One of the obvious differences between Chicagoland and Texas (besides the weather) is the visual aesthetic of city infrastructure. Honestly, driving around Chicago everything is just ugly. Ignoring the fact that most of the year the roadways are covered in dirty snow and caking salt, it’s the cement structures themselves that offend. They are stark, utilitarian, and generally falling apart. But here in Texas (and in New Mexico), public structures like highways are visually interesting. Nice brickwork, sculptural elements, color variations, and the ubiquitous symbols of the state adorn the roadways. It’s nice to look at and far less depressing than the functional but ugly Chicago roads. In short, I like it.
But of course the issue goes much deeper than rather I like it or not. The roadways are paid for with tax dollars. And my gut reaction is to say that there are far better things for our tax dollars to be spent on than making our highways look nice. I’m sure the cost of those premium bricks could have gone a long way in a public school. Stop at bare bones functionality – no matter how butt ugly – and (theoretically) save money to be used elsewhere.
Yet the result of that line of thinking is that aesthetically pleasing environments then become available to those able to pay for it themselves. Beauty and art (of whatever variety) then belong to the rich while the poor just make do with the hand they are dealt. And that hand generally equals an ugly, utilitarian, and depressing environment. If you don’t have money, you don’t “deserve” beauty.
So in regards to the age-old argument about the uses of tax dollars, I can support public works projects that seek to bring beauty to all – even if it is as simple as the construction of highways. Trapping people – whatever their income – into something that is merely functional but ugly does little to uplift or encourage hope.