Since coming to this site, I've noticed that people tend to post a lot of photos focusing in on individual buildings, or details on buildings. Which is fine for appreciating those buildings in and of themselves. But what those photos miss is the visual context the buildings are in.
For instance, I could photograph 30 individual 19th-century brownstones in Manhattan, on 30 different streets, and post the photos here. I have a feeling people might reply with comments like "NY is beautiful", "such a great city!" etc. But it could be that 26 of those 30 beautiful brownstones are surrounding by ugly or at least mismatched neighboring structures, creating unattractive streetscapes for the people who actually live there.
Even if individual buildings are architecturally interesting, when put next to each other, they often create an unattractive streetscape. Just like when decorating a room, if you buy pieces of furniture without thinking about how they'll fit together, your room will probably end up looking bad, even if each piece individually is nice.
Personally, I think Paris for example is beautiful to a large extent because of its consistency. Straight avenues lined on both sides with two symmetric rows of trees, and buildings of similar height, color, and often architectural style.
That being said, too much consistency is also probably bad. I'm thinking of Soviet "microrayoni" (or commieblocks), American cookie-cutter suburbs, or some of the turn-of-the-20th century council house developments in the UK.
What do you think? Is consistency or at least paying attention to context necessary to create a beautiful city?>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment