3 ms·
> Imagine if streets were for strolling, intersections were for playing and cars were almost never allowed. Why is it considered progress to go back to how urb
by pdog 10y ago
> Imagine if streets were for strolling, intersections were for playing and cars were almost never allowed.
Why is it considered progress to go back to how urban life was several centuries ago? Peter Thiel is right; we used to be optimistic about the future being better than today.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago> "Why is it considered progress to go back to how urban life was several centuries ago?" Just because something is newer doesn't mean it is automatically better. Regression is just as possible as progression. There's a difference in quality of life between human-focused cities and transport-focused cities. People who have experienced both tend to prefer the former. Why do you think that is?
- macNchz 10y agoWhat would you consider progress, then? To me, this concept of the future sounds better than today. I'm optimistic that people have begun to realize that car-scale cities aren't the only option, and that human-scale neighborhoods can be great places to live. I see this as progress informed by past mistakes (that is, designing cities and neighborhoods around the needs of cars).
- cmyr 10y ago'progress' in the sense of 'changes that occur over time' is distinct from 'progress' in the sense of 'an overall improvement in human quality of life'. When we talk about progress we normally intend the latter case.
- 2AF3 10y agoIf you crave the open road Brasilia welcomes you with open arms