[sillygeese]

> You can have too loose construction law, and the result is a city centre were nobody lives - people just commute to work and back.

It's not that Poland (or any other country) needs more laws. It's a problem of incentives, or lack thereof.

If a construction company has bribed politicians to keep giving them lucrative gigs on other people's money, they will have no incentive to actually do a good job.

If, on the other hand, there were free competition among construction companies, they would all strive to do their best so that they would be awarded more gigs in the future.

It's as simple as "corruption", but that's a misnomer because that's just the system working as intended. What's the point of being a city official if you're not in a position to get bribes one way or another?

With great power comes great.. opportunities for collecting bribes!

[ajuc]

I don't think the corruption is the main problem here. Nobody pays bribes to paint their commie block in fuchsia-green stripes (it's a thing here, I guess because of 50 years of shades of gray everywhere). Or to put 20-meter tall billboard on their small plot in front of XIII-th century castle. Or to build "Mountainer style one-family-house" between 16th century tenament houses. With huge brick wall all over it, and billboards on every square meter of the wall. It's chaos.

It's just that after communism people consider all regulation "communist-like restriction of God-given freedom".

It changes slowly for last few years, but '90s and '00s were awful.

[sillygeese]

You seem to be describing the results of shitty construction companies getting gigs even though they produce shitty, "chaotic" results. But you somehow don't think it's because of "corruption" anyway?

Do you think you need a law that says "construction companies must build sturdy, reliable, good-looking buildings in good taste, or else!" .. ?

Do you think everything would be fine then?

[ajuc]

> You seem to be describing the results of shitty construction companies getting gigs even though they produce shitty, "chaotic" results.

My examples were of people building or "upgrading" their houses by themselves and covering them in billboards. No developer or corruption needed. They have the right to do that - it pays (or it satisfies their needs) so they do that. Externalities be damned.

Sure, there is some corruption, but that's irrelvant, if there was law forbidding building malls with huge parking lots in a historic center there would be no malls and parking lots there, no matter the amount of corruption. Law isn't outright broken, just the corner cases are abused, and law covers very little of what it should.

> Do you think you need a law that says "construction companies must build sturdy, reliable, good-looking buildings in good taste, or else!" .. ?

There is no problem with "sturdiness". It's in the law, and people obey. The winter/summer cycle here ensures people don't skimp on good quality.

I think there should be law specifying which kind of buildings should be build in which region. Incliding details like "which kind of roof", "how high", etc. There's nothing wrong with one-family housing, but the kind of fence you can use should be specified. Otherways people build 3-meters-high solid walls to have village in the midle of city.

There should be ban on huge billboards in the city center. It's not some evil corporations donig it, it's small few-person or family companies. They are engaged in spiraling war for attention, covering cities with bigger and bigger ads. It's out of control, like banners on early '00s internet. And there's no adblock for brain.

[sillygeese]

> Sure, there is some corruption, but that's irrelevant [..] Law isn't outright broken, just the corner cases are abused, and law covers very little of what it should.

How could it possibly be irrelevant? We're talking about countless millions of dollars (over time) of other people's money being used here. Why would anyone work hard to get himself into a position to decide who gets it, if there was nothing in it for him?

You want more regulation, but what exactly do you want the laws to say? If there's no problem with quality, what is the problem?

If the problem is just that you personally don't like X, Y and Z, then there is no real problem.

[ajuc]

> Why would anyone work hard to get himself into a position to decide who gets it, if there was nothing in it for him?

Well if you like to believe EVERYBODY in local administration is corrupted - your choice. I don't think so. Just like I don't think every programmer that writes software for banks - plants logic bombs and backdoors.

> If there's no problem with quality, what is the problem?

There is a problem with esthethic. I think I was clear about that. There is a problem with prioritising cars over everything else. Parking lots and 3-lane roads dividing city into small non-walkable parts. People escaping to suburbs. Growing traffic jams and growing commute times caused by that.

Quality isn't a problem, because there are strict laws about it. And it's quite easy to control. And people don't like to live in houses that can fall apart, or that are badly insulated, when it can be -20 C in winter and +35 C in summer.

On the other hand they have no issues with living in ugly city, designed as a drive-through. Or if they do - they react by escaping to suburbs, not by improving the city.

I don't know what the laws should be exactly, but I know it can be done, because Czechs and Germans did it much better than we.

[sillygeese]

> Well if you like to believe EVERYBODY in local administration is corrupted - your choice.

Even if you don't believe they're all psychopaths, even normal people act according to incentives, and no one does anything without some sort of (perceived) benefit to themselves.

So when an official is deciding how to use other people's money, he will be trying to gain personally from his position, and that's where bribes come in.

But yes, in reality, they're pretty much all psychopaths, and they get themselves into positions of power because 1) that's what they crave (as psychos), and 2) they get to use their political power for their personal gain.

Look at what they do, look at the way politicians and officials have behaved everywhere since forever, and.. you'll have to accept that I'm right.

> There is a problem with esthethic. I think I was clear about that.

But you can't legally mandate good taste because most people just don't have it, and the same problems apply everywhere. So what's the real problem and how do you think laws would solve it?

> And people don't like to live in houses that can fall apart, or that are badly insulated

Do people want to look at buildings that are clearly just plain ugly? Do they want chaos and mayhem?

Of course not. So if you think quality is fine because people want quality, why wouldn't the other stuff be fine too if it's guided by what people want?