[toss1]

>>any "artistic" deviation from structural optimality will necessarily use more material to achieve the same sturdiness, and hence cost more

A slavish adherence to this maxim condemns our age to a plague of depressing ugliness in our commercial and governmental structures

There are phrases for this, starting with "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish".

I have little doubt that the persistent lack of inspiration, or even whimsy, in architecture helps undermine our society's coherence. If no one builds anything of which we can collectively take pride and experience joy, where is the inspiration for cohesion?

There are myriad examples of wonderful government or commercial architecture from centuries ago. Centuries from now, will anybody GAF about any of today's structures?

We can do better, and it is more than worth it to do so.

[benj111]

I kind of disagree.

If you design something well, it can be beautiful and functional and doesn't have to cost more.

But then I quite like big standard pylons, so each to their own.

[Dylan16807]

"worth the cost" is a very different argument from trying to pretend there is no cost.

And those tiny ground contact areas don't look cheap to stabilize.