Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 786

We landed in Calgary last night, stopped for a bowl of pho noodle soup, and then did the three hour drive into the BC interior. This year's " annual " is in Fernie, British Columbia. It's my first time here and the snow is everything I was promised. And since I have been meaning to post more photos on this blog, here are a few that I took today on my iPhone (with only minor edits made in VSCO). More to come, here .

Picking a name for someone or something can be a daunting task. I have never had to name a newborn baby (though I've witnessed lots of people go through that process). But I am often involved in the naming of new buildings. Sometimes that process involves sitting in a room with a list of possible names in front of you, and having to decide which one is optimal. I don't love this approach. Nowadays, I find it's better to have the name naturally emerge early on in the development process, well before there's an actual brand and identity for the project. You want it to accurately embody the vision for the project, the site's history and context, and you want to know that it has some durability over time. Or at least, that's the goal.

On a related note, the New Yorker recently published an interesting piece on why your name matters . In the middle of the 20th century, research suggested that our chosen names were hugely impactful to life outcomes, and that more typical names were better than unusual ones. The theory was something known as the implicit-egotism effect , which basically states that we like things, including names, that most resemble ourselves. We want familiar. Which to me, immediately suggests that this effect must depend on cultural context. What is considered "typical" obviously changes depending on where you are in the world.

Our thinking has advanced since then. More recently we have found that it's not the name itself that creates the better life outcomes. Because if you control for a child's background and upbringing, any sort of name effect seems to disappear. However, names do in fact signal who we are. They imply certain things. Many of us have heard about the studies that use resumes with different names to test how people respond. Names just aren't inherently deterministic. You probably aren't more likely to become a doctor simply because of your name.

Although, I'm not sure that takes much of the pressure off of picking the right one.

Here is an interesting topic for debate.

This week the NY Times reported that a non-profit group called the National Civic Art Society has drafted an executive order that would make classical architecture the default style for all federal buildings in the United States. The draft order is naturally titled: "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again."

Here is an excerpt from the New York Times:

“For too long architectural elites and bureaucrats have derided the idea of beauty, blatantly ignored public opinions on style, and have quietly spent taxpayer money constructing ugly, expensive, and inefficient buildings,” Marion Smith, the group’s chairman, wrote in a text message. “This executive order gives voice to the 99 percent — the ordinary American people who do not like what our government has been building.”

As you can imagine, this proposed order isn't sitting well with many architects (the real kind who, presumably, hold licenses). Thom Mayne of Morphosis put it well with this quote:

“We are a society that is linked to openness of thought, to looking forward with optimism and confidence at a world that is always in the process of becoming. Architecture’s obligation is to maintain this forward thinking stance.”

I think there are many people who would tell you that they prefer classical architecture to modern architecture. And that's totally fine. I don't know how many is many, but I am fairly certain it is not 99% of all Americans. (It would be interesting to know the approximate taste split.)

My strong view is that I don't see the need to mandate a particular architectural style. Let architecture respond to the world around us. Let urban context guide. Like Mayne, I am also drawn to the future, as opposed to the past -- though I certainly appreciate history.

What is your view?

As a side note, classical architecture was used pretty much exclusively for federal buildings up until the 1930s . Architecture school taught me that it was initially chosen because it was seen to embody the ideals of the American democracy.

Photo by  Caleb Perez  on  Unsplash