|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
2032 days ago
|
|
|
> The notion that cities should be designed to be adaptable and are ‘living entities always changing’ comes from a world view that puts non living entities of cities like buildings and roads and infrastructure over living entities No, it's the exact opposite. Adaptable cities adapt to serve the changing needs of the people living in them. This is better just building new ones with different features when the old features are found to be inadequate because: (1) Geography (access to fresh water, natural trade routes, climate) matters for cities, and the good places to site cities are mostly taken, (2) The people least well served by an existing city design will naturally be the least free to abandon the city for a new one. > . If you want cities to be living entities, then the citizens should curtail migration in and out I see no rationale for this. You repeat it multiple times, but without clear reasoning. |
|
|
I don’t think there is a need for adaptable cities. People should be adaptable. Not cities.
Civilizations emerged on the edges of rivers and water bodies. Valley civilizations were always on the banks of water bodies because there was a stable source of water during agrarian times. Because this is when we switched from migratory/nomadic mode to pastoralists/agrarians.
Any healthy eco system relies on the availability of resources. Resources are not always renewable or fungible. Infrastructure is not mobile and is often bulky.
With the current tech civilization, we are ..in a way..becoming nomadic again. Environments are generally inter connected massive cogs that change slowly.
Wanting adaptable city environments with a nomadic minded populace is unattainable, unsustainable and an utter mismatch.
Let me give an example in simple terms: When Musk wants to create underground tunnels to move people about or when we build a rail system or roads for a bus route or freeways for inter/intra transportation, we are putting down a rigid foundation. This is expensive and certainly not ‘adaptable’.
When we put down a power grid or lay pipes for a water department to serve people by sending water to residential taps, we create rigid inflexible..and expensive..infrastructure. This caps population and rather it MUST cap population and regulate migratory tendencies because carrying capacities exist everywhere and at every scale.
To not have a binary approach to migration vis a vis adaptable cities is the equivalent of building civilizations with spit and duct tape. Which has been proven again and again all over the world including the Bay Area.