[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?

[ajuc]

> 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.

I really don't think people in local government are any worse or better than people working in X, for any X. If you think otherways - your choice, but would be nice if you show some proofs.

As a programmer you are making decisions how to use others people money (your code will, and you decide what it does). As an architect you decide how to use others people money. Same for lawyer, banker, insurance agent, business analyst, contractor, ... This is true for most white-collar jobs.

I don't see how you can think local administration clerks are worse and we are better. It's intelectually lazy.

In the worst case - local administration comes from people, and are choosen by people. They are on average only as corrupted, as average citizen.

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

Yes. Apparently they don't care. As long as they get paid for that billboard, and it's legal - they are blind. Look at this:

http://grafik.rp.pl/g4a/905243,471826,9.jpg

http://static.wirtualnemedia.pl/media/images/2013/images/szy...

http://www.poranny.pl/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=KP&Date=2007...

http://ekoszalin.pl/sds/2013/06/11/51b71d299cc20.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/b2/da/d4/z13949618Q,Reklamowy-chaos-w...

Tell me with a straight face it's not out of control.

This is how my country loooks like now. It can be solved, because I've seen it solved in countries like Germany, Czech Republic (and to lesser degree even Lithuania or Slovakia). It's simple - you restrict billboards and advertisments in the city. No need for definition of "bad taste" in law.

Then there's simple bad planning (or no planning). This is most true in new suburban districts. Typical image: http://m.ocdn.eu/_m/45a8af04428ecb9e04a332883176027c,29,1.jp...

Randomly choosen plots, random road network build after the fact so that everybody has some way to drive to their house, no matter in how contrived way. Costs for building infrastructure much higher than if someone spend a month thinking beforehand. Again - chaos. And it can be easily solved with proper urban planning. It's not rocket science.

As for bad taste - this is harder problem, but it can also be solved. Just to show what we are speaking about:

http://www.malak.com.pl/termomodernizacja/elewacje-rozane3.j...

http://www.malak.com.pl/termomodernizacja/elewacje-teczowe2....

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/8974/1118221.jpg

http://naszglospoznanski.pl/wp-content/uploads/przedszkole_f...

This is understandable reaction to 50 years of gray communism, but still. At least the next generation will fix this with some paint.

[sillygeese]

>> 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.

> I really don't think people in local government are any worse or better than people working in X, for any X. If you think otherways - your choice, but would be nice if you show some proofs.

You're not really addressing what I said there.

Why does someone work hard to get into a position of political power, if not to use it to his benefit? Not using it would be like working hard to be able to buy a BMW and then just letting it sit in the garage forever.

> As a programmer you are making decisions how to use others people money (your code will, and you decide what it does).

That's far-fetched, considering the programmer is being paid with private money, to do whatever the company wants him to do.

In other words, it's not even really the programmer deciding what happens with other people's money (to the extent it's even his program deciding anything, and not its user), and you can't be honestly suggesting you don't see a difference between that and a city official using other people's money.

As for the rest, again, you can't legally mandate people to have good taste. Apparently they just don't.

You also ignored my last point. If the building quality is fine because people want good quality, why wouldn't the other stuff be fine too, considering it's guided by what people want (instead of legislation)?

If Polish people want ugly buildings, then that just shows they have bad taste. You can't just command them to have good taste, and whatever Polish central committee would be in charge of new buildings would probably have bad taste too :P

They'll get better. In the meantime, move out if it bothers you enough.

[ajuc]

> You're not really addressing what I said there.

I am - you basicaly said that public sector is more corrupt than average, and you try to prove it by saying:

a) people working in public sector are selected for corruption

b) even if not - all people are suspectible to corruption.

My argument against a) is - you haven't shown any data suggesting that public sector is more corrupt, and you haven't shown any mechanism which should select for corruption in public sector, that isn't also present in private sector.

My argument against b) is - if all people are suspectible to corruption - then why assume they are corrupt by default, when you don't assume the same for people working in private sector?

> Why does someone work hard to get into a position of political power, if not to use it to his benefit? Not using it would be like working hard to be able to buy a BMW and then just letting it sit in the garage forever.

Because he wants the job? You know - to get paid? Or even to do sth he really wants to do? Same reason as people working to be a programmer, architect, lawyer, banker, etc have. All of these positions can be abused, but we don't usually think majority of these people only started doing it to get into position they can abuse.

> That's far-fetched, considering the programmer is being paid with private money, to do whatever the company wants him to do

And public officials are paid with public money to do what people want them to do. They may do that, or try to cheat. Same as the programmer. If you work for a big financial company you have bigger opportunities to steal than most local public officials. And bigger amounts. And it's not nessesarily money of people that hired you - you can just as well steal from clients.

Yes there is source control and they will catch you eventually.

And the same is true for public officials - they have to sign under their decisions.

May I remind you of the reasons for 2008 crisis? It wasn't corruption in public sector. BTW Poland had no banking crisis, because we had strict (and conservative) bank controlling institution (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego) that didn't allowed banks to play with derivatives too much.

I fail to see the difference, especially in practice. I've had no first-hand experience of corruption in public sector. I've had experience with small-scale corruption in private sector (ticket controller in bus offering to let it go for a small bribe).

IMHO it's just that people think "they are bad and we are not".

> You also ignored my last point. If the building quality is fine because people want good quality, why wouldn't the other stuff be fine too, considering it's guided by what people want (instead of legislation)?

I've said it's a combination of many factors - quick predictable feedback loop (harsh weather every year) forces people to look for good quality or predictably and quickly suffer the consequences. Strict legislation forces developers to provide good quality in matters that aren't frequently and predictably tested by forces of nature (fire protection, not falling into pieces).

Esthethics is just higher up the Maslov hierarchy than "being warm and dry", and there's almost no legislation.

Also, the billboards situation is straightforward example of tragedy of commons. If you can't see the actual city behind advets anyway - you may as well put another on your plot and get the money, too.

And you failed to address my point about construction and advertising law in Germany being much stricter than in Poland. It's obviously possible without encoding "good taste" in law.

> They'll get better. In the meantime, move out if it bothers you enough.

That's disingenious. If people moved out instead of trying to improve what they don't like - nothing would get changed, ever. I might have got carried away to start this discussion on international forum. The suggestion of The Economist that making construction law less strict is the way to go triggered me ;)