3 ms·

Architecture has almost nothing to do with it... Hipodromo in Mexico City is one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the world. Architecturally, it's a bun

Architecture has almost nothing to do with it... Hipodromo in Mexico City is one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the world. Architecturally, it's a bunch of hideously ugly buildings. But there's trees and plants everywhere, and they're beautiful, and that's all you see. The reason everything is ugly is because we don't have trees and nature anymore - we just have roads and parking instead. There's tons of beautiful tree-lined streets in Chicago with ridiculously ugly houses. You don't notice the mismatched, horrible architecture. You just notice the trees & the birds & the squirrels. You don't have to be classical Paris to be beautiful. You just need plants and a neighborhood designed for people to live in - not cars to park in.

trgn 4y ago
I think you're describing sense of closure, the public realm as an exterior room. Trees offer that for sure. But Bruges or Amsterdam have very few trees, and they feel calm and verdant as well. The houses are super simple. Simple facades, some windows properly spaced. There's nothing to it. Yet, it feels perfect. I'd agree that that is the most important part, the city must be a ballroom, and that architecture proper comes second. Thing is, we lost both though. No more beautiful architecture, but also a complete misunderstanding of how to build a harmonious public realm. We can only think cars. Parking lot for cars. Streets for cars. Buffer zones for the exhaust, noise, and danger of cars. It destroys all cohesion.
wizofaus 4y ago
I'd agree it's possible to have a neighbourhood where most of houses aren't especially beautiful but the general layout, and in particular the placement and extent of greenery can lend a sense of overall beauty - I'd even say I live in such a suburb. But it would be far better still if the houses themselves had their own aesthetic appeal, and had been built to last hundreds of years. Plus greenery can only go so far when you're talking about larger buildings (4+ storeys). But yes, the dominance of cars in our towns and cities is almost certainly part of the problem - when you're rushing through a place at 70 or 80 k/h who cares if it's ugly?
dionidium 4y ago
> The reason everything is ugly is because we don't have trees and nature anymore - we just have roads and parking instead. I've spent a bunch of time on the 1940s.nyc site and the most striking difference between 1940s NYC and 2022 NYC is the lack of trees in 1940.

trgn 4y ago

I think you're describing sense of closure, the public realm as an exterior room. Trees offer that for sure. But Bruges or Amsterdam have very few trees, and they feel calm and verdant as well. The houses are super simple. Simple facades, some windows properly spaced. There's nothing to it. Yet, it feels perfect. I'd agree that that is the most important part, the city must be a ballroom, and that architecture proper comes second. Thing is, we lost both though. No more beautiful architecture, but also a complete misunderstanding of how to build a harmonious public realm. We can only think cars. Parking lot for cars. Streets for cars. Buffer zones for the exhaust, noise, and danger of cars. It destroys all cohesion.

wizofaus 4y ago

I'd agree it's possible to have a neighbourhood where most of houses aren't especially beautiful but the general layout, and in particular the placement and extent of greenery can lend a sense of overall beauty - I'd even say I live in such a suburb. But it would be far better still if the houses themselves had their own aesthetic appeal, and had been built to last hundreds of years. Plus greenery can only go so far when you're talking about larger buildings (4+ storeys). But yes, the dominance of cars in our towns and cities is almost certainly part of the problem - when you're rushing through a place at 70 or 80 k/h who cares if it's ugly?

dionidium 4y ago

> The reason everything is ugly is because we don't have trees and nature anymore - we just have roads and parking instead. I've spent a bunch of time on the 1940s.nyc site and the most striking difference between 1940s NYC and 2022 NYC is the lack of trees in 1940.