# If you were to create your ultimate city (from scratch), what would be your main priority to make it successful?



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

I've asked this question on LinkedIn (yes, I also have a LinkedIn account too), in which I have received wonderful responses from fellow city and regional planners. And now, I would like to ask this same question, but this time, I want to hear from you who may or may not be city planners.

Here's my idea: understanding the concept of city-building requires skill, patience, and determination to build a successful city or community. But, in order for that to happen, one must have his or her own priorities set up to make the dream city a reality. I am currently an Urban Studies and Planning major student at a university in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I am compelled to ask this question because it seems like building suburbia has been the priority, and that the inner cities have been sacrificed a lot by underdevelopment, increased criminal activity, and empty buildings and lots. I would like to bring back proper city development, but this time, adding sustainability and connectivity to the picture.

So, this is an open discussion, subject to SSC rules. And I will do my best to comment on each of your thoughts as soon as possible.


----------



## babybackribs2314 (Jan 5, 2008)

If I were to create my ultimate city, the number one priority would be a beneficial geographic location. If the world were a blank slate, I'd probably choose a location close to the equator, perhaps Panama or Singapore would be best.

Step two would be guaranteeing a sufficient infrastructure. The city would basically be built on top of a 3-story platform, with each level dedicated to automobiles/pedestrians, subway service, and freight traffic. The level resting on top (I guess that would make it #4, but it would be open-air) would be dedicated to pedestrian use only. 

The city would be geographically compact, perhaps 100 square KM, and would be extremely dense, on the order of 250,000+ per square KM. It would basically be a fortress, with extremely tall buildings (up to a mile) in the middle. The city would be entirely surrounded by green space, though.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

That's a really hard question.

Maybe "other" or a broad interpretation of "well managed utilities". 

In my ideal city there wouldn't be conventional land use planning except maybe a few special reservations for industry and bars/clubs. There would be only two types of zoning, a growth classification and a preservation classification, determining which set anti-nuisance and good neighbor ordinances and building codes would apply. There would be strict legal adherance to the comp plan so NIMBY's couldn't block things too easily and developers would have to follow the rules too.

The city would start out with infrastructure and quality public services, and as time went on it would naturally develop with stuff clustering, etc. The things urbanists love most often got established before modern city planning began and emerged organically. Recreating some of those conditions(not total lasseiz faire mind you, old cities were also disgusting and dangerous), would be the best way to see a real downtown/city center or specialized districts grow up in a completely-from-scratch city.

I have more thoughts about this but I don't have time to post them.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

babybackribs2314 said:


> If I were to create my ultimate city, the number one priority would be a beneficial geographic location. If the world were a blank slate, I'd probably choose a location close to the equator, perhaps Panama or Singapore would be best.
> 
> Step two would be guaranteeing a sufficient infrastructure. The city would basically be built on top of a 3-story platform, with each level dedicated to automobiles/pedestrians, subway service, and freight traffic. The level resting on top (I guess that would make it #4, but it would be open-air) would be dedicated to pedestrian use only.
> 
> The city would be geographically compact, perhaps 100 square KM, and would be extremely dense, on the order of 250,000+ per square KM. It would basically be a fortress, with extremely tall buildings (up to a mile) in the middle. The city would be entirely surrounded by green space, though.


This is similar to my thought for an extremely dense city. However: 
--Subways would need two levels so they could cross. 
--Cars wouldn't be possible. At your density, if even 5% used them (basically Manhattan with 50% auto use), the traffic on that autos/peds level would be unworkable, you'd have to devote massive space to parking, and air pollution would be severe. 

At that density, starting from the top, I'd do a couple skywalk levels (say 500' and 100', and maybe even rail at one of those, plus pedestrians at grade, pedestrains at -1, trains and -2 and -3, electric trucks at -4, and utilities at -5.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

A good location would be a start. Something with decent air flow, non-extreme weather, stable geology, etc. Actually screw that, the best cities are often in earthquake zones. Good aesthetics or even iconic features would help, as happiness and image can go a long way. 

Then you'd build it to be efficient, in terms of resources and cost. This would be a big driver to success. 

Don't be too rigid. Whatever you build, make it flexible enough to be appealing to a broad range of people and companies, and to handle new trends and industries that come along. Efficiency will require density, but within that much can vary.


----------



## Erthel (Apr 23, 2012)

Make it free. Cities develop on their own, you can't really control the minds and lives of millions of people concentrated in a few square quilometers. Let them and they will organize, build and make for better livings


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

babybackribs2314 said:


> If I were to create my ultimate city, the number one priority would be a beneficial geographic location. If the world were a blank slate, I'd probably choose a location close to the equator, perhaps Panama or Singapore would be best.
> 
> Step two would be guaranteeing a sufficient infrastructure. The city would basically be built on top of a 3-story platform, with each level dedicated to automobiles/pedestrians, subway service, and freight traffic. The level resting on top (I guess that would make it #4, but it would be open-air) would be dedicated to pedestrian use only.
> 
> The city would be geographically compact, perhaps 100 square KM, and would be extremely dense, on the order of 250,000+ per square KM. It would basically be a fortress, with extremely tall buildings (up to a mile) in the middle. The city would be entirely surrounded by green space, though.


Aha interesting. Why choose somewhere close to the Equator? Because its warmer and the sun shines nearly consistently all-year round (at the same time)? And how would you design a 3-story platform... What's your prototype like? And oh yeah, a compact city would be great, it's just that how would you provide all your needs with such a tight space while giving open space for them to relax?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

People don't like to be crammed into to tiny apartment towers. They want big homes with several bath rooms and a large garden. Dense residential areas just make public transport more effective, but even then public transport is only of any use if traffic congestion is bad and petrol expensive, if thats not the case then driving is fine.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

I would create a city with a lot of open spaces, huge park systems and the such, and not too dense a city either, something a long the lines of the density of a Düsseldorf sized city, although perhaps with a denser core, but not necessarily (not overly dense though-or at least not overly dense for a wide enough area). I wouldn't zone different areas for different aspects of life, I would let things mix naturally. I would certainly wish the create an efficient public transport and road system. 

There would be tax incentives for environmentally-freindly cars and a lot of solar panels throughout the city.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

poshbakerloo said:


> People don't like to be crammed into to tiny apartment towers. They want big homes with several bath rooms and a large garden. Dense residential areas just make public transport more effective, but even then public transport is only of any use if traffic congestion is bad and petrol expensive, if thats not the case then driving is fine.


Sure, I understand what you're thinking. But, would you rather see a compact apartment that has everything in it like in Tokyo (efficient use of space) or a large home with lots of open space for you and your family only?

Plus, what makes driving more effective than taking transit if you've got thousands of people living in a block of flats? That would shave thousands of cars off the roadways.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I'd like a city with segregated clusters interconnected with some futuristic individual transportation system suck as PRTs that would be the backbone of networks connecting them. Each cluster could have its own density patterns, most clusters would be low-density housing, housing clusters would never ever have any other activity. The city wouldn't have any "downtown" or "center", but rather a geodesic projection form.

There would be specific clusters for entertainment (no nighttime special noise limits), government (all gov't buildings in the same place), education (school/university clusters built only for that without bars, clubs or other estalblishments etC). All of them linked with a fast, silent and efficient networks of automated pods hustling people from one cluster to another.

Vast spaces would physically separate each cluster in the city, there would be no "fluidity" between them but a rather hierarchial transportation network that people would take to move between them, creating the ultimate specialization use-plan. 

At least 50% of the total area would be open space (creeks/artificial lakes/parks etc).

