for anyone who’s been observant around
the roads of Shanghai lately you’d have
noticed some things which are pretty
amazing considering the speed and scale
that they’re being done at for starters
we’ve been having excavators read
digging up pavement sidewalk Road only
to repave it all in the span of about a
week in our district they’ve done this
whole process at least twice in the last
two months if you’re particularly astute
under the pacing highway last week you
may have noticed these painters who were
actually painting the underbelly of
these elevated highways gray
interestingly enough the concrete is
already gray now what we’re seeing is
actually a huge degree of political
control and efficiency unfortunately
what’s not so amazing about all of this
is that the type of renovation that’s
taking place is socially not the most
efficient course of action to take the
reason for all the retouching of the
roads in Shanghai is none other than
teaching things visit that’s upcoming
and it’s funny right because too many of
us we shrug our shoulders it’s not a
visit that’s very relevant to our daily
lives and it’s almost amusing to see the
city get into such a hassle over one
visit from our our leader now but this
great this greater image does show us
something however and that is we have a
lot of potential to do right in our
design and construction for us to get
involved and talk about what we actually
need and it highlights a gap in managing
our built environment and it’s becoming
ever more pressing to talk about that
because while seeking things visit may
not have a direct impact on our lives
our happiness and the fundamental social
fabric of our community impacted by our
environment is going to be worth that
hassle so we’re going to have 2.5
billion more people in urban populations
by the year 2050 mostly in nascent
developing regions of Asia and Africa
climate change is getting worse and soon
a lot of the things we do are going to
become unviable and so we have to get it
right in the upcoming years in terms of
what we’re developing
being in these urban landscapes and many
of us simply aren’t seeing that urgency
that’s because there’s a ton of biases
in not caring about the built
environment literal structural reasons
why we don’t care for instance we don’t
often notice the impact of our
architecture on ourselves when you’re
feeling down you don’t often go find
solace in some architectural icon and
instantly feel better right this this
image doesn’t bring any intrinsic joy to
us probability of impact is not common
it doesn’t help that our buildings also
have the tendency to fall apart and so
fixing up infrastructure seems to be a
short-term solution for more entrenched
systemic cultural issues but that’s
simply not the case
lastly there’s an association with an
extremely high barrier to entry when it
comes with changing the literal brick
and mortar of our society and that’s
where we go wrong because we feel it’s
the job of the architect the job of the
urban planner or the Chinese government
to solve these things and that’s the
problem because we fall back into
complacency
we’re void of accountability and this is
bad because we fail to realize the role
of the citizen and how we can take back
our urban landscapes in and we fail to
realize the necessity to take these
environments back and that’s what I want
to do begin combating the bias in
confronting our urban world I’m speaking
from my experience in Shanghai as an
observer a student and as a resident I
hope to reinvigorate some of the passion
and urgency when it comes to discussing
our designs and our behaviors that are
shaped by our urban designs and so in
the time I’ve been given I want to talk
about a couple things first why exactly
are cities worth caring about in the
first place second where do we start
going wrong in terms of development on a
global scale and third what hope is
there for us moving forward into the
future and what is our role in this so
first what’s so great about this what’s
so great about Shanghai at their essence
cities aren’t these monolithic
skyscrapers nor are they the traffic
filled streets they’re people dense
dense populations of people and it’s
from that density that cities draw their
strengths proximity enables connectivity
and it’s from that where we gain these
social and economic prosperity that
cities give to us economically it’s
simple we’re closer to human capital and
opportunity businesses want to move
closer where their labour and consumers
are this attracts them and creates a
huge positive feedback loop in
attracting more and more businesses more
and more opportunity economic migrants
coming into cities is a wonderful sign
that a city is doing well they provide
jobs labor but also consumption of goods
within the city and so we get a huge
range of experiences available a metro
ride away our own Shanghai Metro has 393
stations ranging from airports libraries
shopping roads science centers and more
but perhaps more importantly but also
more overlooked is the social aspect of
it all cities grant us a connection on a
scale which would otherwise be unlikely
they enable the time place and
opportunity for casual meet ups
proximity reduces the travel time and
foot traffic tax dollars and businesses
create spaces for socialization and
because of the people and the
infrastructure there’s more opportunity
for community there’s more sports
centers for athletes more libraries for
readers more museums for art goers more
parks for people and more places for
everyone places to just hang out and
experience together now there are some
very real impacts to all of this right
it’s not this some esoteric idea those
