60...
heh! looks like a cheap knockoff!
Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
#45It makes a bit more sense when you realize that many buildings outlast the businesses in them. These buildings are unlikely to be McDonalds restaurants forever.
But for stuff that's easily changeable (like color and signs), it seems excessive.
Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the GP, but I think that the optimizations that lead each locality to have a distinct look came from local minima and maxima (e.g. availability of building materials, local construction practices, function of the building, desire to please the local population, as well as profit maximization), while the average McDonald's, as a for-instance of corporate design, comes from much more global minima and maxima. It's…
Right, the iconic look of the buildings in Paris is entirely a result of a regulatory loophole on building height and the Parisians “maximizing profit” in that environment.
Are you talking about the typical 6 story walkup? I thought that was mainly due to Napoleons head of urban renewal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Eug%C3%A8ne_Haussmann
So less of a loophole and more of a direct outcome
Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irony alert: I suspect if you asked those behind a thing titled "American Conservative" if they liked federalism, they would say yes. But the gist of this article seems to be that they don't like local control of regulation.
This is all very off-topic, but if it clarifies: libertarian-conservatives (the kind this publication caters to) prefer local control over centralized control, and also prefer less regulation to more regulation. So a libertarian-conservative would rather Arizona control beautician licensing standards than the federal government, but would also prefer the abolition of beautician licensing altogether. It's a coherent w…
I don't see it as very coherent, because if you favor local control you should favor a local community reflecting its own priorities, deciding to regulate more or less. Obviously there are abundant places that decide to regulate less. Throw in a zealous belief in free market principles (which these types tend to claim) and then I would say: a diverse set of regulatory environments should help markets find the best.
Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
#48There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation happens after somebody buys a piece of property to develop it. I think it would be far fairer to the purchaser (and the seller, who makes out like a bandit unfairly) to mandate a 90 day stay when a large parcel is sold to allow for filing of historical paperwo…
What does any of this have to do with McDonald's?
In other words, McDonald's is the David going up against local historic authority Goliath in this narrative, or what exactly?
Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the GP, but I think that the optimizations that lead each locality to have a distinct look came from local minima and maxima (e.g. availability of building materials, local construction practices, function of the building, desire to please the local population, as well as profit maximization), while the average McDonald's, as a for-instance of corporate design, comes from much more global minima and maxima. It's…
Right, the iconic look of the buildings in Paris is entirely a result of a regulatory loophole on building height and the Parisians “maximizing profit” in that environment.
Fun story on current building height regulation in Paris: my brother was working on a renovation project, where most of the building was demolished, including most of the floors, except the four walls and the roof, since the building predates the current height restriction and is taller than the max height: if they had removed the roof, the new building would have been smaller, so they kept the roof to keep the same (above-regulation) height
Re: The Urban Planning Behind America’s Weirdest McDonald’s
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about it? If there's ever a mass exodus to Freeport ME, the people trying to service that need will follow the rules while serving the need. Or they'll get out of that market and someone else will do it. In the "worst" case the local property owners get higher prices which is a win, and the aesthetic rules maintain the (presumed) attractiveness of the town, which is a win. Shrug emoji? The locals hold all the ca…
> the local property owners get higher prices which is a win Preventing people from being able to afford a place to live so entrenched interests can accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment appreciation is not a “win”. Even if you think that the interests of long term “locals” should be privileged (which I disagree with, all men are created equal yada yada), rising property prices don’t benefit all local…
In other words it's a win for the winners, just like capitalism as usual. I can't fix capitalism. The people making these laws are the same ones benefiting, was my point. They win because they hold all the cards. We can talk all day about whether they should win. On the "they shouldn't" side, you can make a "free enterprise" argument like this article seems to, or an "equity" argument like you seem to be doing. They're both sound arguments, and meanwhile contrariwise I also buy the argument that being in a place should afford you some amount of self-determination. There's no clear right answer and no moral high ground, just different groups of people fighting over who gets the resources... again sort of "as usual."