> 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
No, it's the exact opposite. Adaptable cities adapt to serve the changing needs of the people living in them. This is better just building new ones with different features when the old features are found to be inadequate because:
(1) Geography (access to fresh water, natural trade routes, climate) matters for cities, and the good places to site cities are mostly taken,
(2) The people least well served by an existing city design will naturally be the least free to abandon the city for a new one.
> . If you want cities to be living entities, then the citizens should curtail migration in and out
I see no rationale for this. You repeat it multiple times, but without clear reasoning.
No, it's the exact opposite. Adaptable cities adapt to serve the changing needs of the people living in them. This is better just building new ones with different features when the old features are found to be inadequate because:
(1) Geography (access to fresh water, natural trade routes, climate) matters for cities, and the good places to site cities are mostly taken,
(2) The people least well served by an existing city design will naturally be the least free to abandon the city for a new one.
> . If you want cities to be living entities, then the citizens should curtail migration in and out
I see no rationale for this. You repeat it multiple times, but without clear reasoning.