Beauty and the Built Landscape

Themes

A half-century ago, the discipline of urban design was refounded through the teaching, research, and practice of such postwar figures as Eliel Saarinen, Christopher Tunnard, Gordon Cullen, Saverio Muratori, Kevin Lynch, M.R.G. Conzen, and Colin Rowe. Today, interest in urban design continues to grow among academics, scholars, practitioners, and administrators at all levels. The discipline has broadened its scope from its original focus on the design of human settlements to a much larger set of concerns, so that housing affordability and the dynamics of economics; land consumption; social marginalization; and sustainability, climate change, and other environmental issues have increasingly occupied centre stage.

This commendable engagement has brought with it negative consequences, however, because environmental and functional matters, rather than offering the discipline additional tools, seem, in fact, to be replacing the original goal of “beauty” in both research and practice within the discipline. The production of quality places for human life has become largely episodic. At the same time, it has become evident that many historic places admired for their beauty also hold valuable lessons for environmental and social sustainability while most new settlements keep showing a diffused disciplinary inability to build beautiful and hospitable living environments.

But there is little agreement among either advocates or critics of the movement to reintroduce beauty in urban design regarding terminology or precisely which values contribute to widely recognized beauty. Aesthetics itself is diluting its area of interest in response to the belief that everything gets to human beings directly or indirectly through the senses so that, for instance, pollution, weather instability, obesity, and social distress are now considered aesthetic concerns as well. According to this perspective, hedonic well-being should be satisfied by “ecological aesthetics” and we all should learn how to derive social, physiological, and psychological restoration from biologically sustainable environments and, ultimately, from a commitment to abstention. At the same time, new developments in neuroscience are calling into question conventional views about the inevitably subjective nature of beauty. Still, and possibly because of this situation, there is much to do to make our living environments more beautiful and facilitate the important contribution that aesthetic quality can provide to human health, wellbeing, and happiness.

Sessions

Session 1: The Watermarks of Beauty, Coordinated by:

Mark Alan Hewitt, Mark Alan Hewitt Architects
Steven W. Semes, University of Notre Dame, Board of Directors, BBL

What are we talking about when we talk of beauty in urban landscapes? What are its characteristics and where does it come from? Are there different types? Is it generally the product of single artists or of collective involvement? Is it innate and culturally universal or the property of diverse cultures? We begin with a brief overview of some central questions.

Session 2: Beauty and Organized Complexity, Coordinated by:

Stefano Cozzolino, Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development, Dortmund, Scientific Committee, BBL

Stefano Moroni, Politecnico di Milano, Board of Directors, BBL

Urban beauty has traditionally been thought to be “a work of art”. However, authors engaging with complexity theories, such as Jane Jacobs and Christopher Alexander, have challenged this assumption, emphasising the generative power of urban life and emergent living structures. Where does the contemporary debate stand today?

Session 3: Inhabiting Beauty: Urban and Social Aspects of Environmental Aesthetic Quality, Coordinated by:

Claudia Mattogno, Chair, Scientific Committee, BBL
Marichela Sepe, Coordinator GUD, Sapienza Università di Roma, Board of Directors, BBL

By focusing on the role of beauty in the design and experience of public spaces, the session will explore how elements such as form, materials, textures, and colours shape the way people perceive and interact with their surroundings. Participants are encouraged to consider how beauty can elevate the functionality of public spaces, fostering a sense of belonging and shared purpose while promoting active and inclusive engagement with urban life. Both theoretical and empirical contributions are welcomed.

Session 4: Beauty and Culture: Lifestyle, Building Types, Historical Towns and Vernacular Architecture, Coordinated by:

Wòwò Dīng, Nanjing University, ISUF, Director, Urban Design Dept for Historical and Cultural City Committee, Chinese Society of Urban Studies, Board of Directors, BBL
Jǐnxī Chén, Tsinghua University, Scientific Committee, BBL

Beauty and culture are inseparable in determining the aesthetic qualities of cities. There is no absolute beauty, and different cultures create the beauty of different cities. The aesthetic quality of historic centres, traditional and vernacular settlements, cases and methods of regeneration are discussed with a cosmopolitan attitude.

Session 5: Beauty and Liberty, Coordinated by:

Stefano Cozzolino, Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development, Dortmund, Scientific Committee, BBL

Stefano Moroni, Politecnico di Milano, Board of Directors, BBL

Harmony and order are two conceptual pillars of beauty, often operationalised through stringent, highly prescriptive regulatory frameworks that can stifle individual design creativity and freedom. As observed by Marco Romano, among others, this approach can have significant negative repercussions. What should the role of regulation be?