“This is not a real infrastructure”: Finfluense criticizes what cities have become

For most people, more roads, more buildings, and more airports indicate progress. But the Sherfastava Aksat, the founder of Hell, is not convinced.

In a recent publication on X, the popular idea challenged what is considered a “good infrastructure”, on the pretext that the matter is not related to the amount that was built – but whether that actually improves how people live.

“What people think: Good infrastructure is – kilometers of added roads, the number of new airports that have been built, and the number of hospitals in your city,” wrote Sharfastava.

Then turn the list.

“What is good is in fact: good air, garbage collection, hygiene (low pressure in the context of the population). Multiple means of transportation, which provide decisive time. Fair development throughout the city. Gardens, sidewalks and functional methods: that reduce accidents. It gives incentives more active.”

Putting his prism, especially at a time when the infrastructure is often used as an abbreviation of development. But Shrivastava insists that real signs are more living and local.

With his words, “The goal of the infrastructure is to improve the quality of life.”

This means creating cities where people breathe clean air, reach work faster, walk safely, and live in cleaner neighbors – not only cities that look good on paper. Shrivastava framing converts the conversation from what is being built to who is built – and whether it makes their daily lives better.