How to Make an Attractive City

The School of Life

AI-assisted summary of How to Make an Attractive City — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2015-01-26

Key ideas

Urban attractiveness is not accidental or subjective; it relies on six identifiable architectural and planning principles that modern engineering societies have largely forgotten. (0:03)
The ideal urban scale requires capping standard residential blocks at five stories while designing public squares with a maximum diameter of roughly 30 meters to maintain human intimacy. (5:20)
The primary barriers to creating appealing modern cities are intellectual relativism regarding aesthetic standards and an absence of political will to enforce strict civic building codes. (11:16)
Historical precedent, such as Edinburgh's New Town, demonstrates that beautiful cities require rigorous statutory regulation to restrain purely commercial real estate development. (12:24)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on YouTube by The School of Life on January 26, 2015, this video examines why modern society has lost the art of designing attractive cities despite mastering advanced industrial engineering. The description notes that while urban environments are an unavoidable reality for most of humanity, very few are truly beautiful, and sets out to revive the essential principles required to get them right.

## TL;DR The presentation argues that city beauty is governed by objective criteria rather than subjective whim, establishing six fundamental design principles: organized complexity, visible street life, compact scale anchored by intimate public squares, a balance of grand boulevards and mysterious alleys, a standard five-story height limit, and local architectural character using native materials. It identifies two main obstacles preventing good urbanism—intellectual relativism that allows developers to exploit the myth that beauty is purely in the eye of the beholder, and a political surrender to commercial market forces. To counter urban despondency and address housing demands, the video calls on democratic governments to enact ambitious statutory building codes modeled after historical successes like Edinburgh's New Town.

## Atmosphere & style The video carries an articulate, didactic, and mildly exasperated tone characteristic of an intellectual manifesto. Its professorial narration blends dry critique of sterile modern skylines with poetic observations on human nature, domestic life, and civic dignity. Watching it feels like a persuasive philosophical intervention, gradually turning aesthetic frustration into a constructive and urgent demand for political and architectural accountability.

## Bulletin - [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=3s) Urban attractiveness is not accidental or subjective; it relies on six identifiable architectural and planning principles that modern engineering societies have largely forgotten. - [05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=320s) The ideal urban scale requires capping standard residential blocks at five stories while designing public squares with a maximum diameter of roughly 30 meters to maintain human intimacy. - [11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=676s) The primary barriers to creating appealing modern cities are intellectual relativism regarding aesthetic standards and an absence of political will to enforce strict civic building codes. - [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) Historical precedent, such as Edinburgh's New Town, demonstrates that beautiful cities require rigorous statutory regulation to restrain purely commercial real estate development.

## Key takeaways - [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=3s) Despite mastering modern technology and engineering, contemporary societies struggle to build cities as visually appealing as those constructed centuries ago. - [00:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=47s) Successful cities balance order and variety, avoiding both chaotic skylines and soul-destroying architectural uniformity through organized complexity. - [00:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=49s) A magnetic urban environment depends on visible street life and ground-floor activity rather than sterile, closed-off corporate facades. - [00:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=49s) Utilitarian infrastructure does not need to be concealed; it can be celebrated when executed with aesthetic care and dignity. - [05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=320s) Dense, compact cities like Barcelona are vastly more energy-efficient and sustainable than car-dependent suburban sprawl. - [05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=320s) Effective public squares act as communal living rooms and should be limited to roughly 30 meters across to preserve human scale and prevent agoraphobia. - [07:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=442s) Cities require a dual structure of grand boulevards for navigation and intimate back alleys that provide mystery and spontaneous social connection. - [08:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=515s) A society's tallest buildings reveal its spiritual priorities; modern skylines have been ceded to corporate dominance due to a lack of air rights regulation. - [08:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=515s) Standard urban residential blocks should ideally be capped at five stories to preserve natural light, density, and a human-scaled street experience. - [09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=571s) Towers and skyscrapers should be rare civic exceptions reserved for communal institutions rather than standard commercial developments. - [09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=571s) Architecture must reflect regional identity by utilizing local vernacular styles and indigenous materials rather than interchangeable global designs. - [11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=676s) The belief that architectural beauty is entirely subjective is an intellectual error that commercial developers exploit to build cheap, ugly buildings. - [11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=676s) Global tourism patterns demonstrate a clear, collective human consensus on which cities are genuinely beautiful versus those that are unappealing. - [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) Attractive urban landscapes require strong governmental intervention and detailed statutory codes to rein in private commercial interests. - [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) The absence of strong civic design regulations has bred widespread public cynicism and blanket resistance to new housing construction.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=3s) A Scientific Manifesto for Urban Beauty

Cities are inescapable: nearly everyone has to live in them, yet out of thousands across the globe, remarkably few are truly beautiful. It is an embarrassing paradox that the places we find most appealing tend to be ancient, even though contemporary society has mastered engineering complex machines like cars, planes, and smartphones. Leaving the design of our living environments to chance is a grave failure. To solve this, we must approach city design scientifically, determining the exact principles that make an urban environment visually attractive rather than repulsive.

As the narrator emphasizes: “It's not a mystery why we like some cities so much better than others.” Urban appeal is not random; it boils down to six fundamental principles that every successful city must balance.

---

[00:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=47s) Principle 1: Not Too Chaotic, Not Too Ordered

The human brain instinctively seeks balance, symmetry, and repetition—the reassuring rhythm of the left side matching the right, which is why cities like Paris are so universally beloved. Conversely, when an urban landscape descends into chaos, it creates subconscious distress: pitched roofs haphazardly clashing with flat ones, severe concrete boxes abutting messy surface car parks, and high-rise towers jutting out at random angles like crooked teeth in an open mouth. A skyline thrown together without planning feels like no one is in charge, which is why the uncoordinated placement of skyscrapers in modern London proves frustrating, whereas the deliberate grids of New York and Chicago deliver the structured rhythm people admire.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: The Spectrum of Urban Order accDescr: A spectrum showing chaos on the left, organized complexity in the middle, and excessive order on the right.

subgraph Spectrum["Urban Design Spectrum"] direction LR A["Excessive Chaos (Jumbled roofs, random towers)"] -->|"Add Balance & Limits"| B["Organized Complexity (Variety within strict rules)"] C["Rigid Uniformity (Bleak, soul-destroying monotony)"] -->|"Add Individual Freedom"| B end ```

Yet excessive regularity is equally toxic. Total uniformity turns cold, alien, harsh, and soul-destroying. The true sweet spot of urban design is organized complexity—providing a strong structural baseline while leaving room for expressive variation. In Telč, Czech Republic, houses along the main square share an identical height and width, but each facade enjoys unique freedom in its colors and decorative motifs. Similarly, Java-eiland in Amsterdam enforces strict height, width, and palette constraints, yet ensures every individual townhouse is distinct. As the narrator summarizes: “What we crave it's organized complexity”.

- **Order's core components:** Symmetry, balance, repetition, and a sense of shared civic coordination. - **Visual chaos risks:** Causes psychological frustration; signals neglect and lack of governance. - **Excessive order risks:** Produces bleak, alienating, and relentlessly boring environments. - **The ideal compromise:** Strict structural envelopes (consistent height and parcel width) combined with individual architectural expression on the facade.

---

[00:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=49s) Principle 2: Visible Life

A truly magnetic city requires visible human activity on its streets. We are naturally drawn to active environments, from bustling lanes in Hong Kong to lively canals in Venice. In the 18th century, the painter Canaletto captured scenes that people still cherish precisely because the mechanics of everyday life were on vivid display—such as rough work sheds in a stonemason's yard where onlookers could watch workers solve the practical problem of hoisting heavy stone blocks onto waiting gondolas.

By contrast, modern urban design hides its vitality behind sterile, anonymous facades. Contemporary offices seal workers behind mirrored glass along barren multi-lane highways, and street levels sit lifeless and disconnected. While modern planners obsess over burying or concealing technical infrastructure out of fear of public outcry—such as hiding a utilitarian water pipe—history demonstrates that people gladly celebrate practical engineering when it is built with aesthetic dignity. As the narrator notes: “We think it's the pipe we hate. It's not. It's just the ugliness.” Millions travel to southern France to admire the Roman Pont du Gard aqueduct because it harmonizes utilitarian purpose with physical majesty.

- **Alive streets:** Lined with ground-floor operations open to view—bakeries, cobblers, carpet vendors, burger bars, and bookshops. - **Dead modern sprawl:** Faceless office towers, distribution sheds, and wide motorways that prevent face-to-face interaction. - **The civic benefit:** Making honest work visible lets citizens take pride in everyday tasks and binds passersby together.

---

[05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=320s) Principle 3: Compactness and the Art of the Square

Throughout history, living packed closely together was a hallmark of poverty and squalor. The moment people accumulated enough wealth, they naturally fled into suburban plots to purchase private space. However, the late-20th-century retreat into deep residential privacy backfired drastically, creating isolated, ecologically disastrous dormitory settlements connected solely by car culture. Dense, compact cities consume only a fraction of the environmental resources of sprawling metropolises—Barcelona, for instance, functions on vastly less energy per capita than the desert sprawl of Phoenix, Arizona.

Compact urbanism requires welcoming public release valves: high-quality town squares. The art of the square has been completely forgotten in the contemporary era: “We keep promoting the invention of mobile phones, but no one's built a good square anywhere on this planet for decades.” The Piazza di Santa Maria in Trastevere in Rome exemplifies the ideal urban square: it functions as a shared outdoor living room where one can read the newspaper, drink a coffee, and escape domestic tension under the reassuring, civilizing gaze of the community.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Mechanics of an Intimate Public Square accDescr: Dimensional rules and social dynamics of a successful urban square.

subgraph Dimensions["Spatial Geometry"] S1["Maximum ~30m Diameter"] S2["Enclosed & Contained Perimeter"] end

subgraph SocialEffects["Human Experience"] E1["Facial Recognition & Easy Hailing"] E2["Escape from Domestic Claustrophobia"] E3["Civilizing Social Awareness"] end

Dimensions --> SocialEffects ```

- **Scale limit:** A square's diameter should not exceed approximately 30 meters; beyond this, the human figure is dwarfed by the empty space, triggering feelings of isolation and agoraphobia. - **Human contact:** A properly scaled plaza allows visitors to read the facial expressions of people across the square or hail an acquaintance without shouting. - **Balance:** It must supply enclosure and containment without inducing claustrophobia.

---

[07:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=442s) Principle 4: Orientation and Mystery

Every great metropolis must satisfy two opposing human emotional cravings: the desire for legibility and orientation, and the romance of mystery and exploration. Grand, straight boulevards are necessary to move across substantial distances without logistical friction, but expansive thoroughfares alone leave a city dry and uninviting. People deeply treasure cozy back lanes, narrow alleys, and winding passages where they can safely lose their bearings.

In places like Cartagena, Colombia, residential balconies lean so close together across narrow alleys that they nearly touch. In such an intimate setting, daily life spills out into view: you observe neighbors eating breakfast, know their bedtimes, and hear children finishing homework on Sunday evenings. Rather than destroying dignity, this benign mutual visibility softens behavior: people quarrel less, moderate their tempers, and make an effort to put flowers on the table. Contemporary planning often mistakes car clearance for human welfare, building broad, sterile thoroughfares at the expense of these dense, characterful urban warrens.

---

[08:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=515s) Principle 5: Scale and Air Rights

The skyline of any civilization lays bare its core spiritual commitments. Quoting scholar Joseph Campbell, the narrator reminds us: “If you want to see what a society really believes in, look at what the biggest buildings on the horizon are dedicated to”. While historical skylines yielded their tallest spires to institutions honoring spiritual, civic, or cultural aspirations—such as cathedrals, grand mosques, or national museums—the contemporary city skyline is hijacked by corporate glass towers celebrating banks, hedge funds, tax consultants, sportswear manufacturers, oil conglomerates, and fast-food empires.

Humans do not object to being humbled by gigantic structures, provided the structures are worthy of reverence. The modern crisis stems from a legal blind spot: legal codes have heavily regulated land ownership while completely neglecting air rights, effectively giving corporate giants free rein to destroy the shared views of every citizen below. To curb this alienation, the ideal height limit for any standard city block should be strictly fixed at five stories. By capping height at five floors and intensifying density at ground level—as seen in classic quarters of Amsterdam and Berlin—cities can stay dense, neighborly, and human-scaled without dwarfing the people who walk their streets.

[09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=571s) Preserving Scale and Making Cities Local

While human-scale architecture defines the most beloved historic quarters of cities like London and Paris, tall structures do have a legitimate place, provided they are treated as rare exceptions rather than the norm. A colossal building must be reserved for something truly exceptional that all of humanity can cherish together. As the narrator explains, “Towers have to be worthy of their prominence, they must be aligned with our best ambitions and long-term needs.” The final core principle for an attractive urban environment is to make it local. While universal standardization makes sense for utilitarian industrial items—no one requires an idiosyncratic Venezuelan telephone or an exclusively Icelandic bicycle—it becomes profoundly depressing when applied indiscriminately to the built environment. Flying for hours across the globe only to step out into an urban landscape that could literally be anywhere robs a place of its soul.

This drive toward regional character is not just an aesthetic whim or an appetite for superficial variety. Because every society possesses distinct climates, long histories, and living social traditions, each inevitably fosters different human needs alongside unique strengths and weaknesses. Homogeneous architecture signals a tragic detachment from geographic reality, akin to donning the exact same outfit across tropical heat and arctic frost, or addressing every individual in the exact same conversational tone regardless of context. True character emerges when architects embrace regional vernaculars and native building materials: - **Millbrae Crescent in Glasgow’s South Side**: Constructed using local pale, medium-grained, carboniferous blond sandstone formed back when the Scottish landmass was situated near the equator. - **Cambridge**: Built predominantly with traditional brick fired from the region’s distinctive yellowish Gault clay. - **Australia**: Exified by the work of architect Glenn Murcutt, who devised building forms tailored to the specific atmospheric and social demands of Australian life.

To counter placeless anonymity, urban design must follow a clear standard: “So the law should be: don't make your city from buildings that could be just anywhere; find a style of architecture that reflects what makes your location specific.”

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Two Core Obstacles to Building Attractive Cities accDescr: A diagram detailing the intellectual confusion and lack of political will hindering beautiful urban development.

subgraph Obstacles["The Two Great Obstacles"] A["Obstacle 1: Intellectual Confusion"] B["Obstacle 2: Lack of Political Will"] end

subgraph Confusion["Subjectivism & Relativism"] A --> C["Belief that beauty is entirely subjective"] C --> D["Fear of deciding standards for others"] D --> E["Developers exploit confusion to build cheaply and uglily"] end

subgraph Political["Regulatory Surrender"] B --> F["Free-market design dominance"] F --> G["Absence of civic building codes"] G --> H["Citizen despondency and total opposition to new building"] end

subgraph Solutions["The Path Forward"] E --> I["Reclaim objective standards backed by public consent"] H --> J["Enact strict statutory codes like Edinburgh New Town"] end ```

[11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=676s) The Myth of Subjectivity and the Defense of Beauty

The roadblocks preventing the creation of beautiful cities are fundamentally not financial; modern societies command more than enough wealth to build gracefully. Instead, the failure rests upon two specific hurdles: an intellectual confusion surrounding beauty, and an acute lack of political will. The intellectual muddle stems from a fashionable relativism: the anxious conviction that beauty is purely subjective, that no individual has the standing to judge what is beautiful or ugly, and that nobody should dictate design tastes. While this hesitation feels democratic on the surface, it operates as an enormous corporate handout: “It's such a relief to these people to learn that there is no such thing as beauty; it means they can get away with murder.”

