# Alternative Urban Planning: Compact Cities



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ If you have an iPad, then use Safari! 

Anyways, Fort Bonifacio's layout seems to remind me of one of the compact city layouts I have posted in my first post since it has a round shape that is pretty consistent with the images, but I foresee even more development in the Fort because many Metro Manila residents enjoy the nightlife in the area; it's just that Taguig could do even better in making the city on par with the Fort since it straddles the new development next to C-5.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 11, 2012)

Yea the fort similar w/ one of the layouts, I prefer the 3rd though & yes they are planning to build a new cbd in the fti area...btw the fort is a brgy of taguig nowadays.
Dont have an ipad but i can check it always at the browser of the phone itself but just a bit slower than the app...


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) 1519


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I thought that Tenochtitlan was built on a dry lakebed? Help me out in understanding how that city was built because all I remember was that the Conquest by Cortez marched from Veracruz all the way to Tenochtitlan in 1519 and destroyed the Aztec Empire at the time.


----------



## the glimpser (May 10, 2009)

Grid plans work for cities with flat topography. For cities on sloping terrains, a layout that follows the slope work best.



El_Greco said:


> Then you dont know much about Ancient Cities. Even the first cities in the World (such as Ur) had grid plan. As I said funny streets are a thing of the Dark Ages when civilization was at its lowest. And as for problems, these were no different from today.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ In simple terms, to build a city, one must respect an area's topography and slope. That way, the city's overall layout will not be sacrificed in terms of moving natural terrain around. I think that mountainous cities have so many challenges in terms of construction, but it has a lot of advantages in terms of utility distribution (let gravity do the work).


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ I thought that Tenochtitlan was built on a dry lakebed? Help me out in understanding how that city was built because all I remember was that the Conquest by Cortez marched from Veracruz all the way to Tenochtitlan in 1519 and destroyed the Aztec Empire at the time.


It was actually built in the lake, using chinampas (which are artificial islands made out of wood pillars, earth, rocks, and some more things where they planted their crops, pine trees, the city was like Venice but it still had a reticular form with both canals and sidewalks for transit, but there were also wide strips of earth used as paths to arrive to the city walking, not just by boat. And well, almost all the current city is built up like that, including the lake that started to dry during the 1700's


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Ah interesting. The other question is this: what ended up making the lakebed go dry? Because if the lake was dried up, then it would have meant much more land was available to build the city, thus the smog that ensued over the cityscape over time.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Allow me to revive this thread for the Holidays...

So, my next question: should you consider a compact city concept, how would you organize your residential districts? How far or near the city center would you want to build them, and why? And will you do the suburban method of development or a mixed-use approach?


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 11, 2012)

Merry Christmas to all!


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Thanks! It's a bit too early to call though on my end.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 11, 2012)

Well, here in Ph its already Christmas (1:15am dec25)...


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I know! It's a bit OT though :carrot:

Anyways, I'll keep this topic rolling: if you plan a compact city, where would you place your residential areas, and why? Use the image on the first page to guide you.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 11, 2012)

Ive already ans that before men, anyway its #3...


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Right. If you use number 3, where would you build your houses? :tongue:


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 11, 2012)

Let me make up my mind for it, were still having fun ryt now... Tugs,tugs,tugs!


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Hahaha enjoy your Noche Buena! epper:


----------



## Mr_Dru (Dec 15, 2008)

Amsterdam historical grid plan

Map 1662 Amsterdam









The idea was efficiency. The warehouses were linked with the canal. So when the large ships arrived in the harbor, small boats brought the goods to the warehouses. 









The Dutch taught lets copy this idea in the new establish city Batavia-Stad (now Jakarta)

Map 1667 Batavia-Stad (Jakarta)









It wasn't successful in Batavia. The problem of this grid idea with canals was the warm weather trough out the whole year. Because of the warm weather there were a lot of mosquitoes and other tropical insects which causes diseases. So they closed most of the canals.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I'd better plan Batavia (Jakarta) around its natural port north of the city since it is a great waterway to ship goods around the Dutch Indies (Indonesia), and it would be much easier to deal with ships and boats that dock on its piers. Perhaps it would be much better to build a complex series of canals if the area in question is more of a landlocked city.


----------



## Sweet Zombie Jesus (Sep 11, 2008)

The thing about the grid plan, or those diagrams shown in the OP, is it that when laid out, unless they are the huge expansive 'open grids' you get in the US, they are generally outgrown and become districts within larger settlements. To future-proof you need to make sure the grid or diagram can extend outward as needed, and this takes a lot of pre-planning.