living in less dense environments are
less likely to participate in public
life they’re statistically less likely
to join social groups political parties
and when the time comes even vote civic
engagement is relatively low there and
it’s bad not just because our societies
rely on civic participation to move
forward but also a second very real
impact and that’s health we’re healthier
in dense environments because we live in
places worth caring about we want to
engage and we want to participate
there’s a physical aspect to this those
living in less dense environments
specifically the suburbs are less likely
to drive everywhere and when you take
the statistics pertaining to diabetes
high cholesterol levels high blood
pressure obesity and other ailments
caused either by too much
driving not enough exercise and the
fumes of cars you get actually four
years of aging per one year where you’re
living in suburbia and other less dense
environments it’s clear we see this in
cities and we see the strength of this
in cities but more importantly you
conversely see the social deficit of
people who live in sprawl a study in
Zurich found that people who have a
45-minute commute or above are 40
percent more likely to get a divorce
driving means less time with friends and
family kids are less likely to spend
time with parents and statistically more
likely to join gangs in some suburban
areas suburban gangs that’s not
something we typically think of and not
the way the media normally portrays
gangs but when you think about the
desolate environments where kids rarely
see their parents because they’re
working all the time and they’re
commuting all the time there’s nothing
to do in the city in their environments
it only makes sense for them to turn to
these sorts of alternatives people are
happier when they’re connected cities
provide that it’s better to be somewhere
dynamic creative and diverse it’s why
those in cities are healthier wealthier
and happier and that’s the strength of
the city but somewhere we began to go
wrong if connectivity is where cities
draw their strengths then they become
resented and contradictory in nature
when we build in a way which dismantle
is that connection we get we began to
build like this this is suburbia and
while we may not live in this in
Shanghai there are other aspects of our
city that are like this so we began to
build like this in the city which is
largely quite similar lots of roads
isolated residences little spaces for
activity and these places are associated
with all the affer mentioned harms part
of our bias for non-action is thinking
the architectural forms and this sort of
built environment is natural and it
follows some natural progression of
urbanism that we don’t have much a stay
in but we did have a say in it and our
culture actually moved urbanism one way
and we need to know that our culture
today can move it forward in the future
two philosophies led us
here too this kind of development the
first is separation the industrial city
was gross
early planners and modernists like to
move things far away from internet
respective zones in some pure expression
of functionality it sounds pretty
esoteric
and that’s because it is it doesn’t
really make much sense when you think
about it and they like lots of rules to
achieve their esoteric goals of
functionality and from this goal of
separation we got two things first a
belief in dispersal we get things like
single-purpose zoning euclidean zoning
and big-box retailers coming in we
killed connectivity and we killed
interaction because we destroyed the
capacity for different spheres of life
to mingle with one another but second we
get space configured almost like
sculpture right dedicated to some
esoteric idea of functionality that does
that I talked about earlier but when you
think about it only the architect is the
one that has this idea in mind because
he fails to take into account be complex
nuanced and interaction that happens
within these public spaces often times
and what you get is these large public
squares and buildings form suggesting
some grand idea and developers love it
too because it’s easy to manage there’s
less greenery less people to care about
the problem is the scale of ideas is not
often the scale of humans we miss
interaction when we build with
separation the second philosophy is that
of speed this images of the exhibit
entitled Futurama
from the 1939 New York’s World Fair it
was presented as a model on how the
world would look like in the next 20
years so by then 1959 the most salient
feature is pretty clear these large
massive six-lane freeways with the
occasional high-rise scattered here and
there it’s strikingly reminiscent of the
highways of Shanghai and it’s no
surprise the argument that the sponsors
of this exhibit were none other than
General Motors themselves the argument
GM and other automobile and petroleum
companies made is that we are freer when
we transcend the mobile capacities of
our natural bodies freedom comes with
unadulterated speed instead of building
our structures closer to one another we
opted to drive and commute towards them
meaning that we would actually have to
spend more time in congestion meaning
would be we would have less access to
these structures we did not gain the
freedom GM proposed the message and
propaganda of these companies stuck
however and so we built on another in
human scale the skill of cars now both
of these philosophies encourage us to
spread and destroy connectedness and
they culminate in suburbia and suburbia
is sort of a euphemism for one hell of a
negative externality because building on
the scale of giants dispersal is the
worst form of our urbanism we pay for
