That’s because didactics and urbanism of today are not science-driven, or more precisely, they are science driven, but aimed at things different than stated.

There’s the famous city benches example, that today’s typical benches are only useful for sitting in one inconvenient pose not doing anything useful and not moving, and for not too long, you won’t even be able to relax. And that’s considered good urbanism, it disallows people to lie down on a bench (that’s in itself not too bad a thing, who the hell decided we all should be upright stick-in-the-butt serious types, preferably in suits, with faces like from ads, only doing things the accepted way? what’s the problem in someone sleeping a few hours on a bench? it attracts drunks and homeless? they’ll make their own bench of cardboard and junk, I promise you it won’t smell better), to take conversational poses while sitting on a bench (like when playing chess or drinking coffee or eating a sandwich or whatever, use it as a social space), to even rest - one would think benches are for resting.

It’s being justified in various ways, but in fact these “urbanists” are not too different from police agents, their only goal is to destroy opportunities for public social spaces in urban areas forming. They are approaching the problem scientifically, just not the one they are claiming to approach. They don’t want you to just meet and talk with strangers, or hang out with your friends, without all the control apparatus of FAANG moderation, whitelist of allowed ways to communicate typical for today’s Web, blackbox recommendations and no agency at all. That’s also why today’s urban park zones are more like green streets than like well-treated small forests.

It’s the same with learning environments for children and playgrounds. It’s being claimed that those “safe spaces and only vetted ways to communicate” environments and approaches are scientifically justified for didactics, for that they are not, but they condition children to obey authority. It’s aimed to discourage them from thinking outside of the presented ruleset, from verifying and checking claimed reality, and from experimenting before believing. Like those idiotic colorful playgrounds with nothing really to do, which is why children are usually not very excited with them. If you take a child to a zoo, they’ll look at animals all the time and never be bored, and they’ll play in all the spaces around, just because those are neutral things like containers for junk and benches (normal ones) and signs. But in a dedicated playground (a modern one, with all that colored plastic round crap) they’ll be bored to hell, because those are not designed to be interesting for children. They might play in the surroundings, because, well, they usually don’t erase the district around that new playground, but those playing in the new playground itself are usually like 4-6 years old at best.

It’s all crap aimed at somehow “growing” and “conditioning” people who will be better material for what these jerks want the humanity to be, with their likes being the ones making policies, of course.

It’s the lowest quality human material experimenting on others’ children.

Each and every such initiative should be met with Molotov cocktails and just somehow broken legs for those pushing them.

Because, no matter the inconveniences, universal city spaces are necessary with all the homeless and drunks and junkies and exhibitionists and hooligans included, and environments for children allowing to learn are also necessary.

Those doing all this “safety” crap only want to somehow grow a generation of humans that will obey.