If this is an interesting topic, check out the book, Seeing Like a State. It has really great coverage of the history of things like urban planning, naming of people, mapping, etc.
The standout thesis of the book is that from a birds-eye-view perspective (what the state sees), cities that were designed to meet the local needs of people look chaotic, but the ideal clean order from that perspective ignores needs of people.
For example, a neighborhood with just houses connected by a highway to a commercial district looks clean and organized on a map. Only with boots on the ground do you see what a disaster that is compared to the model of having neighborhoods and boroughs with all of the community resources (housing, work, food, shopping, parks, schools, etc.) they need.
> The standout thesis of the book is that from a birds-eye-view perspective (what the state sees), cities that were designed to meet the local needs of people look chaotic
That sounds exactly like big gov't promoters, and trying to solving things at the federal level.
The standout thesis of the book is that from a birds-eye-view perspective (what the state sees), cities that were designed to meet the local needs of people look chaotic, but the ideal clean order from that perspective ignores needs of people.
For example, a neighborhood with just houses connected by a highway to a commercial district looks clean and organized on a map. Only with boots on the ground do you see what a disaster that is compared to the model of having neighborhoods and boroughs with all of the community resources (housing, work, food, shopping, parks, schools, etc.) they need.