the blunder in planning with our own
physical mental and social health we pay
with the massive carbon emissions
promoted by cars and suburbia because we
can’t sustain public transport in these
areas of dispersal we pay with the
soul-crushing
hours of driving and traffic to work to
and fro and we pay in the opportunity
cost of spending time with family
friends and anybody for that matter we
pay with our lives and the quality of
them now those trends in dispersal
aren’t fully present in the city but
with too often absorb the negative
design principles that lead to a more
disconnected life we’re still pushing
isolated residences into the expert into
the excerpts we’re still a city based on
cars we could still use more accessible
public space and we could still listen
to the input of ourselves the citizens
we need to do better and that’s where
the future lies in us the first step to
solving any problem is recognizing that
there is one we need that awareness
moving forward and we can’t let the
structural biases of ignoring the built
environment forces into not acting on
the problem we have at hand today we
have to make sure as urban citizens
today we lead the forefront of positive
development tomorrow we don’t want new
cities to be modeled for the car and
sprawl the future deserves better we
need to be aware of the behaviors we
conduct and what those behaviors support
and there’s a lot of new innovation
around today and it’s an era of
experimentation where we live in so part
of this as what we have to do our
citizens is supporting the right sort of
technology and design
and we’re getting many things in terms
of this I miss a lot of the cool urban
innovations in the time I have left but
here are some things that have made a
change and I hope it instigates more
exploration in terms of how how we can
be aware of how we design our spaces
around us so first bike sharing it’s
wonderful for connectedness in London
Paris and of course Shanghai easy
transport for everyone
accessible low-emission effective we
better engage with the street and others
when we’re on a bike
second rush-hour taxation personal
vehicles take too much space they have
too much emission per Rider and it’s
time to pay for that cost so Singapore
and London have already done this where
they tax their rush hours so it costs
more money to ride on the road in a
personal car and inevitably you get
lower rates of congestion you have lower
emissions and you have more public
transport because more people choose
that substitute you can recirculate tax
money into supporting better metro lines
as well then we have the reclamation of
space for better more public oriented
development this is an image of Times
Square before and after Mayor Bloomberg
and Jeanette say that Khan decided to
block off the roads in exchange for
public space they added more feeding and
they repaved so that you have pedestrian
areas now there’s a huge benefit to this
because not only the people want to come
to these areas just to hang out but
there’s an economic benefit in terms of
these businesses getting more foot
traffic and a cause of Anna as a
reflection of that you see retail rates
double in Times Square after this policy
there’s a lot we can learn from the
public spaces of New York and the public
spaces around the world Shanghai itself
has some more of a public space problem
because most of our public space looks
something like this right it’s the sort
of gated areas closed not enough
greenery not enough seating it’s not
very good right it’s kind of unwelcoming
that or either it looks something like
this and these are these large
industrial or commercial or or like
business parks but the truth is they’re
not really parks there’s this places
with building
and that’s not very good because no one
wants to go there we can change this by
having a reinvigoration of more better
of better zoning laws we’re going to
have things like having zoning laws
which are smaller in scale that are
going to promote more dense
multi-purpose development and because
you have this you’re going to get better
public space the combination of a
variety of shops the combination of a
variety of places to go is going to make
things better for us but the last
solution is us the citizens and this is
the key point here because while we may
not be able to contribute to a lot of
the innovation a lot of the urbanism
that’s happening what we can do is learn
how we interact with our environment and
how we act in terms of one another and
how we interact with the built world
what does this mean this means that
we’re going to have to be prepared to be
better neighbors it means that we have
to be prepared to do things like support
bike sharing to support cohousing and
things like that it means we have to be
better prepared to engage in
conversation with one another on our
built environments because that is going
to be the better issue the better state
of mind in terms of this we made a
choice a very deliberate choice in the
20th century to move the density and
that choice has has served us well we’re
more connected were happier were
healthier but we made mistakes too and
so we got into the era of sprawl we got
into the era of cars we need to take
back that choice we need to look at that
choice and reevaluate how we’re going to
move in terms of the 21st century where
more people are going into cities we
need to look at ourselves and our
environments the way we interact our
behaviors the technologies and be aware
of all that’s going on around this
because only do then do us as citizens
properly engage with the city we have to
take back the choice of living in a city
and we have to make that choice as meaningful as possible thank you
