Is it the architect? The developer? Or perhaps the city? The correct answer, it would seem, is whoever has the most followers on social media:

For the Norwegian branch of the social media movement Architectural Uprising, this revision was another feather in its cap. Founded in Sweden in 2014 as a public Facebook group, the Uprising is a collective of citizen design critics who object to what organizers call the “continued uglification” of developments in Nordic cities, and push for a return to classically informed design. With more than 100,000 social media followers across some 40 different branches, the group now serves as a significant platform for those who assert that the public, not just bureaucrats, architects, developers and property owners, ought to have a voice in the design of their built environments.

As a developer and person who studied architecture, I find this frustrating. Imagine you're a painter working in a busy public square. And every time somebody walks by and shouts a new criticism, you need to change your art. How would you feel about your work?

Now assume that your painting is an expensive commission. Your clients just re-mortgaged their home to pay for it and they specifically asked you for a painting that looks like something from Henri Matisse's "Blue Nudes" collection.

Unfortunately, the crowd in the public square wasn't a fan of the color blue or of abstract figures, and so you've instead rendered dozens of well-fed Renaissance figures sitting in a lively garden eating grapes. "Sorry, hope you like it. This is what the critics wanted."

Look, I may be stretching here. I fully appreciate that architecture is inherently a more public form of art than painting. I just think it's important to give entrepreneurs, artists, and other creatives the freedom to experiment.

If we force everyone to look toward the past, how will the misfits ever create the future?

P.S. I have no issue with voting on publicly-funded architecture. I actually think that's a good idea.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am huge fan of the YouTube channel Never Too Small. I have seen most of their episodes and I like to tell people about it even when it is only remotely related to the conversation at hand.

I love the urbanity of it all. There is just something so satisfying about turning constrained spaces into homes that are both beautiful and functional. It also makes you question how much space you really need.

But if constraints aren't your thing, and you'd like to see a wider variety of homes, another great channel to check out is The Local Project. The homes -- which are all in Australia and New Zealand -- are equally as beautiful, but tend to be more, uh, extensive. See above video.

What are some other channels worth checking out? It seems to me like Canada needs something similar to The Local Project. Maybe it already exists.

Tracey Lindeman over at the Walrus recently asked: Why is Canadian architecture so bad? Is it because Canadians are too passive and apathetic when it comes to good design? Or is it because we're too cheap and don't like our tax dollars being spent on unnecessarily lavish public buildings?

Whatever the case, there is an argument out there that we maybe had this wonderful period between the 50s and 70s where we really excelled in modern architecture and design (including graphic design), but that we kind of stopped caring and have built mostly banal stuff since then.

Part of Tracey's argument is simply that we're cowards. We're more interested in "checking boxes instead of taking chances." We've become too bureaucratic when it comes to procuring new public architecture. And she's not wrong.

Why we accept it is a patently Canadian phenomenon: our national psyche has us much more interested in checking boxes than in taking chances. Our standard process for contracting buildings often gives projects to the lowest bidders, even if a vastly more beautiful design is just a little bit more expensive. We have become so devoted to frugality and bureaucracy, and are so readily appeased by basic functionality, that we have lost the fortitude to take and demand risks, even if the outcome could be the most beautiful thing we’ve ever seen.

Great architecture requires not only great architects, but also great patrons of architecture. That has generally been the way all throughout history. But here's the fortunate thing. We have lots of wonderfully talented architects in this country and lots of people who see the value in architecture.

In fact, I think you could argue that over the last 5-10 years we have seen the quality of architecture in our cities step up dramatically. Some of these projects have been designed by top Canadian architects and some have been designed by leading international architects.

In both cases it's because we see the value proposition and have decided to invest in architecture and design. Now we just need to be bolder across the board and get bureaucracy and checkboxes out of the way of Canadian creativity.

Is it the architect? The developer? Or perhaps the city? The correct answer, it would seem, is whoever has the most followers on social media:

For the Norwegian branch of the social media movement Architectural Uprising, this revision was another feather in its cap. Founded in Sweden in 2014 as a public Facebook group, the Uprising is a collective of citizen design critics who object to what organizers call the “continued uglification” of developments in Nordic cities, and push for a return to classically informed design. With more than 100,000 social media followers across some 40 different branches, the group now serves as a significant platform for those who assert that the public, not just bureaucrats, architects, developers and property owners, ought to have a voice in the design of their built environments.

As a developer and person who studied architecture, I find this frustrating. Imagine you're a painter working in a busy public square. And every time somebody walks by and shouts a new criticism, you need to change your art. How would you feel about your work?

Now assume that your painting is an expensive commission. Your clients just re-mortgaged their home to pay for it and they specifically asked you for a painting that looks like something from Henri Matisse's "Blue Nudes" collection.

Unfortunately, the crowd in the public square wasn't a fan of the color blue or of abstract figures, and so you've instead rendered dozens of well-fed Renaissance figures sitting in a lively garden eating grapes. "Sorry, hope you like it. This is what the critics wanted."

Look, I may be stretching here. I fully appreciate that architecture is inherently a more public form of art than painting. I just think it's important to give entrepreneurs, artists, and other creatives the freedom to experiment.

If we force everyone to look toward the past, how will the misfits ever create the future?

P.S. I have no issue with voting on publicly-funded architecture. I actually think that's a good idea.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I am huge fan of the YouTube channel Never Too Small. I have seen most of their episodes and I like to tell people about it even when it is only remotely related to the conversation at hand.

I love the urbanity of it all. There is just something so satisfying about turning constrained spaces into homes that are both beautiful and functional. It also makes you question how much space you really need.

But if constraints aren't your thing, and you'd like to see a wider variety of homes, another great channel to check out is The Local Project. The homes -- which are all in Australia and New Zealand -- are equally as beautiful, but tend to be more, uh, extensive. See above video.

What are some other channels worth checking out? It seems to me like Canada needs something similar to The Local Project. Maybe it already exists.

Tracey Lindeman over at the Walrus recently asked: Why is Canadian architecture so bad? Is it because Canadians are too passive and apathetic when it comes to good design? Or is it because we're too cheap and don't like our tax dollars being spent on unnecessarily lavish public buildings?

Whatever the case, there is an argument out there that we maybe had this wonderful period between the 50s and 70s where we really excelled in modern architecture and design (including graphic design), but that we kind of stopped caring and have built mostly banal stuff since then.

Part of Tracey's argument is simply that we're cowards. We're more interested in "checking boxes instead of taking chances." We've become too bureaucratic when it comes to procuring new public architecture. And she's not wrong.

Why we accept it is a patently Canadian phenomenon: our national psyche has us much more interested in checking boxes than in taking chances. Our standard process for contracting buildings often gives projects to the lowest bidders, even if a vastly more beautiful design is just a little bit more expensive. We have become so devoted to frugality and bureaucracy, and are so readily appeased by basic functionality, that we have lost the fortitude to take and demand risks, even if the outcome could be the most beautiful thing we’ve ever seen.

Great architecture requires not only great architects, but also great patrons of architecture. That has generally been the way all throughout history. But here's the fortunate thing. We have lots of wonderfully talented architects in this country and lots of people who see the value in architecture.

In fact, I think you could argue that over the last 5-10 years we have seen the quality of architecture in our cities step up dramatically. Some of these projects have been designed by top Canadian architects and some have been designed by leading international architects.

In both cases it's because we see the value proposition and have decided to invest in architecture and design. Now we just need to be bolder across the board and get bureaucracy and checkboxes out of the way of Canadian creativity.