Ambition is indeed an effective fuel towards igniting the ideas of impressive architectural buildings; and whereas the scopes of financing are certainly a usual constraint when trying to execute them, there are also several aspects that are worthy to consider after questioning the cases of executed projects that have failed even when they have had plenty of resources.
On the one hand, when the definition of ambition is questioned there's usually the problematic of assigning a "towards what?", and particularly these days it seems that the discussion isn't not so much far weighted towards the eccentricity of style, as it actually is towards its center, or to put it this way, to question ambition itself as asking "why there is ambition in the first place?". This last orientation might be what could lead towards projects that are "less ambitious", usually identified with therms such as suburban or rural, which later most often than not are places related to terms such as peaceful, chill or low dense. What is even more interesting to note is that political contexts can flip the definition of ambition in architectural projects, so for example the cases where low dense settlements are reached by the geographical growth of urban centralization, βsuch is the case of Mexico City which growth has reached the suburban satellite neighborhoods built far from the city in the 1950'sβ, can putin to dare the valuation and usage of land, so is the case of the NIMBY phenomena that started gained attention these last decades.
On the other hand, the failing of architectural and urban projects are more or less agreed to befall upon examples of abandoned or deteriorated places as failed attempts of settling, whereas success could be quite difficult to define due to whatever attachment each individual can agreed to entail towards a place or building. Habitability however could be a fair scale to decide where and how to settle, after all, the scope of inhabit can offer room for either eccentricity and centrality, tradition and innovation.