the roads of Shanghai lately you’d have
noticed some things which are pretty
amazing considering the speed and scale
that they’re being done at for starters
we’ve been having excavators read
digging up pavement sidewalk Road only
to repave it all in the span of about a
week in our district they’ve done this
whole process at least twice in the last
two months if you’re particularly astute
under the pacing highway last week you
may have noticed these painters who were
actually painting the underbelly of
these elevated highways gray
interestingly enough the concrete is
already gray now what we’re seeing is
actually a huge degree of political
control and efficiency unfortunately
what’s not so amazing about all of this
is that the type of renovation that’s
taking place is socially not the most
efficient course of action to take the
reason for all the retouching of the
roads in Shanghai is none other than
teaching things visit that’s upcoming
and it’s funny right because too many of
us we shrug our shoulders it’s not a
visit that’s very relevant to our daily
lives and it’s almost amusing to see the
city get into such a hassle over one
visit from our our leader now but this
great this greater image does show us
something however and that is we have a
lot of potential to do right in our
design and construction for us to get
involved and talk about what we actually
need and it highlights a gap in managing
our built environment and it’s becoming
ever more pressing to talk about that
because while seeking things visit may
not have a direct impact on our lives
our happiness and the fundamental social
fabric of our community impacted by our
environment is going to be worth that
hassle so we’re going to have 2.5
billion more people in urban populations
by the year 2050 mostly in nascent
developing regions of Asia and Africa
climate change is getting worse and soon
a lot of the things we do are going to
become unviable and so we have to get it
right in the upcoming years in terms of
what we’re developing
being in these urban landscapes and many
of us simply aren’t seeing that urgency
that’s because there’s a ton of biases
in not caring about the built
environment literal structural reasons
why we don’t care for instance we don’t
often notice the impact of our
architecture on ourselves when you’re
feeling down you don’t often go find
solace in some architectural icon and
instantly feel better right this this
image doesn’t bring any intrinsic joy to
us probability of impact is not common
it doesn’t help that our buildings also
have the tendency to fall apart and so
fixing up infrastructure seems to be a
short-term solution for more entrenched
systemic cultural issues but that’s
simply not the case
lastly there’s an association with an
extremely high barrier to entry when it
comes with changing the literal brick
and mortar of our society and that’s
where we go wrong because we feel it’s
the job of the architect the job of the
urban planner or the Chinese government
to solve these things and that’s the
problem because we fall back into
complacency
we’re void of accountability and this is
bad because we fail to realize the role
of the citizen and how we can take back
our urban landscapes in and we fail to
realize the necessity to take these
environments back and that’s what I want
to do begin combating the bias in
confronting our urban world I’m speaking
from my experience in Shanghai as an
observer a student and as a resident I
hope to reinvigorate some of the passion
and urgency when it comes to discussing
our designs and our behaviors that are
shaped by our urban designs and so in
the time I’ve been given I want to talk
about a couple things first why exactly
are cities worth caring about in the
first place second where do we start
going wrong in terms of development on a
global scale and third what hope is
there for us moving forward into the
future and what is our role in this so
first what’s so great about this what’s
so great about Shanghai at their essence
cities aren’t these monolithic
skyscrapers nor are they the traffic
filled streets they’re people dense
dense populations of people and it’s
from that density that cities draw their
strengths proximity enables connectivity
and it’s from that where we gain these
social and economic prosperity that
cities give to us economically it’s
simple we’re closer to human capital and
opportunity businesses want to move
closer where their labour and consumers
are this attracts them and creates a
huge positive feedback loop in
attracting more and more businesses more
and more opportunity economic migrants
coming into cities is a wonderful sign
that a city is doing well they provide
jobs labor but also consumption of goods
within the city and so we get a huge
range of experiences available a metro
ride away our own Shanghai Metro has 393
stations ranging from airports libraries
shopping roads science centers and more
but perhaps more importantly but also
more overlooked is the social aspect of
it all cities grant us a connection on a
scale which would otherwise be unlikely
they enable the time place and
opportunity for casual meet ups
proximity reduces the travel time and
foot traffic tax dollars and businesses
create spaces for socialization and
because of the people and the
infrastructure there’s more opportunity
for community there’s more sports
centers for athletes more libraries for
readers more museums for art goers more
parks for people and more places for
everyone places to just hang out and
experience together now there are some
very real impacts to all of this right
it’s not this some esoteric idea those
living in less dense environments are
