In these plans it feels like the highest priority is to make the design comprehensible for the planners. An expression of incredible laziness. And still such a

In these plans it feels like the highest priority is to make the design comprehensible for the planners. An expression of incredible laziness. And still such a common planning behaviour. On a smaller scale you might look at one skyscraper and consider the raw quantity of human activity contained within, all utterly erased by the architecture so that every floor and window looks the same - what a loss! On the level of roads and navigation we can start to consider ignoring comprehensibility entirely. With navigation systems and even more with automated vehicles we can traverse a city without understanding it. Who needs the strict hierarchy of transportation from the Radiant City? Or even the hierarchies we have now. Transportation is the beginning, but commerce will follow - will we need the hierarchy of warehouses, big box stores, local shops, categories of retail...? New Urbanism principles may survive, but only as an aesthetic, urban planning as decoration. The organic city structures we'll see (organic because what use has nature ever had for comprehensibility?) could go more than one way. Like an algae bloom of suburbia, structure without character or meaning. Maybe suburbia is already an expression of this trend. But if we don't fetishize old patterns like New Urbanism, and we don't create spiritually beige non-patterns like suburbia, what other structures do we have to meaningfully organize our cities? I'm somewhat at a loss. But then no one is asking me anyway ;)