Final answer:
The Imperial City was reviewed differently by different social groups: positively by the aristocracy, negatively by the commoners due to the misuse of funds and neglected public works, with varied opinions among urban dwellers like artisans and merchants whose lives the city directly affected.
Step-by-step explanation:
The review of the Imperial City, such as the Forbidden City in the Ming Dynasty, by different groups of society would have been influenced by their respective social standings and experiences. The aristocracy likely viewed the opulent and strategically designed imperial palaces positively, as they reflected and reinforced their power and status. The gentry class, including civil servants chosen through the Confucian examination process, might also view the city as a symbol of cultured and privileged life.
In contrast, the commoners and urban poor might have harbored resentment towards the extravagance of such cities, as the wealth spent on such projects could have been used to improve public works or reduce the burden of taxation that they disproportionately shouldered. The corruption among officials and the siphoning of funds, which led to the decay of important infrastructure and subsequent famines, would have negatively impacted their perception of the city and ruling elite.
Everyday urban dwellers, such as artisans and merchants, might have had varied opinions depending on how the urban planning and city's existence benefited or hindered their economic activities and quality of life. In all, the perspectives on the Imperial City were likely to be as diverse as the social classes within the empire, each with their own set of potential benefits and drawbacks cited relevant to their status in society.