4 ms·
Right. I think they failed to imagine how big the local disruption would be. Especially since they were busy demolishing & re-planning districts anyway, replac
by iguy 7y ago
Right. I think they failed to imagine how big the local disruption would be.
Especially since they were busy demolishing & re-planning districts anyway, replacing slums with big block projects. They clearly had no idea how awful these new districts would be, and to me this seems like a very similar misunderstanding of how cities work.
I also wonder a bit if they learned the wrong lessons from rail. Some cities, like London, added a ring of terminal stations, which still today means you have to schlepp across town to continue. Other cities, like Berlin, re-built so that lines ran through, and in hindsight the disruption was worth it.
- Gibbon1 7y ago" and to me this seems like a very similar misunderstanding of how cities work." This is an interesting rebuttal to those re-inventing cities. From 1965. Short summary: The new hierarchical designs are callously authoritarian and socially disruptive and pathological. http://en.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexander-A-city-is-not-a-tree.pdf http://en.bp.ntu.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/06-Alexan...
- iguy 7y agoThanks, that's an interesting take. Some were sane! But the power was all on the other side then, I think. High modernism, central planning, creating the new man, etc.