The change was radical in the quality of the housing, public spaces, and the defense; but rather conservative in the church and religious building. The renaissance brought revolution in the terms how people wanted to live and enjoy the life. The medieval housing quality was rather poor. It was impersonal, based on simple practicality, and lacking comfort. It was only the size of the house and its location to show the wealth. The late medieval era and the rise of renaissance changed that.. people wanted to have nice comfortable housing, well planned, decorated, furnished, surrounded by nice items. Tiles, frescoes, stainless windows, flooring, and cassette ceiling became widespread and symbol of wealth, comfort, and opulence. Even medium size cities had experienced this housing revolution. The wealthy nobility abandoned castles and build comfortable chateaus.
<span>As the housing had improved, so did a public places. Medieval cities were dirty, rundown, with commercial and other activities happening in the street. The renaissance started to appreciate nice public place, squares, and avenues, and town halls around Europe had invested significant resources into beautification of them. Squares were cobbled with central focus points like fountains, statues, and other monuments. Majority of the present day European cities have their look modeled in that era. The change was revolutionary, that people enjoyed to see their cities, its images, portraits became widespread, and the wealth of the city was on display. </span>
<span>As the renaissance progressed, the original Italian style was replaced with the Northern European renaissance. The Italian was dominated by geometric spaces such as square and rectangle; and its dominant color was white. However, the rich classes wanted to show more wealth, and later period was significantly colorful, and with various details like graffiti,statues (often based on Roman mythology), and cast iron railing.</span>
Answer:
The study of governmental structures must be approached with great caution, for political systems having the same kind of legal arrangements and using the same type of governmental machinery often function very differently. A parliament, for example, may be an important and effective part of a political system; or it may be no more than an institutional facade of little practical significance. A constitution may provide the framework within which the political life of a state is conducted; or it may be no more than a piece of paper, its provisions bearing almost no relationship to the facts of political life. Political systems must never be classified in terms of their legal structures alone: the fact that two states have similar constitutions with similar institutional provisions
hope this helps :D
Explanation:
