| I can see why you can’t understand my rationale. 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. |