This is really an aesthetic question, and aesthetically I actually like road infrastructure, it feels cyberpunkish to me. And the problem with cyberpunk being dystopian is about the economic/politic systems, not architecture
This is not Cyberpunk, it’s plain old brutalism. And it’s ugly and depressing, every surface sealed, not a leaf in sight.
Cyberpunk doesn’t mean depressing concrete hellscape, this is also Cyberpunk:
To play devil’s advocate (but not really because I actually like brutalist architecture), brutalism can look ugly and depressing, sure, but does not have to. I find that brutalist buildings go remarcably well with vegetation. See:
Aside from the fact that green zones are better aesthetically received on average (there are always exceptions), they also remove a lot of pollution, noise, and as a bonus generate some oxygen, greatly improving city climate, mood of the residents and life expectancy.
This is really an aesthetic question, and aesthetically I actually like road infrastructure, it feels cyberpunkish to me. And the problem with cyberpunk being dystopian is about the economic/politic systems, not architecture
This is not Cyberpunk, it’s plain old brutalism. And it’s ugly and depressing, every surface sealed, not a leaf in sight. Cyberpunk doesn’t mean depressing concrete hellscape, this is also Cyberpunk:
To play devil’s advocate (but not really because I actually like brutalist architecture), brutalism can look ugly and depressing, sure, but does not have to. I find that brutalist buildings go remarcably well with vegetation. See:
You can like what you want.
But I would like to point out that excessive road infrastructure ones with a lot of negatives for the general population.
Aside from the fact that green zones are better aesthetically received on average (there are always exceptions), they also remove a lot of pollution, noise, and as a bonus generate some oxygen, greatly improving city climate, mood of the residents and life expectancy.