I think the blog post author just made a mistake and meant to cite [1]. That paper actually attempts to correlate "scenic-ness" and health. But it also says tha

I think the blog post author just made a mistake and meant to cite [1]. That paper actually attempts to correlate "scenic-ness" and health. But it also says that "[v]isual inspection of photographs with the highest rating for scenicness reveals that they tend to contain landscapes with broad open areas and essentially no manmade structure", which is a pretty different claim than "beautiful urban architecture has the same positive impact on our physical and mental health as green parks" (the paper doesn't mention architecture at all). The whole post smells strongly of "I like a certain thing and will point to any flimsy published evidence in support of it". [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16899 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16899