less likely to participate in public
life they’re statistically less likely
to join social groups political parties
and when the time comes even vote civic
engagement is relatively low there and
it’s bad not just because our societies
rely on civic participation to move
forward but also a second very real
impact and that’s health we’re healthier
in dense environments because we live in
places worth caring about we want to
engage and we want to participate
there’s a physical aspect to this those
living in less dense environments
specifically the suburbs are less likely
to drive everywhere and when you take
the statistics pertaining to diabetes
high cholesterol levels high blood
pressure obesity and other ailments
caused either by too much
driving not enough exercise and the
fumes of cars you get actually four
years of aging per one year where you’re
living in suburbia and other less dense
environments it’s clear we see this in
cities and we see the strength of this
in cities but more importantly you
conversely see the social deficit of
people who live in sprawl a study in
Zurich found that people who have a
45-minute commute or above are 40
percent more likely to get a divorce
driving means less time with friends and
family kids are less likely to spend
time with parents and statistically more
likely to join gangs in some suburban
areas suburban gangs that’s not
something we typically think of and not
the way the media normally portrays
gangs but when you think about the
desolate environments where kids rarely
see their parents because they’re
working all the time and they’re
commuting all the time there’s nothing
to do in the city in their environments
it only makes sense for them to turn to
these sorts of alternatives people are
happier when they’re connected cities
provide that it’s better to be somewhere
dynamic creative and diverse it’s why
those in cities are healthier wealthier
and happier and that’s the strength of
the city but somewhere we began to go
wrong if connectivity is where cities
draw their strengths then they become
resented and contradictory in nature
when we build in a way which dismantle
is that connection we get we began to
build like this this is suburbia and
while we may not live in this in
Shanghai there are other aspects of our
city that are like this so we began to
build like this in the city which is
largely quite similar lots of roads
isolated residences little spaces for
activity and these places are associated
with all the affer mentioned harms part
of our bias for non-action is thinking
the architectural forms and this sort of
built environment is natural and it
follows some natural progression of
urbanism that we don’t have much a stay
in but we did have a say in it and our
culture actually moved urbanism one way
and we need to know that our culture
today can move it forward in the future
two philosophies led us
here too this kind of development the
first is separation the industrial city
was gross
early planners and modernists like to
move things far away from internet
respective zones in some pure expression
of functionality it sounds pretty
esoteric
and that’s because it is it doesn’t
really make much sense when you think
about it and they like lots of rules to
achieve their esoteric goals of
functionality and from this goal of
separation we got two things first a
belief in dispersal we get things like
single-purpose zoning euclidean zoning
and big-box retailers coming in we
killed connectivity and we killed
interaction because we destroyed the
capacity for different spheres of life
to mingle with one another but second we
get space configured almost like
sculpture right dedicated to some
esoteric idea of functionality that does
that I talked about earlier but when you
think about it only the architect is the
one that has this idea in mind because
he fails to take into account be complex
nuanced and interaction that happens
within these public spaces often times
and what you get is these large public
squares and buildings form suggesting
some grand idea and developers love it
too because it’s easy to manage there’s
less greenery less people to care about
the problem is the scale of ideas is not
often the scale of humans we miss
interaction when we build with
separation the second philosophy is that
of speed this images of the exhibit
entitled Futurama
from the 1939 New York’s World Fair it
was presented as a model on how the
world would look like in the next 20
years so by then 1959 the most salient
feature is pretty clear these large
massive six-lane freeways with the
occasional high-rise scattered here and
there it’s strikingly reminiscent of the
highways of Shanghai and it’s no
surprise the argument that the sponsors
of this exhibit were none other than
General Motors themselves the argument
GM and other automobile and petroleum
companies made is that we are freer when
we transcend the mobile capacities of
our natural bodies freedom comes with
unadulterated speed instead of building
our structures closer to one another we
opted to drive and commute towards them
meaning that we would actually have to
spend more time in congestion meaning
would be we would have less access to
these structures we did not gain the
freedom GM proposed the message and
propaganda of these companies stuck
however and so we built on another in
human scale the skill of cars now both
of these philosophies encourage us to
spread and destroy connectedness and
they culminate in suburbia and suburbia
is sort of a euphemism for one hell of a
negative externality because building on
the scale of giants dispersal is the
worst form of our urbanism we pay for
the blunder in planning with our own
