Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasoncw
I'd emphasize my point that people don't stop existing once they walk into a building.
Let's say there's a concert. And it's outside. If you put 4 walls and a roof around it, has that spot suddenly become less lively? Is it now an anti-urban deadzone because the liveliness is happening indoors?
Or what's more lively? A street where there's a bunch of restaurants serving 1000 people a night, but indoors, or a street where there's a few foodtrucks serving 100 people, outdoors?
And how does "street life" really matter, outside of specific times that a person is looking for entertainment or recreation?
Let's say a person is walking home from work, to a transit station. Sure, walking through what feels like a zombie apocalypse would detract from quality of life, and so would things like bad sidewalk quality and things like that, but does someone really have to walk through mardi gras every day?
|
Street life is what creates the spontaneous interactions and serendipity that make urban life both interesting and the source of most human culture and advancement.
For example, where you have foot traffic you have pop-ups and independents. Where you have to drive to the place (with the destination in mind) and go inside, you get chains. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule in both cases but the idea generally holds. This doesn’t mean food trucks vs actual restaurants - people walking in and out of shops provide vibrancy and street life too. It’s shopping malls that don’t.
That’s to say nothing of the more intangible benefits of different people interacting in unplanned ways, in a less controlled environment.
Frankly I find it odd that someone on this forum would even question the idea. If you have the chance to live in a place with an active city center at some point in life, you’ll come to understand the difference.