In reality, people readily recognize urban squalor when confronted by it. While people may debate minor architectural nuances, vast consensus exists regarding actual places: almost nobody voluntarily spends their vacation leisure time in Frankfurt am Main or Birmingham, whereas cities like Sydney, San Francisco, Bath, and Bordeaux continually magnetize millions. The decisive proof of objective aesthetic value sits directly inside global tourist statistics. Hiding behind the cliché that beauty lies solely in the eye of the beholder merely gifts predatory developers an open license to erect another wretched glass tower.

- **Economic Reality**: Societies collectively possess ample capital; funding is not the limiting factor. - **Developer Advantage**: Relativism disarms civic planning departments and grants commercial developers free rein. - **Tourist Evidence**: Consistent holiday migration patterns prove that humanity recognizes and gravitates toward objective architectural harmony.

[12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) Political Will, Civic Regulation, and the Fight for the Future

The second major impediment is the surrender of public determination. Urban planning has largely been ceded to commercial opportunism and wealthy private lobbies, leading citizens to lose faith in the democratic process. History shows that attractive cities never happen by accident or through unrestrained commercial markets; they require robust civic intervention. As the narrator emphasizes, “Beautiful cities have only ever been created when governments impose strict and ambitious regulations to keep the greedy, private guys in check.”

The prime historical proof is Edinburgh’s New Town. Rather than trusting market mechanisms—which inevitably produce visual chaos—the government enacted precise, uncompromising statutory legislation that governed building heights, pavement widths, the quality of external finishes, and the overall rhythm of the city’s skyline. When public authorities abdicate this responsibility, populations succumb to despondency, deciding they despise all modern construction and instinctively retreating into rigid conservationism. This blanket resistance to growth is dangerous because society still desperately requires new housing.

- **A Century of Decline**: “Humanity hasn't put up a single beautiful city since about 1905.” - **The True Benchmark**: When Venice rose out of the mud, nobody lamented the salt marshes and lagoons it swallowed, because the architecture equaled the majesty of the natural world. - **The Call to Action**: Real beauty will return only when electorates demand that governments rein in opportunistic builders, using these six urban rules to legislate for a dignified architectural future.

## Notable quotes > [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) Beautiful cities have only ever been created when governments impose strict and ambitious regulations to keep the greedy, private guys in check. — Narrator

> [05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=320s) We keep promoting the invention of mobile phones, but no one's built a good square anywhere on this planet for decades. — Narrator

> [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) Humanity hasn't put up a single beautiful city since about 1905. — Narrator

> [09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=571s) Towers have to be worthy of their prominence, they must be aligned with our best ambitions and long-term needs. — Narrator

## Mentioned The School of Life, Vale Productions, Paris, London, New York, Chicago, Telč, Java-eiland, Amsterdam, Canaletto, Venice, Hong Kong, Pont du Gard, Barcelona, Phoenix, Piazza di Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome, Cartagena, Joseph Campbell, Berlin, Millbrae Crescent, Glasgow, Cambridge, Glenn Murcutt, Australia, Edinburgh New Town, Frankfurt am Main, Birmingham, Sydney, San Francisco, Bath, Bordeaux

## Video description We've grown good at making many things in the modern world - but strangely the art of making attractive cities has been lost. Here are some key principles for how to make attractive cities once again.

Enjoying our Youtube videos? Get full access to all our audio content, videos, and thousands of thought-provoking articles, conversation cards and more with The School of Life Subscription: https://t.ly/pAdyF

Be more mindful, present and inspired. Get the best of The School of Life delivered straight to your inbox: https://t.ly/oFgpk

中文简报

如何打造一座宜人美丽的城市该演讲指出，城市的优美程度取决于客观标准而非主观喜好，并确立了六项基本设计原则：有序的复杂性、可见的街头生活、依托亲切公共广场的紧凑尺度、宽阔林荫大道与神秘街巷的平衡、五层楼的标准限高，以及采用本地材料的地方建筑特色。演讲指出，阻碍良好城市化进程的两大主要障碍是：让开发商得以利用“美完全在观者眼中”这一迷思的知识相对主义，以及在商业市场力量面前的政治妥协。为对抗城市沮丧感并满足住房需求，该视频呼吁民主政府以爱丁堡新城等历史成功案例为蓝本，颁布具有雄心的法定建筑法规。城市的魅力并非偶然或主观的；它依赖于现代工程社会在很大程度上已遗忘的六项清晰可辨的建筑与规划原则。 (0:03) 理想的城市尺度要求将标准住宅街区的层高限制在五层以内，同时将公共广场的最大直径设计在约30米左右，以保持人际尺度的亲近感。 (5:20) 打造迷人现代城市的主要障碍，在于对审美标准的知识相对主义，以及执行严格市政建筑规范时政治意愿的缺位。 (11:16) 爱丁堡新城等历史先例表明，优美的城市需要严格的法定法规来约束纯商业性的房地产开发。 (12:24)

