Yea I agree with that. It's just the characterization of "destinations" as being undesirable that was weirding me out. I'm a town planner and we talk all the time about strategies to make commercial/civic districts into more appealing destinations. That's a desirable trait! Nothing precludes people from living in areas like that too though

God thank you!! Do people seriously think that builders in past eras were some kind of weird altruistic anomalies who opted for good design over profits? If older buildings are "good architecture", it's because the builders of the past backed into it while pursuing profit and it's because our tastes have been weened on older designs. The fan-favorite "cape house" was designed by Royal Barry Wills not because it looked nice, but because it was the most efficient design that could be pumped out in mass quantities. Now we view it as the quintessential quaint single family home. Who's to say we wont feel the same way in 70-100 years about the 5:1s?

Weird take... Why do people need to live there? What's wrong with an area being a destination? Are you saying that every inch of a city needs to be some kind of "neighborhood" where people live? I don't get your point at all. It's nonsensical. Cities need civic and commercial districts just as much as they need residential ones. City hall could be a better destination if, for example, the concrete plaza was replaced with more interesting commercial development or open space, but to criticize it for being a destination is kinda weird.

Or that's how you know the food will kill you. It's a role of the dice