The middle-ages of architecture has been called ‘junk architecture’ a few decades ago, because the buildings were mostly constructed without any plan, no references, no cohesiveness. Today these places are justifiably celebrated as a rich emotional environment and ‘cultural’ heritage.
For a long time I battled against this principle, believing that the organicity of the medieval town was a value that we lost in the current society, which is predominately over-controlled and uninspiring.
The ‘junk’ building we are talking about nowadays is referring to dull buildings, dull planning designs that are not focused on people but only on quick profit. I would agree on that, though my focus is shifting on what is our society celebrating. If there is no aim towards long-term well-being, and only short term profit is in the agenda, talking about junk architecture is merely shifting the problem onto the result, rather than on the cause. The cost of design is less and less appealing for private developers. The benefit of good design will be embraced by the wider society and so should the cost be. I am not sure how this would work but I think it needs to be discussed. No surprises that our cities are getting dull. Collective problems should be faced collectively