Coming from northern Europe and now living in Tokyo, I'd say the capital city where I'm from (Stockholm) is a super boring in variety. The only thing going is the numerous parks they have, but buildings, new or old, are built very similar to other and incredibly boring. Got the similar feeling in London. All "planned" to the teeth to be static and not stick out. (old or new)
Compare that to Tokyo, where I've seen a rusty old house that looks like an haunted house 100m from sky scrapers at Toranomon Hills, or the small streets of Daikanyama where I could see a frigging Greek palace around the corner. All of this often not too far from a shrine that have idled there for hundreds of years.
That reminded me of this The Economist article [1] about buildings in London: there are 'protected line of sight' which buildings have to avoid:
> Taller buildings [...] must not block designated views of various landmarks, which explains why some of the skyscrapers in the City of London are oddly shaped. The curious wedge-shaped Leadenhall Building, known as “the cheesegrater”, is intended to protect a view of St Paul’s Cathedral from a pub in Fleet Street. The design also means that the building cannot have a central concrete core, as in most skyscrapers. Instead, the floors are held up by an innovative steel exoskeleton. This makes for a thrilling journey up the building’s glass lifts. But it does add somewhat to the cost.
[1] https://www.economist.com/britain/2014/08/09/bodies-bombs-an...
Shiny modern towers next to historical buildings. All of the buildings in this photo are from a range of times and design styles. I think if you took any one of these buildings and made the rest look similar, the aesthetics would be degraded.
So, can city planners facilitate organic growth that is able to reorient itself with changing times?
Some of them are “ugly” in a way but they still contribute to the aesthetic positively. One old 90s concrete office tower is fine, 30 identical ones would be ugly.