Why is England so much more Aesthetic than the US?
but what about (New) England
>>67266753
because it's old, they have aesthetic stuff I wish we had, big concrete jungles
>>67266753
>>67266834
Both comfy.
>>67266839
>Yurop
More architectural beauty
>Murca
More natural beauty
>>67266938
This in general, although there are exceptions.
>>67266967
Well some people are into modern brutalism and that's alright, but I am not (IMO 50s/60s """architecture""" is an affront to humanity), but to each their own I guess
Sort of comfy.
>>67267043
I'm 50/50 on it, although I do like pre-WW2 American Urban Architecture.
Historical preservation was not a huge concern for most Americans until fairly recently. Also fires gutted many early American cities countless times over.
Savannah (Pic related) and Charleston are pretty unique American cities, in terms of architecture.
English towns and village are comfy af but our industrial cities are horrid
us has cities that long english too
personally I don't really care for old buildings I think modern cities like New York look better
Also Santa Fe is the comfiest, most aesthetic city on earth
>>67267283
I meant look not long
>>67266753
why cant we have whole towns and cities like that
>>67266753
York
Oxford
Cambridge
Lincoln
Harrogate
All relatively small but you can't have such a good aesthetic without suburbs to fit the people.
>>67268082
Mean for
>>67267653
>>67266839
In new york, though, "pre-war" is a prized term. After the war America and much of the west entered a grotesque era of soulless mass production, building well-heeled commie blocks at best.
Unfortunately America had a big boom at that time and built up ugliness all around, while constraints in postwar Europe limited the damage this new aesthetic could do.