Question related to the Fainstein reading

Fainstein says in her piece that "Governments have promoted physical change with the expectations that better-looking cities are also better cities, that excluding poor people from central locations will eliminate the causes of blight rather than moving it elsewhere, and that property development equals economic development".

I think a lot of us question these types of overarching governmental attitudes, but I think it does beg the question, to what extent does a better-looking city also indicate a better city? I suppose this is problematic from the outset because nobody will ever completely agree about what better-looking really means, but I still think it's a fair topic for discussion.