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道 The School of Life 于 2015 年 1 月 26 日发布。视频简介指出，现代世界虽然擅长制造各类精密工业品，却离奇地遗失了建造迷人城市的手艺，因此本片旨在梳理并提出重塑美丽城市的核心原则。 ## TL;DR 视频指出真正美丽的城市在现代极其罕见，且大多为历史老城，根本原因在于现代规划陷入了混乱无序与资本投机。解说系统性地提出了重塑迷人城市的六大核心准则：在秩序与复杂性之间取得平衡、让劳动与城市生活可见、重塑紧凑格局与尺度亲切的公共广场、兼顾方向感与曲径探索的乐趣、将建筑高度严格限制在五层以内，以及因地制宜采用本土材料与建筑形式。最后，视频呼吁公众破除“美纯属主观”的相对主义迷思，唤醒政治意愿与民主力量，通过严格立法约束开发商，重新打造能够与自然媲美的城市空间。 ## Atmosphere & style 全片洋溢着 The School of Life 标志性的哲学沉思与人文关怀，语调沉静、儒雅却针砭时弊。解说的叙述娓娓道来，既有对古典城市生活温度的诗意向往，也有对当代资本肆意破坏天际线的辛辣讽刺。整部影片在冷静剖析城市病理的同时，充满了唤醒公众审美自觉的号召力，带给观众一种兼具知性启蒙与行动激情的观影体验。 ## Bulletin - [11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=676s) 现代城市美学失落的核心原因并非缺乏资金，而是源于美学相对主义带来的智识混乱，以及对自由市场投机放任自流的政治意愿匮乏。 - [00:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=47s) 理想城市必须在死板秩序与混乱堆砌之间实现“有组织的复杂性”，并建议推行严格的层高控制，将常规建筑基准高度限制在五层楼以内。 - [04:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=291s) 复兴公共广场艺术的关键在于把握尺度红线：优质广场的直径不应超过30米，以维持如客厅般的空间包裹感与看清对面面孔的社交视距。 - [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) 自1905年左右以来人类几乎未能再建起一座公认美丽的新城；唯有通过选民凝聚政治意愿、推动政府出台严苛的法定规划规训，方能遏制资本开发并重塑城市之美。 ## Key takeaways - [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=3s) 现代文明能制造出精密的汽车与手机，却离奇遗失了建造优美城市的手艺，必须以科学态度梳理原则以重塑城市美学。 - [00:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=47s) 城市建筑应当追求“有组织的复杂性”，在统一的立面面宽、高度网格框架下保留充分的个性变化，避免极端混乱或极度单一。 - [02:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=167s) 迷人的街区应让工作百态与日常技术向公众敞开，把商铺劳作呈现在街沿橱窗，而不是将基础设施和办公生活冰冷地封闭隐藏。 - [04:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=291s) 城市必须采取紧凑格局以遏制低效且割裂人际的郊区无序蔓延，高密度宜居环境能提供远超独居孤立的内心抚慰。 - [04:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=291s) 公共广场是城市紧凑生活的心脏，其直径应控制在30米以内，以保证个体不被空间异化并能轻松辨认他人面孔。 - [06:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=409s) 优质城市需同时融合大林荫道的“方位定向感”与狭窄街巷的“探索神秘感”，巷弄间适度的邻里注视往往能激发人性中的美好善意。 - [08:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=488s) 天际线揭示了一个社会未公开的真实信仰；应推行五层楼的理想建筑限高，打破商业资本对城市空域权的肆意垄断。 - [09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=571s) 超高层建筑具有压倒性的视觉统治力，其高度配额绝不可成为资本逐利的常态，必须严格留给能激发全人类共同热爱的崇高事物。 - [09:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=589s) 建筑设计应坚持因地制宜（Make It Local），利用本土黏土与砂岩等特色建材与形制，抵制抹杀地域气候与历史个性的全球雷同化。 - [11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=676s) “美完全是主观的”这一相对主义谎言成了开发商逃避责任的工具，全球旅游业的出行选择无可辩驳地证明了客观审美共识的存在。 - [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) 优美城市的诞生从来不靠自由市场调节，爱丁堡新城等范例无一例外依赖政府对建筑高度、立面工艺和人行道宽度的刚性立法监管。 - [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) 大众盲目反对新建与狂热修复文物折射出对现代建造能力的绝望；唯有选民凝聚政治意愿督促政府立法，才能重新创造可与大自然媲美的宏伟人居景观。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=3s) 城市美学的遗失与探索原则的必要性人类在现代文明中制造出了极其精良的汽车、飞机与智能手机，然而建造迷人城市的手艺却离奇地遗失了。成千上万座城市中，真正称得上美丽的可谓凤毛麟角，而且令人尴尬的是，那些真正吸引人的城市几乎全都是古老的老城。解说者强调，城市关系到每个人的生活，绝不能任由机缘巧合来决定其美丑，必须以更科学的态度去剖析背后的规律：“It's crazy to settle for this and to leave something so important to chance. We need to get more scientific and identify the principles that determine how a city gets to be pretty or ugly.” 为了重新掌握建造迷人城市的技艺，本片总结了城市必须做对的六大核心原则。 ### [00:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=47s) 原则一：不可过于混乱，亦不可过于整齐（有序中的复杂性）人们在城市中由衷热爱秩序——对称、平衡与重复，即左右呼应、元素循环，这也是巴黎深受大众喜爱的原因。然而，多数现代城市却混乱不堪：坡屋顶紧挨着平屋顶，冰冷的几何方盒子旁边是凌乱的停车场，摩天大楼随意散落，犹如一张张开的大嘴里参差不齐的牙齿。这种毫无规划的堆砌让人感到沮丧和失控，正如伦敦当下随处乱插摩天楼的做法，远不如纽约或芝加哥展示的那种秩序感讨喜。但走向另一个极端同样是一场灾难。过于严苛的规律不仅索然无味，甚至会摧毁人的心智，显得刻板、冷酷而荒凉。人类真正渴望的是“有组织的复杂性”（organized complexity）——在秩序与混乱之间取得精妙平衡。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 城市立面秩序与变化的光谱 accDescr: 展示从极端混乱到理想的组织复杂性，再到极端死板秩序的光谱关系。 A["极度混乱 (无序散落/令人烦躁)"] --- B["理想状态：有组织的复杂性 (统一网格 + 个性表达)"] --- C["极度整齐 (刻板冷酷/摧毁心灵)"] ``` - **捷克泰尔奇（Telč）广场**：沿街每座建筑拥有完全相同的面宽与高度，但在严格规整的框架内，每一栋房屋都被赋予了造型和色彩上的自由。 - **阿姆斯特丹爪哇岛（Java-eiland）**：严格控制建筑的高度、进深以及色彩色系，但在统一的网格体系下，每一个单元的立面细节又保持着彻底的独特性。 - **美学定律**：过多的杂乱令人反感，过度的单一让人厌倦，唯有介于两者之间的“多样与秩序”才能赢得人类的由衷赞美。 ### [02:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=167s) 原则二：清晰可见的城市生活（将工作与技术展现出来）迷人的街道必须拥有看得见的生机与烟火气，就像 18 世纪意大利画家卡纳莱托（Canaletto）笔下那些记录威尼斯石匠工坊与驳船装卸的画作，展现出繁忙而迷人的劳作百态。然而，现代城市往往把生活和工作严密地隐藏起来：人们在高速路旁毫无生气的封闭厂房或匿名写字楼里上班，临街的一面彻底死寂；办公楼里哪怕在进行最前沿的探索，外界也一无所知，只留下冰冷与疏离。现代规划者还陷入了一种“将所有基础设施藏起来”的执念。古罗马人在法国南部修建的加尔桥（Pont du Gard）本是一条巨型输水管道，如今却引得无数游客专程前往赞叹其兼具实用与壮美。解说者犀利地指出，人们厌恶的从来不是功能本身，而是丑陋的建造方式：“We think it's the pipe we hate. It's not. It's just the ugliness.” 真正的魅力街道应当让工作与生活呈现在橱窗与街沿，无论是面包店、修鞋铺、地毯集市、汉堡吧还是书店，当人们能看见彼此劳作并产生眼神接触时，城市才能重获温度。 ### [04:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=291s) 原则三：紧凑的格局与广场艺术的复兴在过去，只有贫困阶层才会拥挤杂居，独处与私人宅院曾是财富的象征。但 20 世纪下半叶以来，人们疯狂逃向私人领地，导致了无休止的“卧城”郊区蔓延，由冰冷宽阔的高速公路串联。这种做法不仅极度消耗环境资源，更让生活变得冷漠无趣——紧凑的巴塞罗那消耗的能源仅为无序蔓延的亚利桑那州菲尼克斯的一小部分。人类误以为自己渴望远离同类，实际上更需要身处宜人环境中与邻里紧凑共处所带来的平和与抚慰。为了实现紧凑而有秩序的城市，必须复兴严重失传的“公共广场”艺术。现代社会能造出智能手机，却几十年没能造出一座好广场。以罗马特拉斯提弗列圣母广场（Piazza di Santa Maria in Trastevere）为例，它是公共的，却足够亲切私密，宛如家庭客厅的向外延伸。 - **尺度红线**：优秀广场的直径绝不应超过 30 米。一旦超过这一距离，空间尺度就会将个体衬托得微不足道，产生强烈的异化感与失落感。 - **社交视距**：人在广场的一端，必须能够清晰看清另一端行人的面孔；如果有需要，应当能够毫不费力地朝对街的人打招呼。 - **空间体验**：优秀的广场必须提供包裹感与容纳感（containment），同时绝不产生幽闭恐惧。 ### [06:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=409s) 原则四：方位定向与神秘曲径的交融优秀的城市必然幅员辽阔，但那些深受喜爱的城市无不保留着大量能让人舒适地“小小迷路”的狭窄巷弄。正如哥伦比亚卡塔赫纳（Cartagena）的老街，街道两旁的阳台几乎在空中相撞，邻里之间能看到对方吃早餐、知道彼此何时就寝、甚至知晓孩子周日晚几点写作业。解说者观察到，这种被邻里注视的生活反而激发了人性中的美好：“The fact that everyone is little bit on display a lot of the time tends to make people nicer. They don't shout at each other quite so much. They put flowers on the table more often.” 现代规划者盲目追求隐私，又为了体量巨大的卡车与轿车让步，将街道拓得极宽，扼杀了小巷的乐趣。然而，小巷虽温馨，长途通行却极不便；大马路便于通行，却冰冷缺乏温情。因此，理想的城市必须同时提供两种快感：大林荫道带来的“方位明确感”（pleasures of orientation），以及曲折街巷带来的“探索神秘感”（pleasures of mystery）。 ### [08:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=488s) 原则五：限制天际线尺度（回归五层建筑）现代城市沉迷于庞然大物。神话学家约瑟夫·坎贝尔（Joseph Campbell）曾写道：“‘If you want to see what a society really believes in, look at what the biggest buildings on the horizon are dedicated to.’” 天际线上最显眼的建筑揭示了一座社会未曾公开承认的真实信仰：曾经高耸的是大教堂、清真寺或博物馆，人们心悦诚服地在追求崇高与神圣的事物面前感到谦卑；然而今天，天际线被运动鞋跨国企业、避税顾问公司、石油巨头、制药厂、披萨连锁店和对冲基金的巨型写字楼彻底霸占。这是盲目开发空域权（air rights）的恶果，严重破坏了窗外的视觉风景。为了让城市重新具有人情味，应当抑制冲天高楼的蔓延，推行严格的层高控制：城市的理想高度应当被限制在五层楼以内。超过五层，人就会感到自身的渺小、微不足道与被漠视；将一切功能密集且紧凑地压缩在五层建筑中，正是柏林与阿姆斯特丹部分街区得以保持生机与美感的关键所在。 ### [09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=571s) 高层建筑的节制：将高度留给人类共同热爱的事物在伦敦和巴黎那些广受人们喜爱的核心街区中，整体建筑群往往保持着极其克制的高度。解说指出，城市中偶尔出现一座体量庞大的巨型建筑未尝不可，但这绝不应成为资本肆意堆砌的常态，而应当将其严格保留给真正极其特殊、能够唤起全人类由衷热爱的标志性事物。摩天大楼与高塔具有压倒性的视觉主导权，因此它们的精神内涵必须配得上自身所享有的崇高地位。解说强调：“Towers have to be worthy of their prominence, they must be aligned with our best ambitions and long-term needs.”（高塔必须配得上它们的显赫地位，它们必须与我们最美好的抱负以及长期需求保持一致。） ### [09:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=589s) 城市设计原则：彰显本土特色与材料（Make It Local）打造迷人城市的最后一项核心法则是“因地制宜，彰显本土特色”（Make it local）。在现代工业社会中，某些日用品在世界各地保持一致是完全合理的——人们并不指望看到一款具有独创委内瑞拉风格的电话机，或者一辆具有鲜明冰岛特色的自行车。然而，这种全球趋同绝不应该蔓延到城市建筑领域。当一个人乘坐长途飞机数小时落地后，环顾四周却感觉自己可以置身于世界上任何一个角落时，这种千篇一律令人感到无比沮丧。这种对多样性的追求绝非仅仅是为了追求变化而变化，而是源于极其现实的客观差异：由于气候条件、历史脉络与社会传统的迥异，每个社会都有着完全不同的实际需求以及各自的长处与弱点。世界上存在着许多截然不同的幸福生活风貌，也有许多美好而多样的集体生活组织方式。现代城市那种毫无个性的雷同感是一个巨大的危机，因为它暴露出建筑设计已经彻底脱离了对特定地域性格的体察与关怀。这种割裂就像一个人在所有极端气候下都穿着同一套衣服，或者不分对象、在任何场合都用完全相同的腔调说话一样荒谬。因此，城市必须借助独特的本土材料与本土形式，塑造出鲜明强烈的地域风貌与个性。解说明确呼吁：“So the law should be: don't make your city from buildings that could be just anywhere; find a style of architecture that reflects what makes your location specific.”（因此这项铁律应当是：不要用那些放在哪里都毫无差别的建筑来拼凑你的城市；要去寻找一种能够反映你所处之地独特性的建筑风格。） - **格拉斯哥的浅色砂岩**：格拉斯哥南侧米尔布雷弯道（Millbrae Crescent）所采用的淡色砂岩是一种典型的本土建材。那是一种中等粒度的石炭纪金黄色砂岩（carboniferous, blond sandstone），形成于苏格兰陆块尚处于赤道附近的远古地质时代。 - **剑桥的本土黏土砖**：剑桥周边的传统主要建筑材料，来自当地特有的带黄色色调的高特黏土（gault clay）所烧制出的砖块。 - **格伦·马库特（Glenn Murcutt）的实践**：伟大的澳大利亚建筑大师格伦·马库特探索出了一系列独树一帜的建筑形制，精准呼应并反映了澳大利亚生活方式与自然气候的独特气质。 ### [11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=676s) 阻碍美丽城市的核心困境：关于美的智识困惑与相对主义现代社会未能建造出优美城市，其根源绝非经济短缺。就整个人类社会的财富总量而言，我们完全拥有足够的资金。真正横亘在眼前的阻碍主要有两个：首先是对美学概念在“智识上的混乱困惑”（intellectual confusion around beauty），其次则是“政治意愿的匮乏”（lack of political will）。关于美的智识困惑表现为一种极端的虚无主义与相对主义：人们普遍认为没有任何人有权裁定什么是美、什么是丑；大家对“究竟由谁来决定”感到焦虑和戒备，进而认定美完全是主观的，因此任何人都不能在此问题上发表定论。这种顾虑虽然可以理解，但其后果极其危险——它成了贪婪的房地产开发商手中最趁手的工具。当开发商得知世上根本没有“美”这一客观标准时，他们如释重负，因为这意味着他们肆无忌惮地建造丑陋建筑却可以免受任何道德或法律问责。然而，即便公众无法在美丽城市的每一个细节上达成绝对共识，但当丑陋赫然摆在眼前时，所有人都心知肚明。正如很少有人会心甘情愿地前往美因河畔法兰克福或伯明翰度假，这种选择绝非偶然，而是与人类对美的客观感知紧密相连。解说尖锐地驳斥了审美相对论的虚伪：“Let's not just say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; that's just a gift to the next wealthy idiot who wants to put up a horrible tower.”（不要再说‘情人眼里出西施’这种话了；那不过是拱手送给下一个想要建起可怕高楼的富有蠢蛋的无上厚礼。） - **客观审美的例证**：悉尼、旧金山、巴斯（Bath）和波尔多（Bordeaux）等公认美丽的城市拥有无可否认的吸引力，而世界上绝大多数平庸之地并不具备这种特质。 - **无可辩驳的数据证明**：全球的旅游业统计数据就是最铁证如山的事实——成千上万旅行者的脚步和选择彻底戳破了“审美纯属个人主观偏好”的谎言。 ### [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) 政治意愿与公共监管：夺回城市设计的民主权力建设美丽城市的第二大障碍是政治意愿的彻底沦丧。在当下，社会大众几乎将城市规划与设计的控制权拱手让给了贪婪的富豪与开发商。公众放弃了对民主机制力量的信任，在公共利益与商业投机主义的搏杀中未战先怯、节节败退。尽管市场上永远盘踞着精明、狡黠且资金雄厚的游说集团为丑恶的开发项目摇旗呐喊，但民主社会完全有权力坚决说“不”。回溯历史，一切优美城市的诞生，无一例外都依赖于政府出台并强制执行严苛、宏大的规训条例，以此严格约束唯利是图的私人开发商。爱丁堡令人惊叹的新城（New Town）之所以能够成功拔地而起，唯一的原因正是政府设立了清晰明确的铁律来遏制开发商的贪婪。当时的立法精细入微地规范了建筑高度、立面工艺质量、人行道宽度以及城市天际线的整体风貌。解说直言：“They didn't leave it to the free market. Do that, and you will have chaos.”（他们没有将一切放任给自由市场。如果任由市场决定，你得到的只会是一片混乱。）当政府放弃对美学的把控与追求时，民众就会对所有新建筑产生刻骨铭心的厌恶感，集体陷入绝望，误以为人类已经丧失了创造美丽场所的能力。这种绝望导致大众狂热地迷恋于历史文物的保护与修复，盲目反对一切拔地而起的新建项目；但这一立场是行不通的，因为人类繁衍与生活始终需要真实的居住空间。事实上，自1905年左右以来，人类社会几乎再也没有凭空建成过一座真正美丽的全新城市。当年威尼斯在潟湖之上拔地而起时，世人没有谁会为那些被吞噬的湿地自然而感到惋惜与悔恨。建造的崇高目标，本应是创造出能够与大自然的鬼斧神工分庭抗礼的建筑作品，让人类在失去自然的同时不必抱憾终身。解说总结指出，打造更优美的城市完全在人类能力范围之内，但前提是必须直面投机开发商的贪婪，并破除自身在美学上的思想迷惘。政府能否有魄力立法确立美的准则，归根结底取决于选民与公民阶层的强烈诉求：“Governments can only create beauty if they have enough public backing. Political will is ultimately about what all of us, the electorate, are asking for.”（只有在拥有足够公众支持的前提下，政府才能创造美。所谓政治意愿，归根结底正是由我们所有选民的诉求所决定的。）这正是制作本片的核心初衷——唤醒每一位公民行使民主力量，推动立法以捍卫未来的城市之美。六项核心原则已经明晰，当下正是将其付诸实践、奋起抗争的时刻。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 美丽城市建设路径图 accDescr: 展示智识觉醒、民主参与、严格政府监管如何战胜商业投机并最终建成美丽城市 subgraph Obstacles["面临阻碍"] O1["美学相对主义困惑 （声称美完全主观）"] O2["放任自由市场 （商业投机与贪婪游说）"] end subgraph Solutions["破局路径"] S1["重塑客观审美认知 （承认美的共识）"] S2["公民意志觉醒 （选民要求立法干预）"] end subgraph Regulation["制度保障"] R1["严格政府规划法规 （管控建筑高度/人行道/天际线）"] end subgraph Outcome["最终愿景"] E1["爱丁堡新城式优美都市 （建筑品质媲美自然）"] end O1 --> S1 O2 --> S2 S1 --> S2 S2 --> R1 R1 --> E1 ``` - **爱丁堡新城的法定控制要素**：详细规定了建筑物基准高度、建筑施工与外立面的完成品质、人行道法定宽度，以及沿街建筑天际线的起伏与整体风貌。 - **1905年的分水岭**：自约1905年以来，全球在现代化扩张中几乎没有再新建出哪怕一座公认美丽的城市，反而陷入了“憎恶新建筑、过度执迷历史修复”的集体心态。 - **威尼斯启示录**：优秀的城市建设并不惧怕替代自然，因为当人工建筑艺术能与自然法则并驾齐驱时，人类便能坦然接纳文明带来的全新壮丽景观。 ## Notable quotes > [11:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=676s) Let's not just say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; that's just a gift to the next wealthy idiot who wants to put up a horrible tower. > [09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=571s) Towers have to be worthy of their prominence, they must be aligned with our best ambitions and long-term needs. > [09:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=589s) So the law should be: don't make your city from buildings that could be just anywhere; find a style of architecture that reflects what makes your location specific. > [12:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=744s) Governments can only create beauty if they have enough public backing. Political will is ultimately about what all of us, the electorate, are asking for. > [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=3s) It's crazy to settle for this and to leave something so important to chance. We need to get more scientific and identify the principles that determine how a city gets to be pretty or ugly. > [06:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c&t=409s) The fact that everyone is little bit on display a lot of the time tends to make people nicer. They don't shout at each other quite so much. They put flowers on the table more often. ## Mentioned Canaletto, Joseph Campbell, Glenn Murcutt, Telč, Java-eiland, Pont du Gard, Piazza di Santa Maria in Trastevere, Cartagena, Millbrae Crescent, New Town ## Video description We've grown good at making many things in the modern world - but strangely the art of making attractive cities has been lost. Here are some key principles for how to make attractive cities once again. Enjoying our Youtube videos? Get full access to all our audio content, videos, and thousands of thought-provoking articles, conversation cards and more with The School of Life Subscription: https://t.ly/pAdyF Be more mindful, present and inspired. Get the best of The School of Life delivered straight to your inbox: https://t.ly/oFgpk FURTHER READING “Cities are a big deal. We pretty much all have to live in them. We should try hard to get them right. So few cities are nice, very few out of many thousands are really beautiful; embarrassingly the more appealing ones tend to be old, which is weird because we’re mostly much better at making things now...” You can read more on this and other topics here: https://goo.gl/6wYBGc MORE SCHOOL OF LIFE Watch more films on WORK + CAPITALISM in our playlist: http://bit.ly/TSOLcapitalism SOCIAL MEDIA Feel free to follow us at the links below: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theschooloflifelondon/ X: https://twitter.com/TheSchoolOfLife Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theschooloflifelondon/ CREDITS Produced in collaboration with: Vale Productions http://www.valeproductions.co.uk #TheSchoolOfLife [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c)