*Most and foremost, I want a city where the concept of "street" is obsolete. People wouldn't need to corrupt the use of "streets" as transportation structures for any other purpose, and wouldn't also need to use non-transportation places like parks for transportation purposes.*


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> I'd like a city with segregated clusters interconnected with some futuristic individual transportation system suck as PRTs that would be the backbone of networks connecting them. Each cluster could have its own density patterns, most clusters would be low-density housing, housing clusters would never ever have any other activity. The city wouldn't have any "downtown" or "center", but rather a geodesic projection form.
> 
> There would be specific clusters for entertainment (no nighttime special noise limits), government (all gov't buildings in the same place), education (school/university clusters built only for that without bars, clubs or other estalblishments etC). All of them linked with a fast, silent and efficient networks of automated pods hustling people from one cluster to another.
> 
> ...


Yes, let's put all the failed experiments of the past into one place.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

DanielFigFoz said:


> I would create a city with a lot of open spaces, huge park systems and the such, and not too dense a city either, something a long the lines of the density of a Düsseldorf sized city, although perhaps with a denser core, but not necessarily (not overly dense though-or at least not overly dense for a wide enough area). I wouldn't zone different areas for different aspects of life, I would let things mix naturally. I would certainly wish the create an efficient public transport and road system.
> 
> There would be tax incentives for environmentally-freindly cars and a lot of solar panels throughout the city.


Aha, so your idea is pretty similar to mine then. I like a combination of ultra-dense downtown cores, but also provide ample open space as well. I like putting apartments close to the urban core, as well as along the city's main corridors as well. And I really advocate for mixed-use planning. Good thoughts!


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

mhays said:


> Yes, let's put all the failed experiments of the past into one place.


What do you mean by "failed" experiments? Provide examples.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Why choose somewhere close to the Equator?


That's what I was thinking. 

Latitudes that have a freeze and thaw have a natural advantage over others in that the freeze acts as a buffer against disease. It's warmer latitudes that are prone to devastating epidemics in humans, animals, and plants.

The ideal latitude is one where an annual prolonged frost occurs.


http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3986&method=full


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

There is a balance to be struck between what one considers aesthetically pleasing and the sort of homes people want to live in. i.e. I would like a city with 5-6 storey 19th century style avenues, but if some/many people wanted to live in low rise detached houses this should be respected, as long as new builds are constructed to modern standards of insulation and energy efficiency.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

isaidso said:


> That's what I was thinking.
> 
> Latitudes that have a freeze and thaw have a natural advantage over others in that the freeze acts as a buffer against disease. It's warmer latitudes that are prone to devastating epidemics in humans, animals, and plants.
> 
> ...


All right. The challenges of a city located in a latitude with prolonged frost would be:

- that city would suffer from a sense of isolation because the community may not be accessible when snowfall comes in
- snow can be tricky to work with, requiring specialized trucks (snowmobiles included!) to plow through the heavy snow (and don't forget to add salt to melt it all down and become passable again for cars and trucks)
- the compromise for a prolonged frost would be a short summer... And the city's short summer could bring in another set of challenges (e.g. Will the city hold its own summer festivities, will there be enough open space for the kids to enjoy the water and adults to play on the greenery?) and that you need to account its distance from a big city
- infrastructure-wise, you would need to either power it through tall wooden poles or dig them completely underground. The issue of digging utilities underground would be how to prevent the pipes and wires from freezing when the temperature above them falls below freezing, as well as how will you ensure that blackouts will rarely happen. On top of that, you might also consider building an airport to make the city more accessible
- creating a park that could serve as a relaxing place can be fine in the summer; in the winter, however, people might just stay at home. So think of a park wherein people can go to that park in the summer and winter (I.e. does the lake freeze? Will it have a concert space for performers to play during the cold winter nights? Will there be ample space for families to hold snow building contests?) this pretty much reminds me of Sapporo.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Rascar said:


> There is a balance to be struck between what one considers aesthetically pleasing and the sort of homes people want to live in. i.e. I would like a city with 5-6 storey 19th century style avenues, but if some/many people wanted to live in low rise detached houses this should be respected, as long as new builds are constructed to modern standards of insulation and energy efficiency.


Ah, so you're looking into a city that respects the area's architecture. Smart thinking indeed!


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

fieldsofdreams said:


> What do you mean by "failed" experiments? Provide examples.


Separation of uses, low densities, personal transportation vs. shared, etc.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

mhays said:


> Separation of uses, low densities, personal transportation vs. shared, etc.


I thought suburbia provides those features already... maybe why not? I thought also about ZipCars too, but I think we need some sort of combinations to bring suburbia to the dense city.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I'm mixed on urban farming. You're right that it's not going to be a significant source of basic foodstuffs for the population. 

On the other hand it's a recreational activity that gives people something to do(like sports) and what food is does generate can go to charity or be sold to support the organization.



> But of course there are gonna be sissies who will find it "unhygienic and unhealthy", which is far from truth.


To be fair unregulated livestock raising in urban environments is tied to disease outbreaks like bird flu in developing countries. But on the other hand there's been some research showing that young children are more susceptible to developing allergies if they are not exposed to natural dirt and grit in the environment, so having more unkempt nature mixed in urban neighborhoods might have a positive health impact.

Ideally yeah, people should be able to have that stuff in adequately sized gardens. No veritable farms inside high rise tenement storefronts like Hong Kong 50 years ago though.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

zaphod said:


> I'm mixed on urban farming. You're right that it's not going to be a significant source of basic foodstuffs for the population.
> 
> On the other hand it's a recreational activity that gives people something to do(like sports) and what food is does generate can go to charity or be sold to support the organization.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on that one. Imagine if you grow your own fruits and vegetables in your own backyard and you eat what you grow... and it's in the city. How would you feel? Will it translate to savings for you from paying a lot at a grocery store? Will it translate to a more pleasurable eating experience?


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

zaphod said:


> To be fair unregulated livestock raising in urban environments is tied to disease outbreaks like bird flu in developing countries. But on the other hand there's been some research showing that young children are more susceptible to developing allergies if they are not exposed to natural dirt and grit in the environment, so having more unkempt nature mixed in urban neighborhoods might have a positive health impact.
> 
> Ideally yeah, people should be able to have that stuff in adequately sized gardens. No veritable farms inside high rise tenement storefronts like Hong Kong 50 years ago though.


Then we should terminate all the pigeons and sparrows in the cities as well? People get sick. Besides, bird flu doesn't even kill as many people as common cold, for example.

Having a few chickens in the garden for fresh eggs won't do any harm.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

The Cake On BBQ said:


> Then we should terminate all the pigeons and sparrows in the cities as well? People get sick. Besides, bird flu doesn't even kill as many people as common cold, for example.
> 
> Having a few chickens in the garden for fresh eggs won't do any harm.


Well, having a small poultry farm can help you save money from buying whole chickens or a crate of eggs. But, as usual, neighbors might call it a NIMBY for obvious reasons (health, noise, and the like).

Has anyone thought of the idea of resurrecting Victory Gardens in cities and communities?


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> Structures that need ornaments to have "character" are like people with ugly faces relying on makeup to solve the problem.
> 
> Ornaments belong to an era when humanity didn't have other forms of visual expression, 2D and 3D, as we have today. They are obsolete.


You can call it what you want, its still beautiful. No matter how many BS anti beauty ideas you come up with, its still beautiful.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

I would like to give you a little heads-up: I will post another poll thread that will be related to this... but this time, it will focus on public transportation. Are you ready for it?


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

> Having a few chickens in the garden for fresh eggs won't do any harm.


No but having 300 of them in a tiny windowless room on the ground floor of a "handshake building" in some yet-to-be-cleared slum in Guangzhou will.

This is exactly how many nasty diseases made the jump from beast to man.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

zaphod said:


> No but having 300 of them in a tiny windowless room on the ground floor of a "handshake building" in some yet-to-be-cleared slum in Guangzhou will.
> 
> This is exactly how many nasty diseases made the jump from beast to man.


Ah yes, that is indeed a different story. I remember the bird flu and the H1N1 virus that came from southern China, and that the Philippines was somehow spared from it due to intense quarantine measures. I think instead of having small farms instead of raising chickens... I believe that raising small urban farms can produce mixed results, but if you aim to be a locavore, then it is a good suggestion to have.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Well, having a small poultry farm can help you save money from buying whole chickens or a crate of eggs. But, as usual, neighbors might call it a NIMBY for obvious reasons (health, noise, and the like).
> 
> Has anyone thought of the idea of resurrecting Victory Gardens in cities and communities?


Then you can always tell them not to eat fastfood ever again, if they really are so concerned about their health because it's certainly more unhealthy. Regarding the noise, how much noise can a chicken make lol? Then people should stop adopting dogs as well. 

And honestly, NYMBYs are none of my concern.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

zaphod said:


> No but having 300 of them in a tiny windowless room on the ground floor of a "handshake building" in some yet-to-be-cleared slum in Guangzhou will.
> 
> This is exactly how many nasty diseases made the jump from beast to man.


This is not what I suggested though :dunno:


----------



## lowenmeister (Oct 1, 2012)

If i were to create my ultimate city i would make it a extremely dense and tall city. Maybe housing the population in a enormous multi tiered arcology surrounded by massive skyscrapers. I would concentrate the population to save farmland and nature. Suburban sprawl is bad because it doesnt make a city look impressive and it consumes nature. The arcology would have several "street" levels to make people forget that they live in an enormous hive.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

The Cake On BBQ said:


> Then you can always tell them not to eat fastfood ever again, if they really are so concerned about their health because it's certainly more unhealthy. Regarding the noise, how much noise can a chicken make lol? Then people should stop adopting dogs as well.
> 
> And honestly, NYMBYs are none of my concern.


NIMBYs are more prevalent in suburbia, and I'm not pretty much of a NIMBY person too (unless it's a landfill right next to a block of flats) 

And sure, cutting down on fast-food chains may mean losing revenue for restaurants, but it also provides a significant health impact: people can actually lose weight by promoting healthy practices.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I don't think NIMBYs are exclusive of any urban form.

In the United States, some of the most fierce NIMBYs are located in upscale inner-city neighborhoods of places like San Francisco, Washington, DC., New York and Boston.

The problem with contemporary NIMBY-ism is that is can be easily disguised as "protecting character", or "keeping aesthetic harmony" of a given place, even if, like the aforementioned case of San Francisco, the places are not even historical with barely a century on modern historical record.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> I don't think NIMBYs are exclusive of any urban form.
> 
> In the United States, some of the most fierce NIMBYs are located in upscale inner-city neighborhoods of places like San Francisco, Washington, DC., New York and Boston.
> 
> The problem with contemporary NIMBY-ism is that is can be easily disguised as "protecting character", or "keeping aesthetic harmony" of a given place, even if, like the aforementioned case of San Francisco, the places are not even historical with barely a century on modern historical record.


Sounds very true to me. I think that NIMBY for "historical reasons" may be fine to a certain extent, but when it becomes a hindrance for a community's overall growth, should both city residents and politicians consider to relocate such NIMBY attractions somewhere else and replace it with a historical marker to remind people of what it was? Or is it possible to put it in the future building and place in the lobby an artifact or two from the old building?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I think you get a lot of NIMPYs in suburbia, because people live there a long time. They move there in their early 30s with a young and often expanding family, the children grow up and move out, parents stay in the old family house, and remember the good old days, and damn anyone if they try to 'ruin' (Change) the neighbourhood. Where I live is exactly like this.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

poshbakerloo said:


> I think you get a lot of NIMPYs in suburbia, because people live there a long time. They move there in their early 30s with a young and often expanding family, the children grow up and move out, parents stay in the old family house, and remember the good old days, and damn anyone if they try to 'ruin' (Change) the neighbourhood. Where I live is exactly like this.


Is that the story of gentrification?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Is that the story of gentrification?


I don't know what its the story of lol, its just what happens, at least around where I live.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

poshbakerloo said:


> I don't know what its the story of lol, its just what happens, at least around where I live.


I meant, is gentrification the trend in your community? Thus my thought.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

I just had this idea: what if a future city was made similar to the Inca city of Machu Picchu, but to an extent as Tokyo or London? (no, I'm not referring to Mexico City, but something that can be bigger than Kathmandu)


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

I dunno, maybe I'm alone...but I think Chicago is very close to perfection. It's gridded and logical. Great transit network. Super dense areas, medium dense areas, low dense areas, family home areas. Entertainment areas, industrial areas. Parks. Open space. 

Sure, all of these could be improved on...but the basic idea is perfect. Honestly, I'd rather focus on intangible aspects of the city: crime, corruption, city inefficiencies, etc. But as far as layout, Chicago is where it's at.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Northsider said:


> I dunno, maybe I'm alone...but I think Chicago is very close to perfection. It's gridded and logical. Great transit network. Super dense areas, medium dense areas, low dense areas, family home areas. Entertainment areas, industrial areas. Parks. Open space.
> 
> Sure, all of these could be improved on...but the basic idea is perfect. Honestly, I'd rather focus on intangible aspects of the city: crime, corruption, city inefficiencies, etc. But as far as layout, Chicago is where it's at.


How about if you have the chance to build your own city, what would you like to have in it? Similar to Chicago, but much better? I heard that the CTA has some 24-hour bus service, but it does not necessarily cover the entire city...


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I heard that the CTA has some 24-hour bus service, but it does not necessarily cover the entire city...


It doesn't need to cover the entire city. Not _that_ many people are riding buses at 3am.



> How about if you have the chance to build your own city, ... Similar to Chicago, but much better?


Well, whenever I'd make a SimCity, I kind of always defaulted to Chicago-esque styles and layout. It just makes the most sense to me.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I meant, is gentrification the trend in your community? Thus my thought.


Not where I live, as its a very desirable outer suburban/semi rural area. But Sheffield is a very good example of gentrification and development. The city centre has been pretty much rebuilt, and new things being done all the time.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ it seems like gentrification has become a recurring theme, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area, where certain streets or neighborhoods are being improved constantly over time to include newer buildings and shops. Can Tokyo be an example of gentrification too, but in a rapid pace?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ it seems like gentrification has become a recurring theme, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area, where certain streets or neighborhoods are being improved constantly over time to include newer buildings and shops. Can Tokyo be an example of gentrification too, but in a rapid pace?



Well I'm not too sure with Tokyo, I wasn't aware that it was the type of place that would need it.


----------



## M.R.Victor (Sep 4, 2012)

Well, if we're going to be thinking about "ultimate" city, why not dream outside the box a little. Some would go the high-tech way. I would go the low-tech way, as my ideal fantasy city would be a hippie heaven.

My ideal city would be located in a climate with very bearable and short winter, say somewhere in southern Europe of southern California. It would be located on a sea-shore and it would have plenty of arable land around it.It would be small to medium-sized and it's main purpose would be self-sustenance and spiritual freedom.

It would be a multi-level collection of re-purposed shipping containers, with some sort of underground plumbing available. The street network would be random and informal, and most traffic would occur by bike. The streets would be narrow and elevated footpaths between the various levels would create layers of transportation above the streets.

All sorts of eco-friendly measures would be implemented. The city's main contribution and contact with the global economy would be the exploration of alternative ways of doing things. Technologies for passive heating options, passive electricity generation, organic farming, recycling, etc. would be developed here. Eco-tourism, small scale manufacturing and sustenance farming would also be practiced.

In general, people would be allowed to do whatever they please, with minimal legal safeguards that would ensure the existence of co-operative efforts, democracy and would prevent social breakdown. The end


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

M.R.Victor said:


> Well, if we're going to be thinking about "ultimate" city, why not dream outside the box a little. Some would go the high-tech way. I would go the low-tech way, as my ideal fantasy city would be a hippie heaven.
> 
> My ideal city would be located in a climate with very bearable and short winter, say somewhere in southern Europe of southern California. It would be located on a sea-shore and it would have plenty of arable land around it.It would be small to medium-sized and it's main purpose would be self-sustenance and spiritual freedom.
> 
> ...


Hippie heaven, huh? You might envision your city to be like the Haight-Ashbury District here in San Francisco, Berkeley, or even Fairfax in my home Marin County... Be wary though of the number of joint and smoke shops you open: it might attract a lot of cops and undesirable guests. 

Beyond that, I really like your concept of reusable shopping bags (a.k.a. Lanyards) wherein people can use those again and again when they shop at local shops, as well as bicycling wherein it's possibly one of the cleanest and greenest ways to get around. Plus, your concept of spiritual freedom is something I would like to explore myself because I am the opposite of yours: a heavy-grid city with lots of tall buildings, apartments, and malls... It would be a great thing to envision, the only thing is not a lot of people know about this.

And your concept seems to be the ideas being cultivated right here in the Bay Area too, as well as a number of cities in the US. I just don't know how widespread it can be, but I really hope it will happen because we need to preserve what we have while time is still with us.


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

Efficient, attractive and eco-friendly public transport system for sure.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

sebvill said:


> Efficient, attractive and eco-friendly public transport system for sure.


I like your concept. What do you mean by attractive public transport system?


----------



## Isopropyl (Oct 2, 2012)

Basically, all of the above but I voted for public transportation to give emphasis that it is the most important aspect of a city for me.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ So in your city, how would you develop your transport network? Would you start with pedestrian streets, roads, highways, or rail lines?


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

> Well, if we're going to be thinking about "ultimate" city, why not dream outside the box a little. Some would go the high-tech way. I would go the low-tech way, as my ideal fantasy city would be a hippie heaven.
> 
> My ideal city would be located in a climate with very bearable and short winter, say somewhere in southern Europe of southern California. It would be located on a sea-shore and it would have plenty of arable land around it.It would be small to medium-sized and it's main purpose would be self-sustenance and spiritual freedom.
> 
> ...


Aside from the plenty of arable land bit, you could actually be describing the vibrant Mumbai slum of Dharavi http://www.economist.com/node/10311293?story_id=10311293

Low rise housing, large recycling industry, plenty of informal entrepreneurship, narrow streets with foot and bicycle being the main modes of transport, limited government interference.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Rascar said:


> Aside from the plenty of arable land bit, you could actually be describing the vibrant Mumbai slum of Dharavi http://www.economist.com/node/10311293?story_id=10311293
> 
> Low rise housing, large recycling industry, plenty of informal entrepreneurship, narrow streets with foot and bicycle being the main modes of transport, limited government interference.


Ah, very interesting! I would love to have that as a case study for what a slum can evolve into, if it is done by the people, not the government. Probably with entrepreneurial support and help from the local authorities, Dharavi can eventually thrive as a distinct neighborhood of Mumbai and become an attraction of its own.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slums deserve the wrecking ball, nothing more. They don't evolve in anything useful. They should be demolished not only to alter the urban form, but to eradicate any historical memory of them.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ On the contrary, slums actually provide a more in-depth view of what the city is all about. Those add color, diversity, and variety in an otherwise business-like nature of downtown areas. Plus, such communities tend to be open to most people, although be wary of some sketchy slum areas where druggies and gangsters hang out.


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

My most important three:

Public transportation
Well-managed utilities
Dense residential neighborhoods

It would be much easier to maintain and upgrade infrastructure and just manage the city in general with these three in place. I despise urban sprawl. IMO the perfect city size would be somewhat similar to Miami, 400K, in 40-50 sq. kilometers at most.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ What makes you despise urban sprawl? And if you are for a compact city, what would you build in it to make it a livable place?


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ What makes you despise urban sprawl?


The fact that often time it's dependent on the automobile. Now this isn't horrible unless other methods of transportation (BRT,LRT, etc) are neglected in favor of it.



> And if you are for a compact city, what would you build in it to make it a livable place?


Dense neighborhoods with a mixture of residential and entertainment/commercial areas, and at least a few small parks. Tree-lined streets, bicycle lanes, an extensive metro and brt system, underground utilities, and if need be double/triple decker highways to minimize the amount of land usage. Polluting industrial complexes and waste management would be on city outskirts. Though even there I would have man-made forests so its not all hideous.


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> Slums deserve the wrecking ball, nothing more. They don't evolve in anything useful. They should be demolished not only to alter the urban form, but to eradicate any historical memory of them.


I'm not sure how this is achievable, in a country like India they will just appear somewhere else. Without massive building of social housing people will either live in substandard accommodation for a while or remain in the countryside. I don't think slums are necessarily a sign of a malfunctioning market or society, but a stage of development to go through.


----------



## ranny fash (Apr 24, 2005)

I don't have the time to write everything I want to say but in short:

A city must have a reason to be where it is and it's people must have a real sense of purpose to keep them happy and together. Most settlements begin life as a place where trade took place or maybe it was a river crossing or it had good potential for defences. Even though these reasons are obsolete centuries later, the city still needs purpose, which may have changed to a whole bunch of different things. People have to want to move there for whatever reason, and people have to want to stay there for whatever reason. It should be a place where things happen.

Diverse economy and industry is crucial, ask Detroit or Glasgow about that. Mixed neighbourhoods where meeting and living with people from different levels of wealth and backgrounds is normal. People need to believe that their skills and approach to life, whatever they may be, will be valued and wanted by someone somewhere, or everyone. I guess I'm trying to emphasise a supportive environment where people look out for each other and don't judge harshly. 

I really like Berlin, the buildings and neighbourhoods there seem about right, on a human scale but dense enough, and well built. I think here in the UK our neighbourhoods are too segregated by 'class' (urgh hate that word) and this breeds ignorance of other people and their capabilities. I'm lucky to live in an area of Nottingham that is fairly well mixed in terms of income and background and actually my city would contain areas like this, suburban towns with low rise, medium density land use, and plenty of industry, parks, and thoroughfares. But mostly it would be like the medium-rise neighbourhoods of NYC or Berlin, with main routes and streets radiating towards a large city centre with lots of distinctive areas.

A place where people are happy to express themselves and use their skills and talents productively. I guess having diverse people, education, economy and industries is the key for me.

I would also want it to have a beach and be in a mediterranean climate, with plenty of mountain biking to be had, and at least a couple of rival football teams to choose from. ha!


----------



## wc eend (Sep 16, 2002)

- maximal functional diversity (living, working, recreation, shopping, small industries), as long as those functions are compatible and not harmful to one another

- maximal openn-ness of the built environment at street level by commercial or public functions

- equibilirium of maximal density and maximal green space for each inhabitant

- within this framework, maximal diversity of architecture

- maximal walkability or cyclability, which means minimal car traffic

- important geographic features, like mountains, rivers, lakes, beaches

- lots of old stuff to provide creativity-inspiring grittiness


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ interesting. What do you think is the ideal open space ratio per individual living in a city? And what is your justification to aim for such a ratio?


----------



## wc eend (Sep 16, 2002)

^^ I dont't know, that should be the outcome of some calculation. The point is just not to waste space. Making it dense but still comfortable.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

wc eend said:


> ^^ I dont't know, that should be the outcome of some calculation. The point is just not to waste space. Making it dense but still comfortable.


Ah, that's something we can discuss together. 

My idea of open space per inhabitant is that for every one person living in a city, I am thinking that he or she deserves a 10 sq. meters of open space (3.33 meters x 3.33 meters) so that a person can roam around a city freely with less highway or building obstruction. That's idealism by the way. However, since cities nowadays grow so rapidly, especially in the developing world, many city planners disregard the true value of open space in a city that they jus resort to building either tall apartment buildings or lots of office structures or factories that parks are becoming a subordinate feature in cities, resulting in slums being a major area of growth in the inner cities. 

The issue in the developing world in terms of city planning has been on the question of how much population can be sustained so that we could give people everything they want, while at the same time provide them choices of how they can help shape their neighborhood or community in the near- and long-term. And the question goes further on how to address the continuing migration of people from rural areas to cities while making sure that the rural areas they leave behind become more efficient to supply the growing food needs of the urban population. It is truly a chain of questions hat need to be addressed, not just by the government, but also with the private sector and NGOs, and that city planners should take the en masse growth of cities into a huge consideration... Perhaps if they can lead the charge for sustainable urban area growth.


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

Cool topic. I often imagine creating a perfect city. It would have to have strict population control and emphasise investment in human capital. That would provide order and attract investment.

It would be a college town/city. 4-5 universities, 100-150k max population, divided into sectors that are designed architecturally in separate styles (1 area in Gothic, another in Moorish, another ancient Japanese, another Renaissance etc).

Giddy with joy!


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Well, you're very fortunate that college and university cities are also in the scope of this topic. Architecture design-wise, how would you separate those neighborhoods with Gothic, Japanese, and Renaissance designs? Plus, how would you design your downtown area: what would be your focal point/s to make it attractive to residents, students, visitors, and business owners?


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

I figure the CBD could be modern and stuff with other styles being found in zones around the cental zone. So a city of say 6 zones, 1 of which is the CBD, the others 2-6 could each have a style of a different period.

I would also devout time and money to security to keep my city free from fools. It would be an intellectuals paradise.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Hmmm... Interesting ideas. Sounds like Berkeley or Palo Alto in my case here, as well as nearby communities.

And speaking of zones, I have two questions in mind:

*What would be an ideal number of zones or districts? How would you divide them and what unique characteristics you would provide in each zone or district?*

In the progress, I want to expound on that question even further.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Rascar said:


> I'm not sure how this is achievable,


lol, it's _NOT_ achievable. Look at Brazil...all those slums cleared, where do those people go?!?! Never mind that, although illegal and crime and pollution are prevalent, these are thriving communities...more active and vibrant than many 'legit' areas of cities. suburbanist just has never left the comfort of his security fence to actually see what cities are like.


----------



## wc eend (Sep 16, 2002)

mintgum84 said:


> I figure the CBD could be modern and stuff with other styles being found in zones around the cental zone. So a city of say 6 zones, 1 of which is the CBD, the others 2-6 could each have a style of a different period.


I would prefer my CBD to be as close as possible to the historic heart of the city, but still somehow seperated. Preferably by a river. The number of different districts could be illimited.


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Hmmm... Interesting ideas. Sounds like Berkeley or Palo Alto in my case here, as well as nearby communities.
> 
> And speaking of zones, I have two questions in mind:
> 
> ...


They could be divided by public parks - ensuring a green city. I would want to avoid urban sprawl so 6 odd districts would be fine. I can picture it now, a college town of 100-150k, 4 universities with a varsity sports obsession - soccer, track meets, cricket, tennis et al. 

Each zone would have its own feel. My 'Japanese' zone would have magic Japanese style architecture (traditional like Pagodas), some wooden construction - really try to create a feel of 'traditional Japan". Imagine going from there (it would have modern stuff - just stylistically 'old Japanese') to my 'Moorish' zone where buildings are magnificent and grand with domes and pastel colors - a whole new feel.

These are just ideas in the mind of a lad doing a PhD in Pol Sci. I am no designer, but I have a vision of what I'd like in a 'dream city'.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Very interesting concept indeed. I like the idea of public parks acting as boundaries between districts, but in major cities, avenues or highways also divide the city into districts as well. For example, a main road named Broadway could create several districts out of it, with Broadway acting as the boundary between two or more districts at once.

Plus, your zoning plan seems to be interesting as well... and all that from a Political Science Ph.D. candidate. Amazing job. Makes me wanna think of pursuing a Ph.D. in Urban Planning Theory in the future.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

wc eend said:


> ^^ I dont't know, that should be the outcome of some calculation. The point is just not to waste space. Making it dense but still comfortable.


Sure, that's possible. But, you might also want to consider adding buffers between zones or districts too so that each neighborhood can have a unique feel to it.


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Very interesting concept indeed. I like the idea of public parks acting as boundaries between districts, but in major cities, avenues or highways also divide the city into districts as well. For example, a main road named Broadway could create several districts out of it, with Broadway acting as the boundary between two or more districts at once.
> 
> Plus, your zoning plan seems to be interesting as well... and all that from a Political Science Ph.D. candidate. Amazing job. Makes me wanna think of pursuing a Ph.D. in Urban Planning Theory in the future.


I had considered urban planning as a field of study. I like college towns.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

mintgum84 said:


> I had considered urban planning as a field of study. I like college towns.


I have been to college towns myself, but never lived in one. I travel around 80km both ways everyday between university and home... and I commute by bus and light rail the whole way.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

I would include a dense, mix-use downtown with cast iron and stone skyscrapers, and many iron fronts the roads would vary in with, but I would keep some sort of mixture of a grid, and city beautiful movement planning. The actual downtown area would be larger than downtown, but not quite as large as midtown NYC. I would want to give the town some sort of Victorian/early 20th century/steam-punk feel (except brighter and not as grim looking).
There would be plazas in places, and a streetcar/rail system running along all of the streets. To help relieve density, there would also be subways, and a few monorails. Right on the edges of the center area, there would be large train stations for everything from high speed rail, to regional, or even subways. Along with being grand, they would serve as an efficient way for people to hop right into downtown.

I would add much commercial life on the floors of my buildings, to keep street life at the center. All sorts of commercial businesses would be located here, ranging from banks, to clubs, to vendors, to department stores. Of course, the different industries will naturally stay in close proximity to each other, helping to have certain areas of downtown turn into almost districts.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I would really like to create a city with your vision in mind. A downtown that isn't as dense as Midtown Manhattan but denser than many suburban communities is something I really want to aim for so that activity levels will be high, attracting a lot of businesses and industries. Add in an effective transportation network, and that city will grow leaps and bounds.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Let me revive this thread with a new, follow-up question:

*How can current cities become much more appealing to you, if you have the opportunity to redo them?*

What I mean is that if you live in or close to a big city, are you satisfied with what you get to see each and everyday? Would you rather keep the city you have for a long time, or would you rather make some small modifications to buildings or infrastructure to make it much more appealing to you? I know that cities evolve over time, and that the world has become much more urban -- and will be -- that cities need to invest much more in redefining and reshaping itself.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Let me revive this thread with a new, follow-up question:
> 
> *How can current cities become much more appealing to you, if you have the opportunity to redo them?*


Well in general, most cities like London, Paris and New York are already very appealing. Looking at other cities that arn't so such as Manchester I would say they need to reduce the number of unlit parks, and places that the homeless and general low life and hang around as you see a lot of it, far more than in other cities.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

I think it would depend. I would for the most part leave a city like NYC, London, or Paris alone for the most part. But something like Charlotte or Cleveland, and the surrounding suburbs, I would decant, and replace with my Idea, I would even take out the anti-urban expressways, and replace them with a high speed rail network.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ State- or municipal-run (also city) utilities have been the norm for many, many years due to the economics of scale. Imagine: if you are a private firm, running an electric, water, or garbage disposal company, how would you best manage the money you collect from your customers (being the homeowners, businesses, industries, and other owners)? 

Usually, in a private enterprise, the goal is to make profit for its business, and that the profits earned will go to its stakeholders, investors, and management. And for them to keep their wages high, they would do everything -- from hiking service fees to inserting hidden charges -- at the expense of its customers. Municipal-run utilities, on the other hand, operate as a service to its people. Sometimes even, such positions for the utilities board are elected upon by its residents every two to four years! A key benefit of municipal-run utilities is that with their economy of scale being in favor of large-scale projects at "reasonable" prices (through contractors bidding on them), the rates are low as those are subsidized by taxpayers' money. A major issue, though, with municipal-run utilities is that sometimes, they fail to open their books if allegations of bribery or corruption kick in, to the point that these same utilities sometimes violate policies regarding such disclosures because the government's bureaucracy may prevent or shield them from doing so, in which the public then provides testimonies to expose their mistakes.


----------



## mintgum84 (Aug 18, 2011)

^

Noted, but competition and the market breeds better services, choice and lower prices for consumers?


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Sure. The bigger question lies with this:

*With a growing competition in providing utilities, especially with power, water, garbage, telecommunications, and other essential services, do you believe that the quality of service provided by the companies who invest in them will be sustained at its high levels, or will it be compromised with low prices (and eventually poor service)?*

It is just one of the key principles we need to establish because competition is fine, for as long as such services will continue its high quality of service for its customers. However, if a company starts lowering its prices to kick its competition out, then it becomes a bad thing to see since it would mean the quality of service will go down the drain, making it ineffective to provide great services for its consumers and businesses.


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

My City of Diamond City would have a mix of public and company owned utilities and publicly owned things in it. Such as the highways and streets are owned by the city and public. But the electric company and phone company are owned by several companies called Valley System power that operate on their own as long as they don't gore the public for money. 

The streetcar systems are owned by streetcar companies and oddly under some of the laws in the city they are allowed to own their own strips of right of ways though the city streets meaning that automobiles are not allowed to drive in the paths of the street cars. Diamond City deals with this by building up the streets around the streetcar tracks by having them run though medians in their own right of ways. In terms of keeping the cars and bus companies from having a unfair advantage over the streetcar companies and even canal companies. The city and the area around it has laws called the fair right of way access laws for none cars and trucks. Such as if they spent four billion dollars of public money to build a 14 lane expressway bridge across the five mile wide River that is 3000 feet deep that flows though this fictional city to the other side of it. Then by the cities right of way access laws they have to include several parts in the bridge for the streetcars and commuter trains and subway trains to cross over to the other side of the river. Which means it wouldn't be out of the question to have major bridge caring 14 lanes of traffic but have two sets of streetcar tracks and two sets of freight railroad tracks and two subway lines crossing over to the other side running on a lower deck. Along with that a bike path. This might sound crazy but when they built several of the major suspension bridges in New York City they planned for commuter rail and streetcars but the automobile being the pig it can be sometimes instead took over these saved spaces with more lanes of traffic. 

Another odd thing about my cities right of way laws is that the city still has a functioning 1800's canal system with a large system of elevated aqueducts and canal beds running though the city. The reason why is that when the canal's became out dated the city feared that they would turn into sewers running between a system of miss placed and poorly planned out buildings to they deiced to keep it fully functional for water flow reasons. Along with that it's possible to take a narrow boat or a packet boat though the city's core on the aqueducts and canal beds and has become a attraction that caries more people and boats then the canals did in the 1850's. The canal system is partially still owned by a company called the Diamond City and Northern Canals and Teleportation Company. 

The last odd thing about my fictional city is that it has utilities in it that have not been invented yet such as it has a system of teleporters that are used to send packages like mail and other goods by teleporter over a system of special open wire telephone lines between the teleporters though out the region. The teleporters are owned by the former Canal Company the Diamond City Northern Canals and Teleportation Company. Their special utility lines are the 1880's open wire phone lines that run along some of the city streets and their main trunk line of 19 cross arm open wire lines that run along their own canal right of ways though the city. Oddly even though they are a 1820's canal company the teleport services where not invented since the 1970's using old abandoned 1880's openwire phone lines that ran along side the canal beds. 


I'm studying Urban planning.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ You do too? Well, you've found the right place to discuss your thoughts and opinions on city and regional development. :applause: Welcome!

So tell me, what makes you want to keep the streetcars when over time, buses have taken over the former routes operated by hundreds of miles of rail tracks in cities? And how will your city cope up with a boom in vehicular traffic if the streetcars still operate on your city's roadways?


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

The reason why the streetcars where able to keep up with the cars and buses in the city was that while the streetcar system was growing and in it's hey day the streetcar companies and the City itself built several sections of deep underground tunnels subway tunnels to bypass congested sections of city streets or to free up surface space or to take short cuts though the city by even going under sections of rivers and canals. Such as you could have a streetcar line go though a city street like a normal streetcar and then go under a mile of the old running canal bed in a water tight subway tunnel and come back up to the surface after bypassing several stoplights. Also when the city was quickly growing in it's hey day with fast population growth. The streetcar companies bought up their own strips of land for their own right of ways and the city and the city streets where built up all around them with the streets built in their favor. When buses started coming along a lot of them couldn't operate in these long under ground cut though tunnels that where not built to let the smoke out from the buses. Also if a bus can carry 60 people it would not be uncommon to see a streetcar with several cars on it carrying over 200 people. As for Diamond City it being in a small area they are very aggressive towards smog pollution. Such as if you have 500 electric streetcars in a area using power and you have to replace them with 700 oil powered buses that need to run in the public streets do to them not being able to run though the cut though tunnels the city streets would quickly get gird locked. There are however major highways and expressways running though the city that are anywhere between 10 and 16 lanes wide http://oceanrailroader.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=96#/d5adzei leading over several of the major rivers it's that they get very congested very easily. This highway photo is really a double decked ten lane wide expressway called the Valley System Turnpike which in itself is a system of limited access toll roads that run though out into some of the remote part of the land. In the city it can be 18 lanes wide but in the remote sections of this odd world it can little more then a one lane wide concrete 



The shape of the piece of land that the city and how it keeps the bulk of the people land locked into a small area in the region. Such as the city is oddly shaped unlike cities like Chicago or several of the southern cities that have been allowed to sprawl outwards as much as they want with no natural barriers to limit them. This city and the area around it has very limited space open for sprawl in that on one side of it has a large ocean on one side of it and a very tall mountain range on the other side of it that forces the people to live in a long narrow rectangle that runs North to South along the ocean and the base of the mountain rage. If you where to drive or ride the trains north along this rectangle it would open out into a open flat dry plane that has several valuable sections for farm land. If you where to head south along the rectangle you would run into several colossal river crossings that would require very large and tall bridges to cross over them which limits the amount of traffic movement abilities. But after you cross over these river sections the area gets very wooded and very remote and rugged with large swampy sections in it that are bad for building suburbs on do to them flooding between the ocean and the rivers shifting back and forth with one another. 

If you where to head east from the core of Diamond City into the high mountains the only paths open for land traffic would be a sires of highways and railroads along with a old canal that follows on the left side of the giant river that comes out of the mountains and feeds into the ocean. Following this giant river towards it's source is the only means of access to reach the remote core of this alien land that humans colonized thousands of years ago.


As for Diamond City itself it's based off of the idea that most of the vast region that it lives in is mostly unfavorable to humans and human settlement. The places that are favorable to humans everyone is basically forced to live in it. And their is only so much farm land and city space. The areas that where once urban suburbs like we have here in the US where converted years ago into high rises and skyscraper apartments to make room for the fast human population growth and to avoid destroying the usable farm land.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Dang, you definitely know your stuff, as if you are truly detailed on your strategies and plans! I cannot believe the richness of details you have described, and how your streetcar network will be integrated with future city traffic, as well as the relationship of your freeways with Diamond City. Excellent descriptions, my friend! :applause:

Where do you take Urban Planning by the way?


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Let me ask another follow up question to keep the ball rolling:

*If you are to build a subdivision or district in your city, how would you integrate it with the rest of the city that you want to build upon?*


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

Diamond City would naturally have growing suburbs in a ring around it like most cities do. The suburbs would in away act like feeders for the main city allowing it to gain territory in the remote lands that are around it. They would have the common single family houses and small two to five story apartment buildings in it with the bigger lots towards the outside of it facing the rural areas. 

But these suburbs would have standards planned into them to prevent them from being the mess that a lot of suburbs have become in Northern Virginia. Such as in Virginia one of the most popular ways of building up a suburban area is to have a main line four to six lane wide dived highway that goes though a rural area heading out from a city. What happens in this case is all the sprawl starts to come out along the four lane highway and dumps all it's traffic on to it. Along with that they start building subdivisions on Cul De scaks dead end streets which in turn funnels even more car traffic on to the main highway even though two local streets are next to one another. And the people don't need to go to the main highway but are forced to go on there anyway.

When Diamond City grows though the suburbs must have all linking streets like city blocks or in a grid pattern where all the suburban streets must link into one another. Also there would be limits to how many stoplights there would be allowed on a mile of major highway to avoid a six to eight lane wide highway having ten to 15 of them in a mile vs one or two of them. Another thing would be if suburban traffic gets to out of control for a section of the city to handle the city builders would send out a Valley System Turnpike system toll road feeder line out to it drain the pressure off of the suburban traffic by way of a limited access toll road. 

The streetcar lines would also be able to help in the growth of these other regions in that they could send out feeder lines from their main lines such as to a major new suburban mall or condo project. They could also extend their lines from their current end of tracks into more remote areas in that a lot of the local of the towns and smaller cities around Diamond City are given support to have planned out streets and railroad rights of way for streetcars and commuter rail. In terms of parking requirements if you are with in a mile of a streetcar stop or train station you do not need to have any parking. As for sidewalks and bike paths the old canal system that also carries the open wire teleportation lines along the canal tow paths are open to the public. Such as people would be allowed to walk or bike along the canal tow path system anywhere the canal goes which opens up hundreds of miles of bike routes. Also people can take canal boats along this canal system. And in some odd cases for irrigation needs the old canal system is still growing to provided water and boat navigation to the rural areas. As for sidewalks all streets that are not Limited access or have interchanges on them must have them to promote the idea of people walking to their favorite local restaurant 

As for highway expansion projects in these areas when they widen a highway they don't waste time only adding one lane at a time. They like to add several lanes at a time meaning if you have a four lane highway they will make it eight lanes in widening project and if it's a six lane wide highway it will become a 12 lane. The highways and the streetcars would be highly aggressive towards one another out in this area.

As for the high rises and skyscrapers in the city they would be allowed to slowly push there way out into the suburbs as the city's population grows. Like in the 1952 Disney Cartoon the Little House http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y881yjtFluQ I really feel zoning laws stop this natural process form happening though but in my city's case it's allowed to grow.




One of the reasons why I have so much detail about this city is that it's going to be the back drop for a science fiction book about a streetcar driver who lives in along this Interurban streetcar line that leads in and out of Diamond City and all the strange things that go on in and around the city.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Let me ask another follow up question to keep the ball rolling:
> 
> *If you are to build a subdivision or district in your city, how would you integrate it with the rest of the city that you want to build upon?*


Some fast and high-capacity transportation links (be it railways, freeways, doesn't matter), and then build the new subdivision as much dynamically isolated as possible from the rest of the city. That way you create a new area that is not much influenced by its immediate surroundings.

That is important especially in big metro areas where the immediate vicinity of a new subdivision might be a crime-infested or decaying area, and then you don't want to risk your real estate project by making it permeable to the social ailments of its surroundings. So if you build it as a semi-autonomous functional entity with good transportation links to the most important areas of a city (again: freeways and railways/subways/monorails, the mode doesn't matter as much as its tipology - a fast link), you insure your development against that risk of spilling of gangs, drug dealing, youth vandalism etc.


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

The handling of Crime would be one of my City's biggest assists in that unlike in a lot of cities where they get coughs and go to jail. The Criminals are sent to work camps in the remote regions of this fictional land to help build highways or railroads. In fact when the old canal system was going bankrupt for a time it was kept open by the city having the convicts go into the freezing mud in winter and dig out and have them drag around giant blocks of stone for the rebuilding of canal locks. Drug Dealers along with Gang members are sent to the northern bitter cold regions of this land to help dig out new highways and railroads. Murders and serial rapists are put down in that they are viewed too dangerous and can't be brought back into society. 

Youth Vandalism and crime is dealt with aggressively in that if they trash the place they are going to clean it up which comes in handy if your major city with a lot of run down lots that need to be cleaned up.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Ocean Railroader said:


> Diamond City would naturally have growing suburbs in a ring around it like most cities do. The suburbs would in away act like feeders for the main city allowing it to gain territory in the remote lands that are around it. They would have the common single family houses and small two to five story apartment buildings in it with the bigger lots towards the outside of it facing the rural areas.
> 
> But these suburbs would have standards planned into them to prevent them from being the mess that a lot of suburbs have become in Northern Virginia. Such as in Virginia one of the most popular ways of building up a suburban area is to have a main line four to six lane wide dived highway that goes though a rural area heading out from a city. What happens in this case is all the sprawl starts to come out along the four lane highway and dumps all it's traffic on to it. Along with that they start building subdivisions on Cul De scaks dead end streets which in turn funnels even more car traffic on to the main highway even though two local streets are next to one another. And the people don't need to go to the main highway but are forced to go on there anyway.
> 
> ...


Wow, I'll tell you: the sheer amount of detail you have expressed truly makes me wonder, is urban planning seriously for me? And I'll be honest: perhaps we'll end up partnering each other in making your dreams come alive. I mean, your intense details on how you want to develop Diamond City, from the number of highways connecting the suburbs to how the streetcars will work to even how the streets, canals, and railways will be develop has really made me floored... You have won me over, and I truly want to collaborate with you in making your dreams come true. I'll send you a PM ASAP to ask you even more questions because you have truly impressed me with your depth and understanding on this matter, and I will do my best to work with you in any way I can. You have just made me the happiest person so far, and that's a reason, not only I truly want to participate here at SSC, but also to work with users like you who are passionate about city planning as a whole.

I am indeed a city planner in the making, and combining our skills, we can truly envision a city where it is built by the people for the people, not for corporations, and I truly wish that you can channel your skills to me (and likewise in return) so that we can develop communities that work for people. I am deeply amazed by the audacity of your city profile, it made me wonder if such a city is even possible nowadays... :applause:



Ocean Railroader said:


> One of the reasons why I have so much detail about this city is that it's going to be the back drop for a science fiction book about a streetcar driver who lives in along this Interurban streetcar line that leads in and out of Diamond City and all the strange things that go on in and around the city.


Very interesting indeed. You truly have the heart and soul of a writer, and I am willing to share even more ideas with you to make your book (or story) even more fantastic than before. You have indeed challenged me to become a better city planner, and I am willing to work with you to make our dreams come true.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> Some fast and high-capacity transportation links (be it railways, freeways, doesn't matter), and then build the new subdivision as much dynamically isolated as possible from the rest of the city. That way you create a new area that is not much influenced by its immediate surroundings.
> 
> That is important especially in big metro areas where the immediate vicinity of a new subdivision might be a crime-infested or decaying area, and then you don't want to risk your real estate project by making it permeable to the social ailments of its surroundings. So if you build it as a semi-autonomous functional entity with good transportation links to the most important areas of a city (again: freeways and railways/subways/monorails, the mode doesn't matter as much as its tipology - a fast link), you insure your development against that risk of spilling of gangs, drug dealing, youth vandalism etc.


Ah, those are interesting concepts. A "semi-autonomous functional entity"... what is it? What communities can be considered as such? And is it actually possible to have a subdivision that is truly "dynamically isolated" from its surroundings by having a greenbelt rather than a neighboring community that can allow resource sharing and developing areas in between them? I mean, I like your ideas, it's just that I don't know how much that idea could cost, as well as the social and environmental impacts of it.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Ocean Railroader said:


> The handling of Crime would be one of my City's biggest assists in that unlike in a lot of cities where they get coughs and go to jail. The Criminals are sent to work camps in the remote regions of this fictional land to help build highways or railroads. In fact when the old canal system was going bankrupt for a time it was kept open by the city having the convicts go into the freezing mud in winter and dig out and have them drag around giant blocks of stone for the rebuilding of canal locks. Drug Dealers along with Gang members are sent to the northern bitter cold regions of this land to help dig out new highways and railroads. Murders and serial rapists are put down in that they are viewed too dangerous and can't be brought back into society.
> 
> Youth Vandalism and crime is dealt with aggressively in that if they trash the place they are going to clean it up which comes in handy if your major city with a lot of run down lots that need to be cleaned up.


Hmmm... your approach to crime seems to be like very tough and rough indeed. But do you think that it may be viewed as "too tough" by other people? If you have an alternative to dealing with criminals and criminal activity, how will you deal with them? What kind of crime prevention programs will you implement, and how will you best deal with troubled youths and people, especially gangsters?


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Let me ask another follow up question to keep the ball rolling:
> 
> *If you are to build a subdivision or district in your city, how would you integrate it with the rest of the city that you want to build upon?*


Districts spreading outward in my city would be rail accessible, and often divided by a commercial corridor. The housing would something like that of Brooklyn, Chicago, or Washington DC (some form of Italianate or Victorian) The Rail stations would be as close to as many communities as possible, and preferably on the borders of them (either in trenches, underground, or elevated above commercial corridors) this way, more people would be able to reach the station, and it would not disrupt the quiet side streets where community life took place.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

CNB30 said:


> Districts spreading outward in my city would be rail accessible, and often divided by a commercial corridor. The housing would something like that of Brooklyn, Chicago, or Washington DC (some form of Italianate or Victorian) The Rail stations would be as close to as many communities as possible, and preferably on the borders of them (either in trenches, underground, or elevated above commercial corridors) this way, more people would be able to reach the station, and it would not disrupt the quiet side streets where community life took place.


I truly like your concept a lot... perhaps I'll try that with a little SimCity or something, or better yet, I'll read a lot more planning books and see how such communities will be possible nowadays. I mean, I would really love to make such districts possible, the big question is with money.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

There is an interesting book on urban design and Soho, that show how such communities could be possible. And Even if these communities are expensive today, it is because of their high demand. For example, Many New York brownstones were built for middle class people. I believe that if it was easily affordable, then we can make it just as affordable, with the same quality of design as when some of these neighborhoods were first built.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Very good thoughts. I will look into it. What's the title and author of it?

And by the way, I didn't know that the brownstones in NYC were actually built for middle-class families... are those mostly in Manhattan or citywide?


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

outside of the ones ones within a block or 2 of central park and 5th Avenue, that is correct.

And here is the book
http://www.amazon.com/Urban-Code-Lessons-Understanding-City/dp/0262016419


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

The New York Brownstones are some of my favorite types of City buildings oddly though I notice that with modern zoning codes it would be hard to build new ones in a post 1950's residential area even though I think they would be great more middle class people. There is a model company called City classics that makes models of five to six story New York Brown stone buildings. The City of Richmond VA has tons of them in the Fan and a lot of them are really cool looking with really cool old interiors. I also think new brown stones would be good in some high priced suburban neighborhoods open up more housing. 


Some of the Urban planning things I would do to cut crime would be to first avoid the Urban cage feeling. The urban cage feeling is where everything is all cement and asphalt with no public parks or gardens or street trees to break up the feeling of being locked up in the cement urban cage. I would have a lot of the apartment buildings and offices have green roofs with trees on them to give local people in the neighborhood a place to hang out like maybe have a barque or hang out like in King of Hill. Also having a few public aquariums, art museums and having easy access to amusement parts would help. Another thing to avoid the urban cage effect would be to prevent large numbers of public housing units being jammed on top of one another. Such as maybe have groups of two or three low rent controlled apartments or condos sped out though the city instead of jammed into one another. Another thing to is there would a set of rules based off the idea such as we the city are going to help you out by giving you a low rent apartment that is good shape. But the catch is that you must help keep it clean. But if you can't use it as a spring board to bring bad behaviors into the neighborhood. This policy would help hard working people who need a home but not deadbeats. 

As for the Homeless population of my city it would have to take their needs into it. Such as I once had a urban planning professor once talk about how the bulk of the US cities homeless population are people who where sent away after a lot of mental hospitals closed down. Or handicapped veterans or people who are unable to take care of them selves. Diamond City would have to have a system of services to meet the needs of the Homeless people and to give them a permanent place to stay in that a lot of them need help and in a lot of cases protection and help from being victims of drugs and crime. Also in a lot of cases it might be cheaper to send people with drug and liquor problems to a remote area away from their evil temptations with treatment care for them where they can detox and then come back into the city. 

Another thing I remember hearing about that are bad for low income people are the Pay day loan centers where someone borrows %500 dollars but if they don't pay it back by the end of the month it grows to $800 and in three months it grows to $1500. I would set up laws to control loan sharks like that.




As for why I would be on the hard side towards crime is that they should try to be hard on first time offenders to try and scare them straight even if it means making them suffer a little bit the first time. Kind of like the broken window policy where if you let someone break a window and don't do anything about it the Criminal starts to get confident and starts upping the stakes. As for youth vandalism I think they would think more about their actions if instead of their parents bailing them out and yelling at them or being treated like it's no big deal. If they had spent a day or two under supervision cleaning up a park or clearing out a dirty city lot it would allow them understand that if they do something agonist the law they will be responsible. It might be cruel or hard at first but if it stops them from doing it over and over again then it's worth it. In that looks like some of these people never really where told no or that is bad behavior from anyone. It's like those youtube videos of thugs setting homeless people on fire in my city if something like that happened the thugs would be fully responsible for any medical bills to the victim and if the victim dead from the results of these sick type of pranks it would be treated aggressively.


----------

