Cbc: I wasn't 'elevating' anything. I was denying the possibility of grounding "value judgments" of any sort.
Of course anyone can 'make' a v alue judgment'; there is sijply no reason for anyone else to accept it. See Chapter 4 of Ollman's _Alienation_ or Engels' Preface to the second edition of Poverty of Philosophy. There is no way toadjudicate, for example, the different 'judgments' of Michael S & Joanna on Vivaldi. Nor, for that matter, is there any way to adjudicate different "value judgments" of abortion. I claim it is a matter of the woman's whim; Others violently disagree. Politics and social relations, not some ethical principle, decides the issue.
Ct: The cited building types are "office space on a corporate campus" and "hotel (in an entertainment quarter)." You can certainly make judgements about how well their design addresses their intended use.
Cbc: You can describe/analyze the proces of using the arrangements. A formal "value judgment" is redundant. Or you could do a poll of the users I suppose. Again, everyone can make "value judgments," but no one can _ground_ t hem if they are challenged
Ct: Saying you can't value them aesthetically, or slinging "crap" or "butt ugly" around, is just failing to have a discussion.
Cbc: You just shifted from "value" as an adjective to "value" as a verb. That is another topic, not relevant here.
Carrol