|Montréal from Mont Royal|
|Chicago's downtown in Google Earth|
|Tokyo from the observatory of Roppongi hills|
|Which point of view should be favored?|
Why is there a focus on the bird's eye view?
|Old buildings in Clermont-Ferrand, note the attention to details on the windows, the cornice, etc...|
|A church in France, again, note the attention to details, especially on the gate|
|Empire State Plaza in Albany is a brutalist masterpiece, it looks awesome from the sky|
|But it absolutely lacks in details for pedestrians up close, the only reason you would be near these buildings is if you were on the way in or out|
Effects of modelitis
|A still from a video about what makes city attractive, that shows a SATELLITE VIEW of Paris as an example of order and complexity, never mind that no Parisian ever had this view of their city, save perhaps an astronaut or two.|
|At the foot of the Empire State Building, sorry for the windshield perspective, the actual height of the building is irrelevant|
|"Vancouverism", towers are present without disrupting the "walls" of the street", they are in the background, not the foreground|
|This is the view from the street, again, forgive the windshield perspective|
Modelitis applied on an urban park: Square Viger in Montréal
- All in concrete. There are a few trees and plants put on the concrete structures, but they have low visibility and, in the case of the plants, basically invisible when people are under these structures
- Right angles everywhere which increases the unorganic nature of the concrete.
- Too many stairs. Stairs are not a pleasant place to walk in, so they should be avoided where possible. They are hard on the knees, slow down travel and are a safety risk. Dividing the square needlessly into several landings separated by small stairways was a huge mistake.
- Too many blind spots. The concrete structures and small walls result in many places being hidden from the street or from the rest of the square, this creates a feeling of insecurity as who knows who can be hidden there, especially when one knows the usual "population" that hangs around the place.
- The human scale is horizontal, not vertical: human beings do not usually look up, so the actual height of buildings is not that relevant, but distances that are too great between locations tend to discourage people from exploring areas and from walking from one place to another and so destroys the strength of urban areas.
- Buildings are first and foremost consumer products: buildings exist to provide locations where people may live or where economical, cultural and/or social activities may occur. This is why they exist and their primary function. Aesthetic considerations are not meaningless, but they should be a secondary preoccupation. Sacrificing function to protect a desired form is a perversion of architecture, that should always put the human being, his needs and his desires, at the center of its process.
- A pedestrian-friendly design should focus on detail, not shape: buildings in many, if not most, highly attractive places are often basically simple boxes, but they compensate by focusing on the details of wall, windows and doors to provide things to look at when people are up close. The form of buildings can only ever be glimpsed by looking at a distance, and often only by looking at it from the sky.