This is the question that some few intelligent people (including Richard Rogers) aimed to answer during the discussion board hosted at the Tate Modern as part of the “Debate London” event organized by The Architecture Foundation.

No doubt this is an interesting question and therefore some interesting points were made here. However none of them were definitive from my personal point of view. Perhaps the subjectivity of the terms big and beautiful didn’t allow more concrete and inspiring opinions.

First of all there was a need to define the concept of beauty better. It’s difficult to progress in a discussion about beauty if for instance we restrict it to speak about aesthetics. I find London beautiful although I’m sure my reasons for that are rather different to any other London citizen. In fact, speaking from a pure aesthetics approach I would say that I don’t find London as beautiful as other European cities such as Lisbon, Prague, Barcelona or Paris. It’s not the aesthetic side of London that I find blowing but its soul, its inner beauty based on my very personal living experience. And this is a personal feeling that it’s very difficult to rationalize but it still maintains certain important relevancy.

It’s almost certain that my experience of London is highly influenced by my daily doing and the level of easiness that the city provides me with so that I can stop worrying about the mundane in order to focus on more creative paths to develop my personality. I wonder if this is an important layer of our perception of beauty. And I could argue that this is generic enough to set a starting point on this discussion.

So, can London be both big and beautiful? It certainly is big already so there doesn’t seem to be many problems from that side. But can it be beautiful too? Yes if the city covers the basic expectations of its citizens. A city with a good public transport network, a generous cultural offer, a reasonable community care (health, education, minorities integration and other social services, local infrastructures, etc) and open professional opportunities will result on a better experience and a more positive perception from most of the citizens. And once people feel happier, the city will automatically become more beautiful.

So the solution doesn’t lie only on architecture (perhaps more on planning). It has very little to do with how many skyscrapers will define the skyline or how high they will be. Or with how many Victorian buildings we preserve or how cutting edge the Olympic ring will be. This surely has its space but it’s not a definitive answer for most of the people. This is because beauty is not only about aesthetics but about function. And if London functions well, no doubt that it will be a big and a beautiful city.

Share This