What would be a well-designed city? Enough cleared space, enough trees but not too many, enough stone and organization on a human scale that there are places to stop, nooks and crannies, pauses and parenthetical remarks in the overall elegy, spaces to get one's bearings, to define and refine one's small volume in all that space. Perhaps the challenge of sculptured space is to manage immensity at the same time as intimacy, so that there is a relationship, and the possibility of negotiation and dialogue between the two, so that the immensity does not just swallow all smaller areas and organizations into some kind of (ahistorical, geological, ontological, homogenous) vastness. Perhaps that's the horror Lovecraft was describing in some of his Chthulu stories, or part of it, that immense size can subsume all meaning under it, and we can't therefore understand it, or our definitions, or our place, or ourselves. We're just too small, ontology doesn't scale in that way.
A key component of Wallace Stevens' Jar in Tennessee was that it was the size of something to hold, to fit in one's hand. Does Mount Rushmore organize South Dakota? No: at least one of the things needs to be at our scale. Scale must negotiate with scale in order to be effective, by which I mean effective for us. Not that there could not be, or aren't, meanings for other-scaled entities (trees, ants, galaxies, chthulus), but those are not meaningful for us. Has to be our size somehow, whether literally or figuratvely, for us to do more than grasp it intellectually. If we can even do that.