So many times we are just bombarded by images of the 'ideal romantic getaway' (see romanticmotels.com). The locations are 'beautiful' in typical picturesque fashion (cliffs by the sea, peaceful meadows, or any of a series of other 'natural' settings). It seems that designers (developers/promoters) still are not considering the reality of things. A romantic atmoshpere certainly seems possible even in a gritty urban setting. In one way, it seems that urban setting can highlight a unique positive quality when combined with particular elements such as Christmas lights, doll-house scales, etc. On the other hand, the urban context itself at times reflects particular 'romantic' values (a peaceful side street, or even a peaceful freeway on a Sunday afternoon). The monumentality of the city, specially in quiet, individual (or 'couple') moments, is at any rate 'sublime'. Is this an issue of people being more willing to relate the picturesque to a romantic setting? (As opposed to the sublime) or do people just despise the man-made urban context?
on an anniversary trip to romantic old san juan, the architect side of the couple sees the vibrant urban life: pigeons as sharers of the city, street vendors, the exquisitely maintained and unspoiled convent serving as a hotel, the stone streets. the non-architect thinks the shopping district is too limited, the hotel is dirty, the pigeons are disgusting, and turns an ankle in the cobblestones. where's starbucks?
Death of Pictureesque Romance; Welcome to the City
So many times we are just bombarded by images of the 'ideal romantic getaway' (see romanticmotels.com). The locations are 'beautiful' in typical picturesque fashion (cliffs by the sea, peaceful meadows, or any of a series of other 'natural' settings). It seems that designers (developers/promoters) still are not considering the reality of things. A romantic atmoshpere certainly seems possible even in a gritty urban setting. In one way, it seems that urban setting can highlight a unique positive quality when combined with particular elements such as Christmas lights, doll-house scales, etc. On the other hand, the urban context itself at times reflects particular 'romantic' values (a peaceful side street, or even a peaceful freeway on a Sunday afternoon). The monumentality of the city, specially in quiet, individual (or 'couple') moments, is at any rate 'sublime'. Is this an issue of people being more willing to relate the picturesque to a romantic setting? (As opposed to the sublime) or do people just despise the man-made urban context?
on an anniversary trip to romantic old san juan, the architect side of the couple sees the vibrant urban life: pigeons as sharers of the city, street vendors, the exquisitely maintained and unspoiled convent serving as a hotel, the stone streets. the non-architect thinks the shopping district is too limited, the hotel is dirty, the pigeons are disgusting, and turns an ankle in the cobblestones. where's starbucks?
Not so true, I think the gritty city is romanticized in many a chick-flick New York movie. See also: Paris, Rome...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.