What both may have in common is that the ratio between the cost of adapting them and the owner's wealth makes adaption viable.
The super-rich can maintain the process of adaption of opulent buildings, the not so rich can keep adapting the cheap and functional.
But the intermediate cases are traps. Where you can afford to buy or build the building once, but not to keep it in motion. (Or are prevented from doing so by external constraints) These buildings ossify. Once grand gestures become uncomfortable, ill-adapted to their use.
There are again musical parallels. The low road musics, the most popular and populist, can afford any dilution. They can adopt new instruments or technologies, can steal ideas from other genres or suddenly abandon previously ubiquitous ones, with impunity. No one has high expectations.
The high road, the avant garde is equally free. It can adopt and adapt at will, in the name of art.
Once again it's the middle which lacks freedom. Too "good" to be trash that no-one cares about - the fans value the sophistication their artists have reached within the genre, and don't want this investment thrown away on precocious experiments -; but not good enough to be great art. These musics are trapped in genre conventions.
Linked this from : http://ilx.wh3rd.net/thread.php?msgid=3466804
See also OrganicArchitecture