than market fundamentals. architectural diversity is great, but design is costly, and determining the viability of unique projects can be seen as unnecessarily burdensome for some developers. they end up building cookie-cutter Skyhouses and Amlis because they're both relatively cheap to construct and able to generate premium rents, and so as long as their investors see a large rate of return, we'll continue to be mired in banality. so yes, regulation and restriction are the right policy choices. my only concern is that this committee appears redundant--why not simply empower the AUDC with greater regulatory authority with regards to the Beltline TAD overlay? i think having two completely separate oversight bodies maintaining very similar missions will both disincentivize collaboration and silo agendas, especially if, say, a variance falls where jurisdictions overlap (like the east side of Grant Park).