Can the human-scaled city scale up?
#101
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
Getting to Des Moines.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
#102
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
#103
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
That cat named Edison was a good daydreamer though, or we'd all be doing forums by telegraph.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
#104
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
#106
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
You seem to be confused, I don't post daydreams, or fantasies or imaginary economic, social or sci-fi screenplays on BF. I do call 'em what they are when the usual suspects post 'em as realistic visions/predictions of the foreseeable future or as serious proposals for promoting or living car free.
#107
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
You seem to be confused, I don't post daydreams, or fantasies or imaginary economic, social or sci-fi screenplays on BF. I do call 'em what they are when the usual suspects post 'em as realistic visions/predictions of the foreseeable future or as serious proposals for promoting or living car free.
Without the more imaginative future visions, however, we would risk patting ourselves on the back for changing the world just by living car free within the current infrastructure. In reality, we need to identify what level of LCF is really necessary to achieve planetary sustainability and figure out what it takes to achieve that.
#108
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
The big picture is that more change is necessary for sustainability than is currently envisionable as 'realistically achievable.' Still, steps can be taken by individuals in the present to choose LCF and promote it in the short-term as well.
Without the more imaginative future visions, however, we would risk patting ourselves on the back for changing the world just by living car free within the current infrastructure. In reality, we need to identify what level of LCF is really necessary to achieve planetary sustainability and figure out what it takes to achieve that.
Without the more imaginative future visions, however, we would risk patting ourselves on the back for changing the world just by living car free within the current infrastructure. In reality, we need to identify what level of LCF is really necessary to achieve planetary sustainability and figure out what it takes to achieve that.
So so even in this forum "We" is a nebulous concept.
#109
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Who is the "We" that has the right or the power to determine how or even if LCF is worth while? Some talk of a future of dense jammed packed cities with all of their heat and crime as the solution while others promote Earthship homes and living off of the grid. And all the while people living in the real world are simply worried about living day to day. In what poll or Study have you seen LCF as even on the radar screen of the people or voters? In the end they will decide the direction society takes. They will decide who will lead them into the future. Looking at the number of voters that are LCF, something not even those posting here have been able to agree on, I see no growing swell of anyone that can stand on a platform and declare, "We have the answer, follow us we will save you."
So so even in this forum "We" is a nebulous concept.
So so even in this forum "We" is a nebulous concept.
#110
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Still, I have the right to say what "we" as humans (or "we" as life in general) need and should do, as does anyone else who is sincerely attempting to transcend narrower interests in favor of the greater good. If you or anyone else sincerely believes that something is for the greater good, they should speak out about it and reason with others about why they believe it is so. What happens too much here and in every other discussion is that people work harder to attack those of us that are putting effort into sustainable vision than they do on constructively reasoning about what is and isn't ultimately sustainable.
Some talk of a future of dense jammed packed cities with all of their heat and crime as the solution
while others promote Earthship homes and living off of the grid.
And all the while people living in the real world are simply worried about living day to day. In what poll or Study have you seen LCF as even on the radar screen of the people or voters?
In the end they will decide the direction society takes. They will decide who will lead them into the future.
Looking at the number of voters that are LCF, something not even those posting here have been able to agree on, I see no growing swell of anyone that can stand on a platform and declare, "We have the answer, follow us we will save you."
So so even in this forum "We" is a nebulous concept.
So so even in this forum "We" is a nebulous concept.
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
There is no absolutely deterministic power, unless you want to talk in terms of "God," and then you're dealing with complexities that go beyond any single determinant or controllable set of determinants, controllable from a human standpoint anyway.
Still, I have the right to say what "we" as humans (or "we" as life in general) need and should do, as does anyone else who is sincerely attempting to transcend narrower interests in favor of the greater good. If you or anyone else sincerely believes that something is for the greater good, they should speak out about it and reason with others about why they believe it is so. What happens too much here and in every other discussion is that people work harder to attack those of us that are putting effort into sustainable vision than they do on constructively reasoning about what is and isn't ultimately sustainable.
You're assuming future cities must be hot and crime-ridden. The question is whether dense cities can be shaded and crime-abated to the benefit of their residents.
Berm construction is good because it combines living space with green space so less photosynthetic biomass has to be displaced for human life. Grid-free living is not a bad idea. Between reducing energy/water consumption and creating sustainable sources for these resources on-site, future homes may well all be "off the grid." We'd be doing well if they are.
Most people worried about living day-to-day are not free enough from conformist mental habits to objectively question the status quo in favor of choosing a better future that's different from the present. They are too busy trying to earn their share of the present to question its sustainability. Many people do make an effort to envision sustainability, but the moment they feel confronted with the fact that they are part of the problem by the choices they currently make, they spring into ego-defense mode and attack proponents of change as enemies of the status quo they participate in. Some people are able to overcome the knee-jerk of their ego-defensiveness to objectively overweigh present-day practices against potential future changes; and as a result many of us realize that we need to work toward implementing changes that won't be easy or quick, but which will benefit us and future generations in the long run.
They will definitely decide who to follow, and who to elect, but they cannot determine the direction of societies or nature. Often, popular majorities or even powerful popular movements that don't achieve majority create momentum in some direction or other but unsustainable choices guarantee their own limited longevity. Part of democracy is the freedom to continue speaking out about what directions should be taken when the popular directions are stubbornly resistant to critically reasoning about their sustainability.
It's not "follow us we will save you," but "change direction before you destroy the future and much of the present." Ultimately, we are all held accountable for the directions we choose and take by the fate our children and their children reap as a result of the seeds we planted in their history. They will suffer for our sins, even if we manage to escape that fate.
Still, I have the right to say what "we" as humans (or "we" as life in general) need and should do, as does anyone else who is sincerely attempting to transcend narrower interests in favor of the greater good. If you or anyone else sincerely believes that something is for the greater good, they should speak out about it and reason with others about why they believe it is so. What happens too much here and in every other discussion is that people work harder to attack those of us that are putting effort into sustainable vision than they do on constructively reasoning about what is and isn't ultimately sustainable.
You're assuming future cities must be hot and crime-ridden. The question is whether dense cities can be shaded and crime-abated to the benefit of their residents.
Berm construction is good because it combines living space with green space so less photosynthetic biomass has to be displaced for human life. Grid-free living is not a bad idea. Between reducing energy/water consumption and creating sustainable sources for these resources on-site, future homes may well all be "off the grid." We'd be doing well if they are.
Most people worried about living day-to-day are not free enough from conformist mental habits to objectively question the status quo in favor of choosing a better future that's different from the present. They are too busy trying to earn their share of the present to question its sustainability. Many people do make an effort to envision sustainability, but the moment they feel confronted with the fact that they are part of the problem by the choices they currently make, they spring into ego-defense mode and attack proponents of change as enemies of the status quo they participate in. Some people are able to overcome the knee-jerk of their ego-defensiveness to objectively overweigh present-day practices against potential future changes; and as a result many of us realize that we need to work toward implementing changes that won't be easy or quick, but which will benefit us and future generations in the long run.
They will definitely decide who to follow, and who to elect, but they cannot determine the direction of societies or nature. Often, popular majorities or even powerful popular movements that don't achieve majority create momentum in some direction or other but unsustainable choices guarantee their own limited longevity. Part of democracy is the freedom to continue speaking out about what directions should be taken when the popular directions are stubbornly resistant to critically reasoning about their sustainability.
It's not "follow us we will save you," but "change direction before you destroy the future and much of the present." Ultimately, we are all held accountable for the directions we choose and take by the fate our children and their children reap as a result of the seeds we planted in their history. They will suffer for our sins, even if we manage to escape that fate.
#112
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The short answer is No.
Large cities will shrink and small towns may recover. What's left over, the population excess, will die.
Large cities will shrink and small towns may recover. What's left over, the population excess, will die.
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Montreal
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Many places have started to address the problem of UHI. Heat island effect can be reduced a lot with white roofs and green roofs. They are now mandatory here in Montreal. Other measures include planting more trees and light colored pavement. UHI also exists in subburbs around large parking lot in shopping centers for example.
#114
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
High crime rate is due more to poverty than high density. There are many dense cities outside the USA with low crime rate. In Canada, the crime rate is lower in large cities than it is in the country.
Many places have started to address the problem of UHI. Heat island effect can be reduced a lot with white roofs and green roofs. They are now mandatory here in Montreal. Other measures include planting more trees and light colored pavement. UHI also exists in subburbs around large parking lot in shopping centers for example.
Many places have started to address the problem of UHI. Heat island effect can be reduced a lot with white roofs and green roofs. They are now mandatory here in Montreal. Other measures include planting more trees and light colored pavement. UHI also exists in subburbs around large parking lot in shopping centers for example.
When you google Hunan Scaled City do you get a city or a concept?
When you search crime rates on places you want to live does it say anywhere that the poor are more likely to be the criminals? Is that also a theory? Or are you saying there are more poor people in dense cities and so the crime rate is higher?
i know this is getting repetitive so I an pretty much done. I will simply finish with I do not accept that a tightly packed urban area is a better way for humans to live and raise children. It may be better for the ones governing but it isn't for the ones governed unless they would rather be controlled.
Last edited by Mobile 155; 02-16-16 at 04:12 PM.
#115
Prefers Cicero
I sometimes get caught in that "bikes would do the trick" mode.
But then I run into some fact that makes me realize how intensely difficult it is to make a city livable and workable.
I found this article on copenhagenize.com (a great blog...)...https://nextcity.org/features/view/c...e-cities-model
So even in a bicycle-oriented paradise like Copenhagen, there are big issues. How do we resolve them?
But then I run into some fact that makes me realize how intensely difficult it is to make a city livable and workable.
I found this article on copenhagenize.com (a great blog...)...https://nextcity.org/features/view/c...e-cities-model
So even in a bicycle-oriented paradise like Copenhagen, there are big issues. How do we resolve them?
#116
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Montreal
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That is more of the "it could be dreaming" that we so often hear. When you google most dangerous places to live the usual suspects almost always come up first, even the top 100 will get a nod from most people. Yes some day in the far future they may work out a solution but for now it exists and is not a case of what we could, should or would have done. Saying what could be done is simply an excuse to ignore what is. In other words a theory that to date isn't proven. When you google UHI do you get information on suburban parking lots? Unless things are very different in Canada I don't think so.
When you google Hunan Scaled City do you get a city or a concept?
When you search crime rates on places you want to live does it say anywhere that the poor are more likely to be the criminals? Is that also a theory? Or are you saying there are more poor people in dense cities and so the crime rate is higher?
i know this is getting repetitive so I an pretty much done. I will simply finish with I do not accept that a tightly packed urban area is a better way for humans to live and raise children. It may be better for the ones governing but it isn't for the ones governed unless they would rather be controlled.
When you google Hunan Scaled City do you get a city or a concept?
When you search crime rates on places you want to live does it say anywhere that the poor are more likely to be the criminals? Is that also a theory? Or are you saying there are more poor people in dense cities and so the crime rate is higher?
i know this is getting repetitive so I an pretty much done. I will simply finish with I do not accept that a tightly packed urban area is a better way for humans to live and raise children. It may be better for the ones governing but it isn't for the ones governed unless they would rather be controlled.
I haven't seen any evidence that living in dense urban areas is bad for humans and their children and I don't need to claim that it is bad for people to live in sparse areas.
Last edited by denis123; 02-16-16 at 05:54 PM. Reason: More arguements
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
How am I giving up "control" by living in the city? Who is controlling me? Somehow I thought I lived in a democracy under a system of laws crafted by my fellow citizens.
#119
Prefers Cicero
I don't think that would work well. One way streets are designed to speed up traffic, so they encourage more driving, and also people more often need to go around the block to get where they are going, so trips are a bit longer
#120
Prefers Cicero
Nobody lives in dense cities anymore, they're too crowded.
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
i know this is getting repetitive so I an pretty much done. I will simply finish with I do not accept that a tightly packed urban area is a better way for humans to live and raise children. It may be better for the ones governing but it isn't for the ones governed unless they would rather be controlled.
This isn't to say you can't have dense/tight developments within such an area. Sprawling driving-dependent areas have always had malls and apartment buildings, both dense developments within the sprawl. These dense developments are better for walkability and transit efficiency. Still, there can be single-family housing with yards, etc., but the focus should be on making these areas bikeable and/or transit-friendly, so that the choice to bike is there and people aren't driving-dependent.
If driving is a fraction of total traffic, congestion and sprawl pressures lessen, which makes biking more doable and encourages it because it is a larger share of total multimodality.
#123
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,503
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7348 Post(s)
Liked 2,470 Times
in
1,435 Posts
You seem to be confused, I don't post daydreams, or fantasies or imaginary economic, social or sci-fi screenplays on BF. I do call 'em what they are when the usual suspects post 'em as realistic visions/predictions of the foreseeable future or as serious proposals for promoting or living car free.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
#124
Prefers Cicero
Actually that's wrong. If all the people who live in cities moved to the country, they could not sustain themselves with agriculture as they would be occupying too much of the land. By living densely in the city, they free up more land for agriculture.
#125
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,503
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 511 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7348 Post(s)
Liked 2,470 Times
in
1,435 Posts
Who is the "We" that has the right or the power to determine how or even if LCF is worth while? Some talk of a future of dense jammed packed cities with all of their heat and crime as the solution while others promote Earthship homes and living off of the grid. And all the while people living in the real world are simply worried about living day to day. In what poll or Study have you seen LCF as even on the radar screen of the people or voters? In the end they will decide the direction society takes. They will decide who will lead them into the future. Looking at the number of voters that are LCF, something not even those posting here have been able to agree on, I see no growing swell of anyone that can stand on a platform and declare, "We have the answer, follow us we will save you."
So so even in this forum "We" is a nebulous concept.
So so even in this forum "We" is a nebulous concept.
It's not that able-driving suburbanites are envisioning a car free suburbia. It's the people who don't want to drive or can't drive. That sector is growing and speaking. If you haven't noticed, you just haven't noticed yet, but it's happening.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.