3 ms·

This is so wrong. America is full of beauty, and many have great taste. Maybe America is not to your taste.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
He didn’t say that America wasn’t beautiful, he was talking specifically about American cities. There are some beautiful parts of some American cities, but I think the general criticism is fair. I think it just so happens that the same is true of most cities around the world too. There are beautiful parts of Paris, London, Athens, St. Petersburg etc, but also large gray, dirty, ugly parts. It’s right to point out that large parts of many cities are dirty and ugly, but unfair to single out America as being uniquely culpable in creating such spaces. It’s also unfair to compare the the nicest parts of Amsterdam with the worst parts of SF, just as it’s unfair to compare the nicest parts of Boston with the worst of Mumbai. What America is full of is natural beauty, but generally outside of the cities. From sweeping desserts to warm beaches and deep forests, they have it all, and it really is beautiful. Northern Europe is lovely too, but it’s also small, far from densely populated, and homogenous. America is vast and varied, and if we’re talking about the whole continent it has everything from glaciers to rainforests.
- lifeformed 8y ago
  I don't think it's America specifically, I think it's just all newer parts of cities. Old parts of cities are nice because the ugly parts have been torn down and only the nice buildings remain. The ugly parts of otherwise nice cities tend to be the stuff from the past century that hasn't died off yet. America is pretty young and grew a ton in the past century, so there's still a ton of 50's era mass-produced architecture and car-centric civic designs. They're not old enough to need replacing yet. I don't think those will stand the test of time, but there's still some gems in there that I hope to see persist. I think we just need more time for the cities to evolve.
huntertwo 8y ago
There is something to be said about beauty being exclusively secondary to a place’s purpose in the US though. This is evidenced by the fact that when American cities champion creative efforts, it’s seen as special. For example, street art in Chicago is seen as something positive but different. All of America’s buildings aren’t brutalist and ugly, but clearly aren’t looking at aesthetics as a primary concern.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  I've yet to find any street art in Chicago that is beautiful. This is obviously subjective, but I just think it looks trashy.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    Of the three explanations: 1) you’re in the wrong neighborhoods 2) you have bad taste 3) there is no good street art in Chicago ... I don’t think #3 is the most likely.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  brutalist != ugly At least not necessarily.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Many are. Frank Lloyd Wright was an American designer who embraced beauty. There have been many others. American architecture is certainly not the center of brutalism. I have no idea what you are alluding to. Can you name a city you would consider aesthetically bankrupt so I can understand what you’re refer maxing?

He didn’t say that America wasn’t beautiful, he was talking specifically about American cities. There are some beautiful parts of some American cities, but I think the general criticism is fair. I think it just so happens that the same is true of most cities around the world too. There are beautiful parts of Paris, London, Athens, St. Petersburg etc, but also large gray, dirty, ugly parts. It’s right to point out that large parts of many cities are dirty and ugly, but unfair to single out America as being uniquely culpable in creating such spaces. It’s also unfair to compare the the nicest parts of Amsterdam with the worst parts of SF, just as it’s unfair to compare the nicest parts of Boston with the worst of Mumbai. What America is full of is natural beauty, but generally outside of the cities. From sweeping desserts to warm beaches and deep forests, they have it all, and it really is beautiful. Northern Europe is lovely too, but it’s also small, far from densely populated, and homogenous. America is vast and varied, and if we’re talking about the whole continent it has everything from glaciers to rainforests.

lifeformed 8y ago
I don't think it's America specifically, I think it's just all newer parts of cities. Old parts of cities are nice because the ugly parts have been torn down and only the nice buildings remain. The ugly parts of otherwise nice cities tend to be the stuff from the past century that hasn't died off yet. America is pretty young and grew a ton in the past century, so there's still a ton of 50's era mass-produced architecture and car-centric civic designs. They're not old enough to need replacing yet. I don't think those will stand the test of time, but there's still some gems in there that I hope to see persist. I think we just need more time for the cities to evolve.

huntertwo 8y ago

There is something to be said about beauty being exclusively secondary to a place’s purpose in the US though. This is evidenced by the fact that when American cities champion creative efforts, it’s seen as special. For example, street art in Chicago is seen as something positive but different. All of America’s buildings aren’t brutalist and ugly, but clearly aren’t looking at aesthetics as a primary concern.

paulie_a 8y ago
I've yet to find any street art in Chicago that is beautiful. This is obviously subjective, but I just think it looks trashy.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Of the three explanations: 1) you’re in the wrong neighborhoods 2) you have bad taste 3) there is no good street art in Chicago ... I don’t think #3 is the most likely.
CaptainZapp 8y ago
brutalist != ugly At least not necessarily.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
Many are. Frank Lloyd Wright was an American designer who embraced beauty. There have been many others. American architecture is certainly not the center of brutalism. I have no idea what you are alluding to. Can you name a city you would consider aesthetically bankrupt so I can understand what you’re refer maxing?