|Re: aesthetics in urban settings||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Hans Tilstra (tilstrasmartchat.net.au)|
|Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 22:45:02 -0600 (MDT)|
> Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder. Personally, my preference runs to trees and naturescaping with homes tucked in amid the squirrels and deer. But everyone has their own preferences, and that is why having lots of variety is a good thing. Folks who find uniformity important have choices, and folks that find individuality important have choices too. Thanks Rob. Indeed, if space allows generous use of trees & naturescaping can enable what Randall Arendt called "conservation design" for rural subdivisions. Similarly, Glen Murcutt, one of Australia's most famous architects also tend to focus on outer suburban & rural contexts for housing. However, there is a degree of side-stepping. What makes an urban neighbourhood aesthetically appealing? "Uniformity" connotates dreariness. I believe that it Winslow's aesthetic consistency, it's "musical score" that makes it to the front cover of McCamant & Durrett's book, not the trees that hide the avoidance of the discussion... Another example: compare Muir Commons' pattern vs Nyland's "we couldn't agree on the colours so we all did our own thing".. .. I think Muir Commons shows more harmony. :-) Hans Tilstra _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.