City design is important - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15197275
Robert Urbanek wrote:The best city design means little if the mentally ill and drug addicts are allowed to set up camp on the streets.


What if you have both? Bad city design and high homelessness? There is no correlation btw. But a bad city design will most definitely hurt the drive to move off oil.
#15197276
B0ycey wrote:
In the UK at least, the responsibility is solely down to the driver so traffic laws are very strict here and adherence is key. Although if you were in France, they have the same attitude as Americans on this regard it seems. No driver waits at pedestrian crossings in France. And I mean nobody. It maybe, there is a link in regards to jaywalking and automotive lobbying (or city design). But despite the French not giving way to anyone trying to cross a road, they at the very least provide a paths and have great public transport. If you cannot provide the means to walk, then I can see why America at least have no motivation to move off oil. You cannot function without it.


I'm always a little apprehensive about driving in the UK. Feels like there are a lot of rules, and if you take American driving habits there, you will be stopped by traffic police all the time. :lol:

Also, you can't make a left turn on a red light when the path is clear? WTF?
#15197278
Rancid wrote:I'm always a little apprehensive about driving in the UK. Feels like there are a lot of rules, and if you take American driving habits there, you will be stopped by traffic police all the time. :lol:

Also, you can't make a left turn on a red light when the path is clear? WTF?


The rules are very strict, but there aren't many police on the roads. Or not as many as there was. So there are a lot of drivers with bad habits, who get caught ever so often doing stupid things like speeding and driving on the phone. And no, red means stop, even turning left. Nobody would risk that given that is an instant ban. But if you like driving through red lights, Spain is the country for you. Or perhaps I mean Tenerife. Been in many taxis on holiday, as of yet I have never been in one that stops on red. :hmm:
#15197279
In Montreal, it is illegal to turn right on a red. As a pedestrian, I love this. This is because I have been hit several times in other cities by drivers turning right on a red and only looking left since that is where car traffic is coming from.
#15197291
I like how housing developers are allowed to jam attached houses together on tiny lots with virtually no backyard or frontyard (who needs nature or space?) and the only parks they create for people are these new parkette super small pieces of shit. Maybe housing developers should have to subsidize everyone's antidepressant prescriptions.
#15197293
B0ycey wrote:What if you have both? Bad city design and high homelessness? There is no correlation btw. But a bad city design will most definitely hurt the drive to move off oil.


Actually, there is a correlation, at least in the U.S. Progressives who want to micromanage urban design also support organizations like the ACLU and other groups who claim the homeless have a right to camp on city streets and fight attempts to commit the mentally ill to institutions.
#15197294
Robert Urbanek wrote:Actually, there is a correlation, at least in the U.S. Progressives who want to micromanage urban design also support organizations like the ACLU and other groups who claim the homeless have a right to camp on city streets and fight attempts to commit the mentally ill to institutions.


Perhaps a solution to homelessness is to build more housing. Although that is a separate issue to giving people opportunity to walk.
#15197295
Unthinking Majority wrote:I like how housing developers are allowed to jam attached houses together on tiny lots with virtually no backyard or frontyard (who needs nature or space?) and the only parks they create for people are these new parkette super small pieces of shit. Maybe housing developers should have to subsidize everyone's antidepressant prescriptions.


What's also becoming more common is the only green space they build is a dog park. I guess people don't care about people parks lol.

B0ycey wrote:
The rules are very strict, but there aren't many police on the roads. Or not as many as there was. So there are a lot of drivers with bad habits, who get caught ever so often doing stupid things like speeding and driving on the phone. And no, red means stop, even turning left. Nobody would risk that given that is an instant ban. But if you like driving through red lights, Spain is the country for you. Or perhaps I mean Tenerife. Been in many taxis on holiday, as of yet I have never been in one that stops on red. :hmm:


It's very hard to lose your driving privileges in the US. I believe this is in fact something the auto industry lobbied for, as they want as many people owning cars as possible.
#15197324
B0ycey wrote:Christ Qatz. I am not looking at libel given I am not American. I just happen to have an interested in the US legal structure given it stinks for ordinary people and would like to know more about this issue in particular. From the information you have provided, there is a lot of conjecture....

This is lawsuit vocabulary.

If you want to learn more about how corporations shaped the modern city, you have Google to get started. I can't "prove" this in a few short sentences on the net. But let me get you started at the Start line with a few links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death ... can_Cities

https://www.strongtowns.org/

http://kunstlercast.com/

http://bowlingalone.com/

https://www.neighborhoods.com/blog/the- ... can-suburb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_M ... conspiracy
#15197328
To have the best fresh start and clean slate and do things right, why not build new cities.

Design build and establish new cities in areas that do not already have any large established population.

For one thing it would probably help relieve some of the congestion on the big cities that already exist.
#15197334
Unthinking Majority wrote:People have dogs instead of children now silly.

Oh.. fur babies.

What I was thinking, was parks for just people to stroll in. Adults, not necessarily kids.
#15197374
Puffer Fish wrote:To have the best fresh start and clean slate and do things right, why not build new cities.

Design build and establish new cities in areas that do not already have any large established population.

For one thing it would probably help relieve some of the congestion on the big cities that already exist.

Global warming will probably solve that problem for us, by drowning most of our major cities. Warmer weather and better urban living. It's win-win! :excited:
#15197479
Potemkin wrote:Global warming will probably solve that problem for us, by drowning most of our major cities. Warmer weather and better urban living. It's win-win! :excited:

I realize that is just a snide comment here, but even (and this is very hypothetical, in my opinion) if that did happen, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It would probably not lead to the creation of new cities. That city would just shift towards somewhere else that is already built-up. It would not be a fresh start.
#15197518
Puffer Fish wrote:To have the best fresh start and clean slate and do things right, why not build new cities.

So if your kids are sort of spoiled, you would kill them and start with "fresh babies?"

Isn't destroying what already exists... a waste of resources?

I ask this because the car-oil industry, in provoking suburban sprawl, destroyed both inner cities AND the possibility of connection and community. They also wanted to "start fresh" - but for them, "fresh" meant "total car dependence."
#15197527
Puffer Fish wrote:To have the best fresh start and clean slate and do things right, why not build new cities.

Design build and establish new cities in areas that do not already have any large established population.

For one thing it would probably help relieve some of the congestion on the big cities that already exist.


Cities cannot simply be built anywhere. Or more correctly, building a city that is not naturally suited to a city’s needs is going to require massive environmental intervention. To build a city and have its water, transport, waste, and other issues met (at a sustainable level) would probably cost more than rehabilitating existing cities.

There is also the fact that we already live where we live and do not wish to move to some new place.
By late
#15197548
Puffer Fish wrote:
I realize that is just a snide comment here, but even (and this is very hypothetical, in my opinion) if that did happen, it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It would probably not lead to the creation of new cities. That city would just shift towards somewhere else that is already built-up. It would not be a fresh start.



https://www.amazon.com/Cities-Wealth-Nations-Principles-Economic/dp/0394729110/ref=sr_1_1?crid=27B274F7X0X49&keywords=cities+and+the+wealth+of+nations&qid=1636484507&qsid=131-4556309-4521855&sprefix=cities+and+the+w%2Caps%2C175&sr=8-1&sres=0394729110%2CB000E0GZ8M%2C0226763749%2C022642264X%2C1631494538%2C0307742482%2C0393318885%2CB084FLWDQG%2C1469663880%2C1476794057%2C1464213259%2C1119564816%2C0768453224%2C0226033651%2C1533073929%2C1982132787&srpt=ABIS_BOOK
#15197773
Pants-of-dog wrote:Cities cannot simply be built anywhere.

My point was that "the city" would simply move to another city, right next to it or close by.

Most of these important cities are part of large megalopolises, sprawling outwards a long distance in all directions, rather than standing alone by themselves.

If you removed or destroyed the most important part of that megalopolis, the center would simply shift towards a different direction.

First of all, to understand this, you have to throw black & white thinking out the window. It's not simply a matter of whether or not a city exists in a location, but the extent of that build-up.
An area that, say, is currently more of a suburb area might get built up into more of a big city. This is not development of a new city, but transformation of a city into a more densely populated area with higher buildings and very different character.
Of course after this happens the surrounding suburbs would likely sprawl out more into as yet undeveloped areas, if this is possible in that situation.

My point is that you're not going to get a big city starting from scratch, starting with a blank slate.

Oh and guess who's going to be building those new suburbs? Probably not the government. It will be a private developer laying out those streets, and it will probably be done in patchwork fashion, without really much of an overall design for the entire city, since there will be several developments.
#15197774
Pants-of-dog wrote:To build a city and have its water, transport, waste, and other issues met (at a sustainable level) would probably cost more than rehabilitating existing cities.

The main difficulty with the idea of altering existing cities is the road layout, as well as the commercial-residential zoning. There would be several huge challenges attempting to change that.

Theoretically possible, but I don't think it is realistic.

For one thing, the type of people already living there would not want the area to change into a higher density city.

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]