Interesting perspective. I don’t think cities should be adaptable to change. Most city models should be abandoned and new models created. Features of the older model can be reused.

The notion that cities should be designed to be adaptable and are ‘living entities always changing’ comes from a world view that puts non living entities of cities like buildings and roads and infrastructure over living entities. Like humans, habitat, wild life and environment. Here capitalism and materialism trump over stable environments for living.

Families, businesses and even nature needs stability. Stability doesn’t exclude adaptability but it requires a certain amount of static ‘non-changeablity’.

The problem at hand is: 1. Workforce has become migratory. 2. A lack of transport network and infrastructure is blurring all kinds of lines between urban, suburban and rural.

This is an uniquely American problem esp in cities where govt doesn’t invest in transportation infrastructure.

Cities should be stable. People should adaptable if they want freedom of movement. If you want cities to be living entities, then the citizens should curtail migration in and out. It’s an either/or situation. Such a binary approach would ensure that we have less of inequalities, unaffordability, exploitation of resources an destruction of eco systems.

Trying to be a migratory populace AND wanting to have adaptable cities is a recipe of disaster and strife as we have all seen in recent times.