physical mental and social health we pay
with the massive carbon emissions
promoted by cars and suburbia because we
can’t sustain public transport in these
areas of dispersal we pay with the
soul-crushing
hours of driving and traffic to work to
and fro and we pay in the opportunity
cost of spending time with family
friends and anybody for that matter we
pay with our lives and the quality of
them now those trends in dispersal
aren’t fully present in the city but
with too often absorb the negative
design principles that lead to a more
disconnected life we’re still pushing
isolated residences into the expert into
the excerpts we’re still a city based on
cars we could still use more accessible
public space and we could still listen
to the input of ourselves the citizens
we need to do better and that’s where
the future lies in us the first step to
solving any problem is recognizing that
there is one we need that awareness
moving forward and we can’t let the
structural biases of ignoring the built
environment forces into not acting on
the problem we have at hand today we
have to make sure as urban citizens
today we lead the forefront of positive
development tomorrow we don’t want new
cities to be modeled for the car and
sprawl the future deserves better we
need to be aware of the behaviors we
conduct and what those behaviors support
and there’s a lot of new innovation
around today and it’s an era of
experimentation where we live in so part
of this as what we have to do our
citizens is supporting the right sort of
technology and design
and we’re getting many things in terms
of this I miss a lot of the cool urban
innovations in the time I have left but
here are some things that have made a
change and I hope it instigates more
exploration in terms of how how we can
be aware of how we design our spaces
around us so first bike sharing it’s
wonderful for connectedness in London
Paris and of course Shanghai easy
transport for everyone
accessible low-emission effective we
better engage with the street and others
when we’re on a bike
second rush-hour taxation personal
vehicles take too much space they have
too much emission per Rider and it’s
time to pay for that cost so Singapore
and London have already done this where
they tax their rush hours so it costs
more money to ride on the road in a
personal car and inevitably you get
lower rates of congestion you have lower
emissions and you have more public
transport because more people choose
that substitute you can recirculate tax
money into supporting better metro lines
as well then we have the reclamation of
space for better more public oriented
development this is an image of Times
Square before and after Mayor Bloomberg
and Jeanette say that Khan decided to
block off the roads in exchange for
public space they added more feeding and
they repaved so that you have pedestrian
areas now there’s a huge benefit to this
because not only the people want to come
to these areas just to hang out but
there’s an economic benefit in terms of
these businesses getting more foot
traffic and a cause of Anna as a
reflection of that you see retail rates
double in Times Square after this policy
there’s a lot we can learn from the
public spaces of New York and the public
spaces around the world Shanghai itself
has some more of a public space problem
because most of our public space looks
something like this right it’s the sort
of gated areas closed not enough
greenery not enough seating it’s not
very good right it’s kind of unwelcoming
that or either it looks something like
this and these are these large
industrial or commercial or or like
business parks but the truth is they’re
not really parks there’s this places
with building
and that’s not very good because no one
wants to go there we can change this by
having a reinvigoration of more better
of better zoning laws we’re going to
have things like having zoning laws
which are smaller in scale that are
going to promote more dense
multi-purpose development and because
you have this you’re going to get better
public space the combination of a
variety of shops the combination of a
variety of places to go is going to make
things better for us but the last
solution is us the citizens and this is
the key point here because while we may
not be able to contribute to a lot of
the innovation a lot of the urbanism
that’s happening what we can do is learn
how we interact with our environment and
how we act in terms of one another and
how we interact with the built world
what does this mean this means that
we’re going to have to be prepared to be
better neighbors it means that we have
to be prepared to do things like support
bike sharing to support cohousing and
things like that it means we have to be
better prepared to engage in
conversation with one another on our
built environments because that is going
to be the better issue the better state
of mind in terms of this we made a
choice a very deliberate choice in the
20th century to move the density and
that choice has has served us well we’re
more connected were happier were
healthier but we made mistakes too and
so we got into the era of sprawl we got
into the era of cars we need to take
back that choice we need to look at that
choice and reevaluate how we’re going to
move in terms of the 21st century where
more people are going into cities we
need to look at ourselves and our
environments the way we interact our
behaviors the technologies and be aware
of all that’s going on around this
because only do then do us as citizens
properly engage with the city we have to
take back the choice of living in a city
and we have to make that choice as meaningful as possible thank you
Please follow and like us: