[Vladimir]

So, this topic is about how cities/towns should be planned, with what priorities in mind. What type of housing is best? What type of transport is best?
What type of architecture should be used for different buildings of varying purposes?

To start off, here is my theory (not just mine, obviously) of city planning:
- Housing should all be in flat blocks
- Private transport ownership should be very limited, public transport made maximum efficient
- Architecture should be expressive in public building, but simple in peoples' housing
- Cities should be planned logically and on a wide scale, not randomly or by small sections.
- Planning must have space/city ecology as its priority.

So, discuss theories of how cities should be built. =)

---

PS. I don't know if this section is the best place for this topic, so if some mod thinks otherwise, you can move it, I suppose... It's better it stays here in my opinion, because this section is most popular, hehe...

[Zagadka]

Alpha & Omega

[Vladimir]

Yeah, I've heard american city planning is bad...

[Eauz]

It's unfortunate that many North American cities are developing the suburbs, as opposed to the downtown areas. You should encourage city development in such areas, by developing mass transit lines (subways, trains, buses), which would allow for a larger number of citizens to benefit, without having need to access a vechicle. However, the issue of tax always come into play.

[Kiroff]

Yeah, I've heard american city planning is bad...

It's not that the city planning is bad, it's the economical choices made 60 years ago. I personally don't like the grid layout, bacause of it's ultimate inflexibility, but that's just me. American city planning traces itself back to the 18th century when the grid layout was agreed upon because it was the easiest to survey and the frontier was quickly expanding.

Cities should be planned logically and on a wide scale, not randomly or by small sections.

Personally, I like the radial fortress style of planning as the one in many Russian cities. On a flat area it's perfect because it can extend infinitely, while remaining easy to connect transportation to and extend. However, it's a problem if there are mountains, such as in Seoul.

- Housing should all be in flat blocks
...
- Architecture should be expressive in public building, but simple in peoples' housing

Do you mean Soviet 'commieblocks' SU-*** or various styles such as neoclassical/socrealism/etc of the Stalin era?

---

What I think you like is the Moscow layout, as it is often called a living organism, with the park zones as its lungs, the center as it's head, the suburbs as its body, transport as its arteries, etc.

I'll finish this later. By the way, this should probably be in science or art section.

[Vladimir]

It's unfortunate that many North American cities are developing the suburbs, as opposed to the downtown areas. You should encourage city development in such areas, by developing mass transit lines (subways, trains, buses), which would allow for a larger number of citizens to benefit, without having need to access a vechicle. However, the issue of tax always come into play.

So, public transport is not very well developed in America?
I heard the bus services are weak, but I though rail trains were ok...

Personally, I like the radial fortress style of planning as the one in many Russian cities. On a flat area it's perfect because it can extend infinitely, while remaining easy to connect transportation to and extend. However, it's a problem if there are mountains, such as in Seoul.

Ah yes, that's true. Radial planning is far superior to any other on a relatively flat land - and it's based on concentric kvartals with radial streets, and with ring-roads every so often. The metro system is also easy to make in such cities, since you can position stations strategically so that they are on road intersections, which go on in more or less a straight line. However, if the city is too big, than new lines would have to branch of old ones at regular intervals to fill the expanding gap between old lines...
And Seul looks really badly planned =/ Pyongyang is far better...

Do you mean Soviet 'commieblocks' SU-*** or various styles such as neoclassical/socrealism/etc of the Stalin era?

Well, I don't necessarily mean hrushevkas - I think hrushevkas are best for workers' settlements, like in regions on the steel crescent, or on oil fields, or railway settlements, etc - where cheap and quickly-built housing is needed.

What I mean is generally block concrete houses, but improved from hrushevkas, like the Melnikov type:


Or other types. Brick 5-floor houses are good for the more outer-lying areas or for smaller towns. Tall block buildings cladded with brick are good too...

But generally what I was saying is that housing should generally be simple/neutral architecture, like shown, but public buildings should be expressive, such as stalinist architecture, neo-classical, etc, etc.
Of course, some housing can also be expressive, e.g. the stalinist vysotkas, but those are genrally reserved for elites (whatever system you have, there will be elites - be it authors, artists and party members or the ruling class and capitalists)...
But generally such things should be done with regard to contrast, etc - hence simple architecture for housing. The expressive architecture can be placed in primarily dwelling areas for sake of more interest and aesthetic contrast...

What I think you like is the Moscow layout, as it is often called a living organism, with the park zones as its lungs, the centre as it's head, the suburbs as its body, transport as its arteries, etc.

Well, I do consider Moscow the best city in the world =)

---

By the way, here is an example of good planning for an undeveloped piece of land, hope it's visible=/:

http://www.maj.com/gallery/Miroslav/other/plan.jpg

There, the dark-colour lines are footpaths, the white with lines in the middle are roads...
So, the main features can be seen - a lot of space, greenery, easy access to anywhere, etc... General idea can be seen...

(Was sketched by me, while me and a friend of mine - who is a city planner - were talking... He gave me a problem to solve - to build up the V-shaped bit of land formed by two roads meeting)

[QatzelOk]

- Housing should all be in flat blocks
Ideally, housing should be inexpensive (3 to 4 story row houses) and the rich and the poor should be housed in the same neighbourhoods and in similar looking buildings.



- Private transport ownership should be very limited, public transport made maximum efficient
Environmentally non-obtrusive transportation such as mass transit and cycling should be given priority over other more damaging and dangerous forms of transport.



- Architecture should be expressive in public building, but simple in peoples' housing
Private homes should be allowed to be customised by their owners or tenants. In the case of tenants, modifications should be either reversible, or - if permanent - approved by the owner (even if it is the city or state)



- Cities should be planned logically and on a wide scale, not randomly or by small sections.
Aristotle recommends a mix of the two and I agree. "Logical" layout grids are often based on simplisitic ideas of "logic" erected in three dimensions.



- Planning must have space/city ecology as its priority.
As a priority. Housing people inexpensively is just as important and should be given equal priority.

[Kiroff]

My favourite place in Moscow in terms of suburbs is the area around the Metro stations Bratislavskaya, Lublino, and Mar'ino.





These were developed in the late 80's and 90's for the most part. They're really easy to supply because the roads have a wide median(This is a pretty narrow one in Barnaul, Lenin Prospect), and there is a roundabout in the center of each district. That's why it's home to Auchan hypermarket, the largest supermarket(or hypermarket) in Europe.

Also there is Novokosino(ech, I hate the balconies on the brown building) and Butovo and many other places.

By the way, do know any place where all the standard designs of houses are listed?

Also, put the large picture as a link please.

Really, I like the tall construction because it makes it possible to have both a lot of people settled, and preventing urban sprawl, allowing the forests and parts to exist(Though unrestricted dacha building is a problem now). Also, people don't have to be holed up in their homes because everything is close by and you can just get to the forest on a train, which you can't do in America.

For example, in this draft are the 10 and 10a microdistricts. There the plan is to occupy the area of 0.56 square kilometers(0.23 square miles) with as many people as possible without sacrificing recreational areas. The result is space for 13.5 thousand people, 3 full course(as opposed to elementary, middle, high, 1-11) schools fitting 825+200, 550, and 550 children, 4 daycare centers fitting 110, 110, 150, and 220 children, a polyclinic that can service 750 people, and a shopping-public center that is 13000 sq. m. and employs 365 people, and covered parking for 2100 cars. The apartments will have 35 square meters per person. At the same time there will be enough squares, playgrounds, and soccer fields to suit the community.

At the same time it's ecologically safe as the tall buildings shield recreational areas from the fumes of the Nosovikhinskoe highway that goes on the route Moscow-Zheleznodorozhnyi-Chernoe(ends there as Soviet St.).

Of course 5-story khruschevkas that Qatz probably likes are their unique beauty and it's sad to see them go... They were built in the late 1950's early 1960's as a response to the American suburban explosion. They only had 9 square meters per person but made the Soviet Union the leader in residential construction in square meters per person as they were pre-made blocks that were put together, letting one brigade build one story in a less than a month(a stakhanovite brigade made a story a week) and had a combined restroom/bath and a very small kitchen. By the way the early suburb homes were really small and cramped too.


Full set

Also, what do you think about Stalinist Revival?



Of course old ugly gray homes can be painted, like they are in Ramenskoe!

Ideally, housing should be inexpensive (3 to 4 story row houses) and the rich and the poor should be housed in the same neighbourhoods and in similar looking buildings.

Private homes are bad in that they show that the better maintained homes are of the rich and the poorer maintained are of the poor. In apartments you only see the outside. Everyone has the chance to make their inside look any way they want. Plus, they are made of concrete and are much more reliable.

---

Also, if you ever wanted to know, this is my house, where I lived in Russia. Built in 1997, 12 stories, not sure of ROST designation. You see a forest, the buildings behind it in the distance are Balashikha, 7 kilometers(4.3 miles) away.

I'll try to organize this post into sections sometime.

[Vladimir]

Kirof
Will reply later, must sleep a bit...
But what is the picture you want a link of, my plan?
If so, here:
http://www.maj.com/gallery/Miroslav/other/plan.jpg

[Kiroff]

I meant make the image into a link because it's stretching the window.

[Verv]

I live in Korea where there are no zoning laws but merely the remnants of attempts at organized construction in the 70s.

I have found that it is very good if you simply let economics determine, let the market decide what goes where and how it is built.

The market naturally dictates the proper designs for the proper people -- businesses naturally want fancy places to attract attention, rich people want luxurious homes and poorer people want affordable homes...

It all naturally works itself out.

[Monkey Angst]

It's unfortunate that many North American cities are developing the suburbs, as opposed to the downtown areas.

My city is developing downtown. For the rich.

[Vladimir]

QatzelOk

Ideally, housing should be inexpensive (3 to 4 story row houses) and the rich and the poor should be housed in the same neighbourhoods and in similar looking buildings.

But such low houses make it actually more expensive since the amount of people housed does only efficient type, in many respects.

Environmentally non-obtrusive transportation such as mass transit and cycling should be given priority over other more damaging and dangerous forms of transport.

I suppose cycling is good for short distances, but how can bicycles replace buses, underground and cars? People can cycle where they want anyway, without priority being given to them, but cycling is limited to a small nearby area...

Private homes should be allowed to be customised by their owners or tenants. In the case of tenants, modifications should be either reversible, or - if permanent - approved by the owner (even if it is the city or state)

Well, those types of houses are for villages, and yes, of course people who live in them should build/decorate/modify them....))

As a priority. Housing people inexpensively is just as important and should be given equal priority.

Well, yeah, that's more or less definite

Kirof
Those areas are good, but I think with the new novostroykas, they have been a bit crowded - just like the areas around Tsaritsyno and Pechyatniki in the south...
Because before the houses that stood there were by plan, and everything was arranged neatly, so there would be lots of space - but now, after that Moscow land sale rush, all the land there has been taken and squeezed for money - so, we get all these new blocks appearing and crowding the place... And most of the apartments are just used for renting out to tadzhiks and for investment in property of people who have too much money

The areas you have showed - I can even see the former loose checker/square pattern of houses with all the other houses spoiling it. But it's not bad really, compared to some other areas.
Also, I am used to living in an area with mostly 5-floor brick houses, with a few loosely scattered 12-floor houses, so whenever I am around dense tall houses I feel oppressed a bit

So, I think when building tall houses, they should be built very loose- that's the whole purpose of them, so the building density is low.

The photo you gave of Novokosino shows a far better plan, without as many intrusions - that's more or less a perfect plan (if not counting the balconies, I hate them too)

By the way, do know any place where all the standard designs of houses are listed?

Well, the internet is stuffed with typical planes of cottages/dachas from different agencies... I have never searched for general typical plans, since I have a lot of books on this, and on internet it's all private companies anyway. But still, they do use a lot of soviet standard designs, sometimes modified, sometimes not.
I can't show much, here is some:
http://rosrealty.ru/foryou/houses/
http://www.novosel.info/modules.php?op= ... file=index
http://m2-realty.ru/?doc=series_all

Here is a book:
http://www.ismart.ee/books.dll/viewitem?code=3156055

---

Or, just search in rambler or something "типовая планировка домов"...
But I don't know any on-line universal list of the designs.

Really, I like the tall construction because it makes it possible to have both a lot of people settled, and preventing urban sprawl, allowing the forests and parts to exist(Though unrestricted dacha building is a problem now). Also, people don't have to be holed up in their homes because everything is close by and you can just get to the forest on a train, which you can't do in America.

This is exactly the key philosophy to city development. I don't even need to add anything.
Of course, there are many other advantages of this also. For example, the increased social aspect, reduced isolation - people tend to live in the podyezd communes, and also the yard space around the house gives area for children to play around together, for people to sit around and chat, for drivers to chat while fixing cars, etc. There's also increased social awareness - you're under observation from the commune, and this acts a good order keeping mechanism.

For example, in this draft are the 10 and 10a microdistricts. There the plan is to occupy the area of 0.56 square kilometers(0.23 square miles) with as many people as possible without sacrificing recreational areas. The result is space for 13.5 thousand people, 3 full course(as opposed to elementary, middle, high, 1-11) schools fitting 825+200, 550, and 550 children, 4 daycare centers fitting 110, 110, 150, and 220 children, a polyclinic that can service 750 people, and a shopping-public centre that is 13000 sq. m. and employs 365 people, and covered parking for 2100 cars. The apartments will have 35 square meters per person. At the same time there will be enough squares, playgrounds, and soccer fields to suit the community.

At the same time it's ecologically safe as the tall buildings shield recreational areas from the fumes of the Nosovikhinskoe highway that goes on the route Moscow-Zheleznodorozhnyi-Chernoe(ends there as Soviet St.).

Ah yes, thanks for the plans, I printed them off... Although I don't generally know about the things going on outside of Moscow, I think a friend of mine might be involved in the planning in Reutov, since he lives there (moved there from Moscow some time ago)...

Oh, and about houses shielding recreational areas - this is true, that's why the entrances and yards are always on the side away from the road.

Of course 5-story khruschevkas that Qatz probably likes are their unique beauty and it's sad to see them go... They were built in the late 1950's early 1960's as a response to the American suburban explosion. They only had 9 square meters per person but made the Soviet Union the leader in residential construction in square meters per person as they were pre-made blocks that were put together, letting one brigade build one story in a less than a month(a stakhanovite brigade made a story a week) and had a combined restroom/bath and a very small kitchen. By the way the early suburb homes were really small and cramped too.

Well, in those times Hrushev had a priority to pulls people out of communalkas and basement areas, to have one apartment for each family, and the hrushevkas were a short-term solution to this. They were supposed to be demolished 20 years later, once the better houses were ready. gradually, people would move from them to the better houses.
I don't really have anything against hrushevkas, and in fact they are quite dear to me, hehe)))) I don't think there's any particular reason to knock them down unless they are not safe in some way (that happens sometimes). The recent attack on them in Moscow is just another aspect of the new Luzhkoffcity - to squeeze the land for all it's worth. And that's just in Moscow, you see - elsewhere hrushevkas are still in great esteem, hehe.
But as I said, they are best for workers' settlements more.

Also, what do you think about Stalinist Revival?

Yeah, there were a few now stalinist towers built. he closest one to me is the one on Sokol, and it is the one you have shown. I can see in all the way from Voykovskaya...
Well, it's good, what can I say)))
It's based on the design of the 8th stalinist tower, but a bit altered.
I am certainly glad it's built... Especially in our area, as it's devoid of any vysotkas...
By the way, interesting article regarding Luzhkoffcity:
http://www.businesspress.ru/newspaper/a ... &aId=93917

Also, if you ever wanted to know, this is my house, where I lived in Russia. Built in 1997, 12 stories, not sure of ROST designation. You see a forest, the buildings behind it in the distance are Balashikha, 7 kilometers(4.3 miles) away.

Ah, ok)) I can see it clearly, made no mistake))
Well, 'tis a good house... It looks like it's cladded brick.... What floor were you on???

There is no photo of my house on internet, but this

is one of the new houses only one trolleybus stop away from me...

---

Verv

I live in Korea where there are no zoning laws but merely the remnants of attempts at organized construction in the 70s.

Well, I could tell by the photo of Seoul)) South koreans aren't strong on planning... Pyongyang is far better, the streets so wide, and there's so much greenery, park areas, recreational areas, etc...

I have found that it is very good if you simply let economics determine, let the market decide what goes where and how it is built.

The market naturally dictates the proper designs for the proper people -- businesses naturally want fancy places to attract attention, rich people want luxurious homes and poorer people want affordable homes...

It all naturally works itself out.

Well, when you allow market forces to determine what your city will end up like, you'll end up with chaos, complete absence of any architectural harmony and contrast, some bizarre styles and constructions, cramped conditions with unbearable building density, differing poor(slums) and rich areas (look at Sao Paulo):


bad road systems with constant traffic jams, terrible pollution and air quality, chaotic build-up with very little or no free space for yards and parks, narrow streets, very limited access to land outside of streets, less effective types of housing, etc.
While with planning you will have nice, spacious, convenient towns/cities, look:



[/quote]
-That's Volgorechensk...

So, market forces will give a city that’s made for corporate profit, while a planned city will give you a nice, beautiful, pleasant, green “living organism” – type city.

[Kiroff]

Yeah, in Russia in the 90's there were no zoning laws. There was in fact a law that people can sell stuff anywhere they want. The result was a lot of crappy construction such as kiosks that quickly started rotting because it had cheap siding, etc., or even posed dangers to people. That's why Russian cities use the genplan-2 model, a hybrid of zoning and Soviet planning, that cooperates government and business. First, the government and businesses determine what their capacities are. Then the genplan is developed by city planners and architects. They plan the city to have the new construction accomodate schools, roads, and municipal objects without them being impaired by business and residential buildings, because it will be really expensive to move them by eminent domain to build a school or road. For example, the features in the genplan I mentioned, such as moving the factories inside what has become residential areas to the north and east districts, and building municipal parkings, build a tunnel under the railway to connect Lenin St. and South St., build a new highway that encircles the city from the east(the southeast is connected with the north, going through the industrial area which was prior to that and even now poorly accessible). After public hearings on the city square the construction objects are then sold to developers who build the homes and sell the apartments. They also, by bids build the roads, and schools, and the businessmen build the shopping malls in the areas earlier agreed on. The result is a sanely organized and planned city that does not need to raze anything to build a new road or expand it.

http://reutov.net/genplan/

Dark orange is residential, lighter orange is schools and daycares, blue is indurtrial, purple is municipal(public parking, etc), pink is business and non-profit organizations, light green is natural environmental protection(permanently unsettled areas), the crossed out buildings are the ones built in the 60's, the khruschevkas that are by now cheaper to destroy and build new buildings in place than to fix. To the west is the Moscow Beltway, to the north is the Volga Highway that goes Moscow-Balashikha-Vladimir-Nizhny Novgorod. To the south is Nosovikhino highway that goes Moscow-Zheleznodorozhnyi. The railway going through the city goes from Moscow and splits to go to Balashikha on one line and Zheleznodorozhnyi, Fryazevo, Vladimir, and eventually Nizhny Novgorod on the other.

And no, it doesn't work itself out. It ends being either really expensive to fix or really ugly and inconvinient.



In this image we see very dense construction. This "natural" construction looks more like what people stereotyped Soviet cities to look like... The main problem is that in places with unrestricted construction ugly buildings pop out, ruining the skyline, and city roads, like they do in Samara where the genplan still hasn't beet adopted(one of the reasons is lobbyinst developers who want to delay it). I remember there was a news piece about some historical church on a hill, where developers bought all the land around it to build personal villas and the church could not be accessed by regular people. Personally, I believe that's a problem.

Here in the States the problem has also appeared. Cities boom and after a few years everyone moves out to the suburbs and the city becomes a center of poverty and crime. That's why American cities now implement Smart Growth(wiki can explain it better) that is very similar to Soviet urban planning(which by the way was invented in the 60's by Lithuanian city planners) and lets cities be more stable without living from boom to bust.

In communities across the nation, there is a growing concern that current development patterns -- dominated by what some call "sprawl" -- are no longer in the long-term interest of our cities, existing suburbs, small towns, rural communities, or wilderness areas. Though supportive of growth, communities are questioning the economic costs of abandoning infrastructure in the city, only to rebuild it further out.

Spurring the smart growth movement are demographic shifts, a strong environmental ethic, increased fiscal concerns, and more nuanced views of growth. The result is both a new demand and a new opportunity for smart growth.

The features that distinguish smart growth in a community vary from place to place. In general, smart growth invests time, attention, and resources in restoring community and vitality to center cities and older suburbs. New smart growth is more town-centered, is transit and pedestrian oriented, and has a greater mix of housing, commercial and retail uses. It also preserves open space and many other environmental amenities.

The Smart Growth Principles and Issues below describe in greater details the various aspects of planning and development that make up smart growth.

http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/default.asp

---
Add:

My city is developing downtown. For the rich.

Same here in DC. All the rich kids who are moving in renovate the old townhomes and settle in. With overall population falling, Black population fell 6% and White population rose 15%.

Those areas are good, but I think with the new novostroykas, they have been a bit crowded - just like the areas around Tsaritsyno and Pechyatniki in the south...
Because before the houses that stood there were by plan, and everything was arranged neatly, so there would be lots of space - but now, after that Moscow land sale rush, all the land there has been taken and squeezed for money - so, we get all these new blocks appearing and crowding the place... And most of the apartments are just used for renting out to tadzhiks and for investment in property of people who have too much money

The areas you have showed - I can even see the former loose checker/square pattern of houses with all the other houses spoiling it. But it's not bad really, compared to some other areas.
Also, I am used to living in an area with mostly 5-floor brick houses, with a few loosely scattered 12-floor houses, so whenever I am around dense tall houses I feel oppressed a bit

So, I think when building tall houses, they should be built very loose- that's the whole purpose of them, so the building density is low.

The photo you gave of Novokosino shows a far better plan, without as many intrusions - that's more or less a perfect plan (if not counting the balconies, I hate them too)

Novokosino, Pechatniki, and the rest were all planned in the late 80's. The real problem is that since they are fairly new, there are not many trees and igets very hot in the summer. It felt really strange walking through Novokosino too. As if I'm in America except all the houses are really tall. And yeah, the 5-story buildings are usually of friendly colors. In Sochi they look historical because they put neoclassical ornaments of and covered them with beige sandlike siding. That's why I like those orange homes. The white and brown ones are okay, but they tend to get depressing... Don't know the series, but they are orange-white and have gothic sloping roofs.

Well, the internet is stuffed with typical planes of cottages/dachas from different agencies... I have never searched for general typical plans, since I have a lot of books on this, and on internet it's all private companies anyway. But still, they do use a lot of soviet standard designs, sometimes modified, sometimes not.

...

Thanks. I searched for other terms and it only gave me realty agencies...

Well, in those times Hrushev had a priority to pulls people out of communalkas and basement areas, to have one apartment for each family, and the hrushevkas were a short-term solution to this. They were supposed to be demolished 20 years later, once the better houses were ready. gradually, people would move from them to the better houses.
I don't really have anything against hrushevkas, and in fact they are quite dear to me, hehe)))) I don't think there's any particular reason to knock them down unless they are not safe in some way (that happens sometimes). The recent attack on them in Moscow is just another aspect of the new Luzhkoffcity - to squeeze the land for all it's worth. And that's just in Moscow, you see - elsewhere hrushevkas are still in great esteem, hehe.
But as I said, they are best for workers' settlements more.

The problem is that they are rotten and are costlier to maintain, and not worth it unlike skyscrapers. Basically, they are totaled. They're replacing them in Reutov too

-That's Volgorechensk...

I don't really like it. Looks overly systematic and without a defined center.

[Vladimir]

Will write more later, but just to add quickly - the key to logical planning is the concept of "microrayons" (is there a word for it in english???). basically, they are like bricks, out of which you construct cities.

PS. Just found some scetch which seems to show a similar situation to the other one, with the road cross-section...
It's quite a good illustartion of microrayon principles...
http://www.maj.com/gallery/Miroslav/other/plan2.jpg

Also, if you have time, you could try to solve the building-up problem of the same road cross-section, and show it... See what you can do... There are many possibilities, the first plan I have shown is a typical plan, but there are many possible things. It all depends on surrounding and the existing infrastructure....

[Kiroff]

Here's what I got:



I didn't know the angle so I took a cough drop wrapper and folded it against the screen which is why the angle might be wrong. Also, I don't know the size of the region in question so I used my best judgement. The P is the parking, the Ш is the school, the ДС is the daycare, the ТЦ is the shopping center - could be a supermarket with a mall on top - though I forgot to make a delivery entrance.

To reduce the traffic issue, I assumed that the side road intersects the northwest road, so I made the exits onto the main roads right turn only.

In the southeast is a sign that would say something like the name of the district or the microdistrict, and the back of the shopping centre would be painted with some mural.

The school is probably bigger than one of that standard plan usually is.

In total there are 13 homes, 1 municipal parking lot, a mini-mall, a school with a soccer field and a track, a daycare, and 4 playgrounds. About 2000 people would live there. The school and daycare accomodate 660 children.

One thing I noticed is popular now though is constructing "towers" that are usually round. If an apartment building is 18 stories, a tower can rise as high as 35.

At least now I have something to do while I'm sick...

Also, the "warm" colored building I was talking about is P-44T

[Looter]

They should be built like fractals. Tall in the centre gradually getting lower to mobile homes. The centre would be an electric train station. I would also like 6 fold symmetry. and lots of trees. I see the Moscow State University as a model for how cities would look.

[Verv]

That is probably a picture of Ilsan, Ansan, Bundang or any other of the Seoul outer suburbs. It also looks like those roads are very wide, which is a characteristic of those areas.

Most parts of Seoul have a section of high rise apartments next to a collection of restaurants, bars, etc. It seems like anywhere you go you can find a good collection of bars and restaurants and stores next to the apartments... It just works.

Pyongyang looks nice? I think that is what you get if you get restricted areas that only Party members can live in.

Preferential treatment is great.

I looked for some aerial shots for Hoegi. I could find some of Uijeongbu:



See the large, brown/red buildings near the stadium? I live in the one furthest back, haha.

It's very utilitarian. Land is made use of well. Homes, apartments, commercial areas... They naturally all spring up in the proper spots.

You see a diverse amount of buildings/zones going on here, unlike the closer aerial shot of just the apartments.

[Maas]

To start off, here is my theory (not just mine, obviously) of city planning:
- Housing should all be in flat blocks
- Private transport ownership should be very limited, public transport made maximum efficient
- Architecture should be expressive in public building, but simple in peoples' housing
- Cities should be planned logically and on a wide scale, not randomly or by small sections.
- Planning must have space/city ecology as its priority.

What's the source of this theory?
This is totally not how Dutch city planning works.

Dutch city planning starts out with appointing an area where a city get's build or a city get's to be expanded.
Key factors are house-prices, amount of people wanting to live there, work to be found and public transport and highway access.

When the area gets appointed than it's a simple pie/circle of percentage's to find a place. Things that fill up to a 100% / full circle includes: amount of housing devided in highrise/lowrise/expensive and cheap, amount of public buildings (schools/policy etc) amount of roads, amount of parks, amount of water surface.

Side effect will be the enviroment effect report = that is about the destruction of the enviroment that had to go because of the new city. It'll dictate how much of an area must become "greener" near by to compensate.

than you end up building something like this:

project Poelgeest, near Leiden: about 1000 houses

down town area of project Ypenburg, this got build
it's a part of The Hague: about 10000 houses.

If you like to see how Ypenburg currently looks like you can use google earth typing "Ypenburg, The Netherlands" and than zoom out tot eye-altitude 4.8 km to see the bigger road stucture/lay out. I worked on it for 4 years as a engineer. In total it willt take around 12 years to complete.

[Donna]

Grafton, Utah



Church
For praying, maintaining happiness, etc

House
For living, etc.