Ladies Mile
Active Member
So if St. Petersburg (minus the fact that most of the population live in soul crushing ring-road communist era blocks), Amsterdam (minus it's suburban ethnic ghetto projects), and Boston (minus it's standard sea of suburban sprawl) are beautiful than aren't we starting to zero in on what we mean when we say beautiful? Beautiful means physically standard or consistent so that we can easily understand without greater commitment of energy. Consider other human environments that could also be considered beautiful because of the repetition of standard elements like Santorini or Tangiers.
Tewder, I'm probing for deeper reflection on the topic not trying to be extreme. Considering my previous comment that beautiful may mean physically standard or consistent so that we can easily understand without greater commitment of energy. The evidence suggests that most average is considered the most beautiful in human faces. If we want to create a city that is the most standard or consistent and easiest to understand we can do so but only through supression of human ideas and interests. These suppressions may not be overly intrusive or influencial but they are culturally relevent and matter none-the-less.
I should have clarified - "beauty" to me is something I am largely indifferent to. I appreciate where and when I can but I prefer rationality, dignity, elegance, order, utility, convenience - or "openess," if you like - of use. The most beautiful palace in the world is of no use if it houses a despot. Which isn't to say that ugliness is an acceptable default mode or that beauty should not be striven for. But better Dundas Square for everyone than the Magnificent Mile for the rich.
Last edited: