• Ookami38
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    False dichotomies are fun! There’s absolutely a type of beauty to a well-run, upkept city. Should everything be a city? Nope, we need green areas, probably even more green areas than cities. The two can and should coexist in harmony.

    • Entropy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you think cities are beautiful you are entitled to your opinion, I just disagree. I think they’re ugly

      • Justas🇱🇹
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think that your opinion is overly reductive. There are a lot of differences between cities and even parts of cities. There is a lot of variance between

        This and This

        • Entropy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, big difference, still less easy on the eyes, in my opinion, than an open field or a forest of trees. Nature will always be more attractive to me.

          • Cows Look Like Maps
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nobody is arguing that cities are more beautiful than the natural world. Rather that cities can also be beautiful in their own right if they’re properly built.

            We can all agree that poorly planned cities that are filled with concrete and trash look terrible. But there are alternatives if we actually listened to professional city planners and incorporated less car-dependency (concrete roads, parking lots, box stores), more green space, etc.