a city is an interface between a person and the possibility space of their life. the design of that interface shapes what feels possible.
in a city with good public transit, "i could go to that event across town" is a low-friction thought. in a car-dependent city, it's a calculation: parking, traffic, time. same event, same person, different interface. different life.
affordances
don norman would call these "affordances." those are the possibilities for action that an environment makes visible and accessible. a wide sidewalk affords walking. a bike lane affords cycling. a bench affords sitting and watching. a parking lot affords nothing except arriving and leaving.
cities that are good interfaces have high affordance density. every block suggests multiple possible activities. bad interfaces have low affordance density. vast stretches of space that exist solely to connect other spaces.
bangalore vs. tokyo
i've lived in both, and the contrast is instructive. bangalore is a city of hidden affordances. incredible things happen behind nondescript facades, and you discover them through word of mouth. the interface is low-discoverability, high-reward. tokyo is the opposite. extremely legible, high-discoverability, everything is signposted and reachable. you can wander and find things.
i love both, but they demand different kinds of engagement. bangalore rewards relationship-building. tokyo rewards exploration. the interface shapes the behavior.
what this means for software
i think about this when designing products. every screen is a small city. the layout of buttons, the hierarchy of information, the available paths. these are affordances that shape what users think is possible. a buried feature might as well not exist. a prominent feature becomes the product's identity, whether you intended it or not.
status: ongoing note. adding observations as i travel. might turn into something more structured about urban UX eventually.