In general, the question arises: What is the connection between architectural and urban planning resources and aesthetic perceptions of beauty, complexity, diversity, openness, liveliness and exceptionality? This is followed by the question: Must cities worth living in be beautiful? We start with the city’s offers – on the level of navigation and orientation, movement and use, and sensory experiences: How do a street, a district, or an interesting building constitute the interaction of our body with its surroundings? When do urban planning and architectural decisions trigger either positive or negative assessments? How do these assessments vary between population groups?
Aesthetics can mean even more – a shift from pragmatic processing (navigating the way to work) to an aesthetic one (when we pause and contemplate, evaluate and process emotions). This can be triggered, for example, by open spaces and green spaces, but also by challenging architecture or art in architecture. As such, aesthetic experiences enable other cognitive processing patterns and opens up new possibilities for action. This is one of the reasons why the “aesthetics of the city” are a key dimension of neurourbanism.