Source quotes

[11:16] Let's not just say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; that's just a gift to the next wealthy idiot who wants to put up a horrible tower. [9:31] Towers have to be worthy of their prominence, they must be aligned with our best ambitions and long-term needs. [9:49] So the law should be: don't make your city from buildings that could be just anywhere; find a style of architecture that reflects what makes your location specific. [12:24] Governments can only create beauty if they have enough public backing. Political will is ultimately about what all of us, the electorate, are asking for. [0:03] It's crazy to settle for this and to leave something so important to chance. We need to get more scientific and identify the principles that determine how a city gets to be pretty or ugly. [6:49] The fact that everyone is little bit on display a lot of the time tends to make people nicer. They don't shout at each other quite so much. They put flowers on the table more often.

Source quotes

[12:24] Narrator: Beautiful cities have only ever been created when governments impose strict and ambitious regulations to keep the greedy, private guys in check. [5:20] Narrator: We keep promoting the invention of mobile phones, but no one's built a good square anywhere on this planet for decades. [12:24] Narrator: Humanity hasn't put up a single beautiful city since about 1905. [9:31] Narrator: Towers have to be worthy of their prominence, they must be aligned with our best ambitions and long-term needs.

Original transcript

[0:03] Cities are a big deal: we pretty much all have to live in them; [0:07] We should try hard to get them right. [0:10] So few cities are nice; very, very few out of many thousands are really beautiful. [0:15] Embarrassingly, the more appealing ones tend to be old, [0:18] which is weird because we're mostly much better at making things now: cars, planes, or phones. [0:23] Why not, then, cities? [0:25] It's crazy to settle for this and to leave something so important to chance. [0:29] We need to get more scientific and identify the principles that determine how a city gets to be pretty or ugly. [0:35] It's not a mystery why we like some cities so much better than others. [0:39] This is a manifesto about how to make attractive cities. [0:43] There are six fundamental things a city needs to get right. [0:47] 1. Not too chaotic; Not too ordered [0:49] One of the things we really love in cities is order. [0:53] Order means balance, symmetry and repetition; [0:56] it means the same thing happening again and again, and the left side matching the right side. [1:00] Order is one of the reasons so many people love Paris. [1:03] But most cities are a complete mess. [1:06] When it's a mess, it seems like no one is in charge. [1:08] And that's worrying. [1:10] It's horrible when everything is jumbled up. [1:12] A pitched roof next to a flat roof, [1:14] a stark geometrical box next to a muddled car park, [1:17] high rise towers that look as if they've been placed at random, like teeth in a gaping mouth. [1:22] We generally have an itch to straighten things out, [1:25] and when we can't, it's frustrating. [1:27] The same urge is there when we look at cities. [1:30] Often, it's not skyscrapers that we mind in the city, [1:33] it's skyscrapers that have been dumped without planning, [1:35] like they are increasingly in London, [1:37] whereas New York or Chicago shows the ordered way that we love. [1:42] However, you have to keep something else in mind: [1:44] excessive order can be just as much of a problem. [1:47] Too much regularity can be soul destroying. [1:51] Too much order feels rigid and alien. [1:53] It can be bleak, relentless, and harsh. [1:56] So the ideal we're seeking is variety and order. [2:01] This is the idea in a square in Telč in the Czech Republic: [2:04] where every house is the same width and height [2:06] but within that ordered pattern, [2:08] every house has been allowed freedom at the level of form and colour [2:11] or in Java-eiland in Amsterdam where the pattern is quite strict: [2:15] each house has the same height and width, [2:17] the color range is restricted, [2:18] but within this grid, each unit is completely individual. [2:22] We're perfectly in the middle between chaos and boringness here. [2:26] And that's what humans adore. [2:27] That's what more and more cities should have: [2:29] order and variety. [2:32] So as a general rule: [2:33] too much mess, and it's off putting, [2:35] but too much simple order, and it's boring. [2:38] What we crave it's organized complexity [2:41] which you can see as much here: [2:44] as here: [2:47] Now, for the second thing that makes cities beautiful: [2:49] they have to have visible life. [2:52] There are streets that are dead and streets that are alive [2:54] and in general, we crave the live ones. [2:56] This is a live street in Hong Kong. [2:59] This is a live scene in Venice. [3:01] In the 18th century, the painter Canaletto [3:03] specialized in pictures of cities everyone loved [3:05] because they're full of life. [3:07] There's always plenty going on. [3:08] In this painting we can see a stonemason's yard. [3:11] The work sheds are rough, but they're charming. [3:13] It's fascinating to see what people are up to. [3:15] How do they load those huge blocks onto the gondolas? [3:18] The life of the city is on display, [3:20] and we're primed to love this. [3:22] Contrast this with dead streets of many modern cities. [3:25] Today, the places where a lot of the work gets done [3:27] look dull and dead. [3:29] They're spaced out along huge highways, [3:31] and you never go there unless you happen to work there yourself [3:34] because there's nothing to see. [3:36] And most office buildings are brutally anonymous; [3:38] the people inside might be working in all sorts of fascinating stuff, [3:41] but we just don't know, and it's disorienting and cold. [3:44] The street levels are dead. [3:46] Contrast this with the streets we all love, [3:48] where you can see things going on: a bakery, [3:50] a cobbler's shop, and markets selling carpets, a burger bar, a bookshop; [3:54] these are streets we love because they're full of life. [3:57] More and more, in modern cities, we've hidden life away. [4:00] We have lots of dead sheds, and dead towers, [4:02] connected up by dead motorways where you can barely glimpse your fellow humans. [4:06] Rather than the old alleyways where you can see people at work, [4:09] look them in the eye as they walk down the road [4:11] and feel connected to others. [4:13] Modern planners have become obessed by [4:15] hiding technology [4:17] rather than trying to make it nice to look at. [4:19] Today we'de be outraged if we heard a huge pipeline [4:22] was gonna be slapped across a lovely river; [4:24] we'd be up in arms! [4:25] But we book trips to go and see the Roman Pont du Gard in southern France. [4:29] That's because it's built for beauty and practicality. [4:32] We think it's the pipe we hate. It's not. [4:34] It's just the ugliness. [4:36] So let's make sure our streets are full of life, [4:38] full of people doing stuff you can see through the windows. [4:40] That's what make certain cities so attractive to walk along: [4:43] the work is on show, [4:44] the people are proud of what they're doing [4:46] and happy to let the world notice and appreciate [4:49] the practical side of things. [4:51] There's a third principle of good cities: [4:52] They are compact. [4:54] In the past, being able to be alone [4:56] or just with your partner or family, was at first, a huge achievement. [4:59] Only the largest class, the poor, lived huddled together [5:03] and it was horrid. [5:04] As soon as people had money, they wanted to move out, [5:06] and have their own plots. [5:08] Through the later decades of 20th century, [5:10] more and more people tucked themselves away in a private realm. [5:13] And it's been a disaster. [5:15] It's become deadly, cold, and boring, [5:17] and very, very wasteful on the environment. [5:20] A compact city like Barcelona [5:21] swallows a fraction of the energy [5:23] of a sprawling one like Phoenix, in Arizona. [5:25] We've built a world of endless dead dormitory suburbs [5:28] connected by sterile wide motorways [5:31] all because we labor under the false impression [5:33] that we want to be far away from other people. [5:36] But in fact it's wonderful to have the balancing moderating influence [5:39] of living close to other people in uplifting surroundings. [5:43] That's why we need tightly packed, well-ordered cities [5:45] with lots of squares in public places in which we can hang out. [5:49] All the most beautiful compact cities have squares. [5:52] Yet, the art of the square has gone into terrible decline. [5:55] We keep promoting the invention of mobile phones, [5:58] but no one's built a good square anywhere on this planet for decades. [6:01] It's not rocket science though. [6:03] Look at the Piazza di Santa Maria in Trastevere, Rome. [6:05] It's a public place, but intimate and closed enough to feel like an extension of your home. [6:10] Lounging about here, having a coffee or a beer, reading a paper, [6:14] you get to be around other people, [6:15] their moderating, cheering affect is restoring. [6:18] It takes you away from the over intense, couple obsessed atmosphere of the home. [6:23] There's an art to a good square: [6:25] it should be neither too big nor too small, [6:26] anything