[tafda]

Tokyo is the complete opposite of what you describe, “ugly” per the article but walkable and lively. No acres of parking lots either.

[ethanbond]

I wouldn't describe Tokyo (outside of some of the hyper-commercial/hotel districts) as meeting the article's definition of "ugly?"

Tokyo is an extremely organic city.

[tafda]

I don’t agree with the article and its definitions, it seems poorly sourced and to be advocating for English towns as the apex of civilization. That said, the photos provided and the descriptions focus more on the style of the buildings than urban form: “monotonous straight lines of modernist architecture” vs “historical architecture such as ‘Church’, ‘Castle’, ‘Tower’ and ‘Cottage’ made places look more attractive and get better ratings for their beauty.”

Typical Tokyo streetscape is heavy on modern blocky buildings, like this: https://sanpoo.jp/upload/yutenji-sanpo/yutenji_106.jpg

[incrudible]

A "walkable" city has everything you need within walking distance. A "beautiful" city is devoid of modernist architectural monstrosities. A "lively" city is full of people.

I would argue there is no strong correlation here. A city can be walkable and ugly, lively and unwalkable, beautiful and unwalkable, beautiful but not lively...

[ghaff]

And then there’s the public transit factor. I’m not sure how much of Tokyo is walkable by that definition unless you also factor in the subway.