Final answer:
The City Beautiful movement, led by figures like Frederick Law Olmsted and Daniel Burnham, greatly influenced urban planning in the 18th and 19th centuries. The movement focused on improving aesthetics and quality of life for city dwellers. Different classes of city dwellers had varying perspectives on this movement.
Step-by-step explanation:
Aesthetic Influences in 18th-19th Century Urban Planning:
The City Beautiful movement, led by figures like Frederick Law Olmsted and Daniel Burnham, greatly influenced urban planning in the 18th and 19th centuries. Their focus on aesthetics aimed to improve the quality of life for city dwellers, particularly the middle and upper classes. This movement promoted the creation of larger park areas within cities, building wider boulevards with greenery, and the development of suburbs to mitigate congestion. While the City Beautiful movement benefitted all city dwellers by introducing more practical and aesthetically pleasing urban spaces, different classes of city dwellers had varying perspectives on it.
Views of Different Classes:
Members of different classes viewed the City Beautiful movement differently. The working class, who lived in the poorer sections of the city, may have viewed the movement as neglecting their needs and focusing solely on the middle and upper classes. They may have seen it as a way to push them further into poverty and unsanitary living conditions. The middle class, on the other hand, may have appreciated the improved aesthetics and practicality of the city planning, as it made city life more manageable. The wealthy elite, who already had access to exclusive leisure activities, may not have seen the City Beautiful movement as a significant change in their lifestyles.
Potential Benefits and Drawbacks:
Each class would have cited different benefits and drawbacks of the City Beautiful movement. The working class may have highlighted the lack of attention given to their living conditions, arguing that the focus on aesthetics did little to alleviate their poverty and unsanitary environments. The middle class would have praised the improved green spaces, boulevards, and overall livability of the city. They may have also seen the movement as a way to maintain social order and promote a sense of civic pride. The wealthy elite may not have seen any drawbacks personally, as the movement did not significantly impact their lifestyles, but they may have supported it to maintain social stratification and a visually pleasing city.