Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I saw this video posted in D Magazine's Urbanism/Transportation blog, and I really liked it. I've seen a lot of different articles and video presentations on urban form and scale, but this one does a good job of correlating urban form and beauty. Here are the six steps and the video:
(1)Not too chaotic, not too ordered.
(2)Visible life
(3)Compact
(4)Orientation and Mystery
(5)Scale
(6)Make It Local
I saw it there too, I thought it got a little bit pompous at the end, but overall I'd give it high marks.
My criticisms:
The part I found pompous was were the narrator said there was an 'objective' standard of beauty by which you can judge cities, but if you play that out logically, then it falls apart. It also seems to sweep issues with maintenance and the poor off to the side, with the unstated assumption that some sort of socialization will allow them to live in these 'interesting beautiful' places as well. Or maybe they will have to live elsewhere, who knows? It really discusses beautiful streets/neighborhoods rather than full cities.
It also seems to rate 'tourism' as an absolute good, and I'd describe it as 'neutral' at best. How many people really want to live where your local economy is determined by the fickle desires of the tourist?
Most people know what is beautiful, and what isn't when they see it.
Beautiful: sunset at the beach, a flower garden, a very old painting or classic
artwork, a famous female model or movie star, a historical building known for its
architecture that people want to preserve even after hundreds or thousands of years, etc.
Ugly: a cockroach. a parking lot, a fast food drive-thru restaurant, a miles-long
traffic jam, a Walmart, a giant inflatable butt plug also known as modern art,
Michael Jackson post-plastic surgery...you get the idea.
This has been discussed for a long time, since 1890 at least. City Beautiful movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The movement began in the United States in response to crowding in tenement districts, a consequence of high birth rates, increased immigration and consolidation of rural populations into cities. The movement flourished for several decades, and in addition to the construction of monuments, it also achieved great influence in urban planning that endured throughout the 20th century, in particular in regard to the later creation of housing projects in the United States. The "Garden City" movement in Britain influenced the contemporary planning of some newer suburbs of London, and there was cross-influence between the two aesthetics, one based in formal garden plans and urbanization schemes and the other, with its "semi-detached villas" evoking a more rural atmosphere."
I'm with Overdog. The first 4 criteria were spot on, but it got off track with #5 (Scale). For example, the Chrysler Building is beautiful even though it pays homage to a car company. Also, I don't think Manhattan suffers by having its Midtown and Downtown skyscraper districts. The city wouldn't function if it were limited to 5 stories with only a smattering of towers.
Finally, a lot of beautiful buildings have been built with a money as the object. So, all of this talk about greedy developers is over the top. It's not completely off base, but it gets giddy in its authoritarian mindset.
But the first four criteria, I'm on board with those.
Most people know what is beautiful, and what isn't when they see it.
I agree with that, but we're talking a city here. They have sewage plants, dumps, jail facilities, and so on that aren't necessarily attractive. If you leave all that out, then you may be building beautiful neighborhoods, but not necessarily beautiful cities. May be a picky distinction, but IMO it's still worth mentioning.
I agree with that, but we're talking a city here. They have sewage plants, dumps, jail facilities, and so on that aren't necessarily attractive. If you leave all that out, then you may be building beautiful neighborhoods, but not necessarily beautiful cities. May be a picky distinction, but IMO it's still worth mentioning.
This is what the old Allegheny County jail looks like in Pittsburgh...
Of course, it was designed by H. H. Richardson in 1886. But there's no reason why a contemporary jail couldn't be a beautiful building as well.
Surprised the criteria left out nature. Beauty can be found in a natural desert setting or in high mountains or many deciduous trees, but nature should be incorporated into any urban design. Big cities like NYC would be crap without Central Park or SF without Golden Gate Park. Smaller cities need avenues of trees, parks, gardens, etc
Ugly obnoxious people take away from the beauty of a city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
