|
|
|
|
|
by oftenwrong
3076 days ago
|
|
I do see your point. The author is modelling this as a transitional form of a suburban neighbourhood that could later be intensified. Additionally, it should be read with understanding of his previous writing on cities [1]. You'll see he capitalizes a lot of terms (e.g. Really Narrow Street) which are intended as references to concepts he has fleshed-out in other posts. A major component of his vision for cities is the idea that (most) streets should be pleasant, attractive Places (as opposed to Non-Places) to spend time, and should be public spaces in their own right. Rather than have urbanites "get away" from the city by visiting parks, he would have the city be a place that people do not need to "get away" from. A street could [1] http://newworldeconomics.com/category/traditional-city-post-... He has written a lot on cities. Unabashedly opinionated, but compelling. I especially like his extensive use of photos. |
|