“Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better. ”
Can we help cities become antifragile by changing the way they receive aid from the state?
Strong Towns aims to promote a model of development that allows America's towns and cities to become antifragile. The concept of antifragility is inspired, in large part, by Nassim Taleb's book, Antifragile. We explore this concept in the context of Strong Towns often.
Recent Antifragile Stories
The line between optimism and reality can be a fine one to walk.
You cannot build a place of enduring value that isn't homey, that isn't loved.
We never calculate—let alone track—the public's actual return-on-investment (dollars in versus dollars out over multiple life cycles) when we do a project. We never even ask the question.
The trials and tribulations of getting things done, and why change is so difficult for government agencies.
Reintroducing some risk, or rather, making the risk that is already there more evident, may be the best thing we can do to help re-build a culture where small mistakes don’t have devastating consequences.
To build antifragile communities, we need to start by talking about what kind of place we want our cities to be.
Pedestrian activity is an indicator of vibrant neighborhoods and a healthy local economy. How can we transform our streets so that pedestrians feel safe and drivers are attentive and courteous to their needs?
The history of city planning is largely a story of meddling and overreaction creating ever more fragile cities by reducing any apparent volatility while increasing debt, building out a system that is not financially productive, and ruining the neighborhoods of our most disadvantaged residents.
Strong Towns contributor, Johnny Sanphillippo kicks off our Antrifragile book club week with this critique of the antifragile concept and commentary on the challenges of actually implementing it
Announcing the next convening of the Strong Towns Antifragile book club.
The very act of the destruction meant a job for the planners and engineers. They would be paid regardless. If the project was fraught with delays, obstructions and unexpected events they might even be paid more.
What is going on in the doughnut of despair surrounding downtown Detroit is not a policy choice. It is a consequence of policy choice. There is no bringing back the illusion of wealth or, to paraphrase Tomas Sedlacek, Detroit can not get back its unsustainability.
The line between optimism and reality can be a fine one to walk.