over 30 meters in diameter starts become too large [6:30] by which we mean: the individual become overly small relative to the space around them, [6:34] creating a sense of alienation and dislocation. [6:37] In a good square you should be able to see the face of a person across the square, [6:41] You could if need be hail someone walking on the other side. [6:44] The ideal square must offer a feeling of containment, but not claustrophobia. [6:49] There's another principle of good cities to do with orientation and mystery. [6:53] By definition, cities are huge, [6:55] but the cities that a lot of people love also have lots of little back streets [6:59] and small lanes where you can feel cozy and get a bit lost. [7:03] We're drawn to the sense of mystery and enclosure that these streets offer. [7:06] It's actually lovely to get a bit lost. [7:09] A warren of alleyways can feel homely and intimate. [7:12] At Cartagena, in Colombia, [7:14] the balconies nearly touch across the street- [7:16] you can see your neighbors having breakfast, you know when they've gone to bed, [7:19] what time the children do their homework on a Sunday evening. [7:22] The fact that everyone is little bit on display a lot of the time tends to make people nicer. [7:27] They don't shout at each other quite so much. [7:29] They put flowers on the table more often. [7:31] We like it, but we forget that we do, and we don't quite know how to ask for it. [7:35] Modern planners and developers give us maximum privacy [7:38] because they suppose that's what we all want, [7:40] and because they insist that cars and lorries, which like a lot more space than people, [7:44] are the most important things in the world. [7:46] Of course we need balance between small streets and big ones. [7:50] Necessarily, cities are large. [7:51] We love small streets, but they're a nightmare when you have to go any distance. [7:55] So the ideal is to have big boulevards, grand, wide straight places, and also little warrens of streets. [8:01] We need cities that offer us two important pleasures: [8:04] the pleasures of mystery and the pleasures of orientation. [8:08] Let's think about scale now. [8:10] Modern cities are all about big things. [8:13] Joseph Campbell once wrote: [8:14] "If you want to see what a society really believes in, [8:17] look at what the biggest buildings on the horizon are dedicated to". [8:21] The biggest most prominent things tell us about the actual, rather than admitted priorities of a society. [8:26] We don't collectively say we worship sports shoe corporations, tax specialists, [8:31] the oil industry, and pharmaceuticals. [8:32] Our cities, however, tell another story. [8:35] They're full of enormous towers devoted to just these things. [8:38] That is a bit depressing. [8:40] As humans, we don't mind things being big, per se, [8:43] we don't mind being humbled, [8:45] so long as the things we are bowing to deserve homage, [8:48] like a beautiful mosque, or a cathedral, or a museum. [8:51] But we've allowed our cities to be hijacked by aggressive commercial interests, [8:55] by towers that honor not God, or love, or humanity, [8:58] but pizza corporations and hedge funds. [9:00] They exist because we've made a big dumb collective mistake: [9:04] we focused on who owns land, but we don't think about who owns space, who has air rights. [9:09] And in the end, who has air rights [9:11] determines what you can see from your window. [9:13] We suggest that the ideal height for any city block [9:16] is five stories high. [9:18] No more. Above that people start to feel small, insignificant, and trivial. [9:23] So we say: cut down those towers and pack everything into five stories. [9:27] Make it dense, compact, and tight, [9:29] like they do in some parts of Berlin, Amsterdam, [9:31] London, and Paris, the bits we love. [9:34] Of course, occasionally there can be a huge building, [9:36] but let's keep it for something really special, [9:38] something all of humanity can love. [9:41] Towers have to be worthy of their prominence, [9:43] they must be aligned with our best ambitions and long-term needs. [9:49] Finally, make it local. [9:50] Somethings should be the same everywhere. [9:53] We don't expect there to be a uniquely Venezuelan telephone [9:56] or a distinctively Icelandic bicycle. [9:58] But, we don't want buildings to look the same everywhere. [10:01] It's hugely disappointing when you fly somewhere for hours, land, and feel you could be anywhere. [10:07] The problem isn't just that we like a bit of variation for it's own sake; [10:10] because of climate, history and social traditions, [10:13] each society really does have different needs, [10:15] different strengths and weaknesses. [10:17] There are many distinct styles of happiness; [10:19] many good and varied ways of conductive and collective life. [10:22] The sameness of cities is a problem [10:24] because it reveals how far each of us must be from engaging with an specific character of it's own place. [10:30] It's like wearing the same clothes in all climates, [10:33] or speaking exactly the same way irrespective of who you're talking to. [10:37] Cities need to have strong characters [10:39] connected to the use of distinctive local materials and forms. [10:42] The pale sandstone, of Millbrae Crescent in Glasgow's south side, is a local material, [10:47] A medium grained, carboniferous, blond sandstone- [10:50] formed when the Scottish landmass lay near the equator. [10:53] Or around Cambridge, brick from the local yellowish gault clay is a major traditional material. [10:59] Or think of the way the great Australian architect, Glenn Murcutt, [11:02] found ways to put up buildings that reflected the distinctive character Australian life. [11:06] So the law should be: don't make your city from buildings that could be just anywhere; [11:11] find a style of architecture that reflects what makes your location specific. [11:16] The obstacles to building beautiful cities and not economic. Collectively, we've got enough money. [11:22] We face two main problems: firstly, an intellectual confusion around beauty, and secondly, lack of political will. [11:29] The intellectual confusion is: we think no one has a right to say what's beautiful and what's ugly; [11:35] we get worried about who decides; we think beauty is subjective, so surely no one should say anything about it. [11:41] It's a very understandable qualm, but it's horribly useful to greedy property developers. [11:47] It's such a relief to these people to learn that there is no such thing as beauty; it means they can get away with murder. [11:53] We may not agree to the very last point about what a beautiful city is, but we know an ugly one when we see it. [11:59] No one's ever willingly taken holiday in Frankfurt-on-Main or Birmingham, and there are good reasons for this to do with an objective sense of beauty. [12:06] So let's stop being dangerously relativistic about this. [12:09] Yes! There is such a thing as beauty. [12:11] Sydney and San Francisco and Bath and Bordeaux have it and most other places don't. [12:15] The proof lies in the tourist statistics. [12:17] Let's not just say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder; [12:20] that's just a gift to the next wealthy idiot who wants to put up a horrible tower. [12:24] The other obstacle is a lack of political will. [12:27] We've abandoned the design of cities to the greedy rich. [12:30] We've given up believing in democracy. [12:32] We've faced and have lost the battle between the public good and commercial opportunism. [12:36] There will always be a greedy, slick lobby fighting for ugly development, [12:40] but we can say no. [12:42] Beautiful cities have only ever been created when governments impose strict and ambitious regulations [12:47] to keep the greedy, private guys in check. [12:51] Think of Edinburgh's amazing New Town, [12:53] which only got of the ground because the government established clear rules to keep developers in check. [12:57] They were precise legislation detailing [12:59] heights for buildings, quality of finish, the width of pavements, and a character of the skyline. [13:04] That's the only way you get beauty. [13:06] They didn't leave it to the free market. Do that, and you will have chaos. [13:09] When governments give up on beauty, people start to hate all building. [13:13] We become collectively despondent. We think we hate all building, and that we can't create beautiful places [13:19] We get obsessed by restorations and opposed to anything new, [13:22] which is wrong because we need places to live. [13:25] Humanity hasn't put up a single beautiful city since about 1905. [13:28] When Venice was built, no one regretted the lagoons that had been swallowed up. [13:33] The goal of building, should be to put up things that don't leave us regretting the nature that's been lost [13:38] because the architecture is every bit the equal of the designs of nature. [13:42] We can create more beautiful cities, but we have to confront opportunistic developers and our own intellectual confusions. [13:49] Governments can only create beauty if they have enough public backing. [13:53] Political will is ultimately about what all of us, the electorate, are asking for. [13:57] That's why we made this film and hope to awaken you to your power as citizens to help legislate for beautiful cities in the future [14:04] These are the six rules. Now, it's time to fight to put them in action.