Organic development does this anyway, through ad-hoc development as and where needed. The open rectangular grid can usually do this also, as it is really the least complex diagram and therefore able to accommodate a more complex settlement within it as long as the grid is a road layout only.

Overly planned settlements either fail or become embedded in 'natural' city growth because too much of the city's function has been pre-determined or outright assumed and, as we should all know, assumption is the mother of all ****-ups. This is why so many Modernist settlements have failed, because pre-planned layout and function cannot provide the natural urbanity inherent in organic development, they're just too inflexible, and this goes for compact, dense inner city estates/projects too.

In answer to OPs question, it shouldnt matter which diagram. Ideally no diagram at all, but if you want a compact city then the best way to do so is by legislating individual developments to be dense, while allowing individual building uses to be as flexible as possible.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Sweet Zombie Jesus said:


> The thing about the grid plan, or those diagrams shown in the OP, is it that when laid out, unless they are the huge expansive 'open grids' you get in the US, they are generally outgrown and become districts within larger settlements. To future-proof you need to make sure the grid or diagram can extend outward as needed, and this takes a lot of pre-planning.
> 
> Organic development does this anyway, through ad-hoc development as and where needed. The open rectangular grid can usually do this also, as it is really the least complex diagram and therefore able to accommodate a more complex settlement within it as long as the grid is a road layout only.
> 
> ...


So I want to ask you: how will you define organic city development? And how will it work with either the cities today or any of the models I have provided?


----------



## Sweet Zombie Jesus (Sep 11, 2008)

fieldsofdreams said:


> So I want to ask you: how will you define organic city development? And how will it work with either the cities today or any of the models I have provided?


Well there's no planned/organic on/off switch... it's very variable and depends entirely on what aspects of city development are being controlled by top down forces. Entire city districts can be planned down to the individual unit, or development can happen as the will of a number of individuals imposed on the landscape. (all too often the slums we see in developing cities - slum dwellers do not have access to the planned city, and so organically create their own.)

I would define organic development as development at the human scale... i.e. one building/modification/replacement at a time. This can happen within a planned layout or not.

It would work in the same way this kind of development has happened within diagrams for centuries. A government or corporation lays out the model, land is opened up for development within that, and buildings are added piecemeal to locations within the model where those buying the land want to build on. As the city/district builds up eventually all of the most attractive sites are taken up, remaining sites are filled in, and density goes up.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ you've got me thinking on starting another city development topic, in which you can expand your thoughts even further: organic cities and communities. It opens up a lot of opportunities for me to create another poll thread and discover what other users think of that idea. Organic cities aren't really bad at all: in fact, I think it should be a solution to counter the growing issues with suburbia.


----------



## Sweet Zombie Jesus (Sep 11, 2008)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ you've got me thinking on starting another city development topic, in which you can expand your thoughts even further: organic cities and communities. It opens up a lot of opportunities for me to create another poll thread and discover what other users think of that idea. Organic cities aren't really bad at all: in fact, I think it should be a solution to counter the growing issues with suburbia.


If you've got time to read into it I'd recommend looking into Emergent Urbanism; it's quite a yound idea and not well developed but it's a step in the right direction in terms of how we should think of cities as the product of an ever changing generative process.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Some people like huge sprawling cities they can drive around. Not everyone wants to be crammed in 1x1 mile.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

poshbakerloo said:


> Some people like huge sprawling cities they can drive around. Not everyone wants to be crammed in 1x1 mile.


Good point! But, there are cities indeed that have been created in that very small, tightly-packed area, which I find both fascinating and easy to maintain since you've got a smaller land area to work with rather than large, sprawling communities that, as it grows, can become much more difficult to deal with.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

There must be a point though when the population is too dense, to the point where the infrastructure cannot handle it. If the centre of London was filled with 100+ floor residential buildings then there would be a bit of a problem when those people try to get to work haha.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Sure, but compact cities provide a challenge that city planners may not have revisited for some time.

A follow up question: *Do you think compact cities will survive the test of time, should a rapid growth within its boundaries occur? Why?*


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

poshbakerloo said:


> Some people like huge sprawling cities they can drive around. Not everyone wants to be crammed in 1x1 mile.


I do not like how Casablanca is so compact , less than 100 KM 2 with 5 million people is not good 
Rabat is much bigger in size with only 2 million people which is perfect not too compact but not too sprawl out either


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> Some people like huge sprawling cities they can drive around. Not everyone wants to be crammed in 1x1 mile.


Why do you keep making it out that living in a dense urban neighbourhood composed of mid/high-rises is a bad thing? Millions of people do it around the world and are perfectly happy. Pretty much all centres in big cities on the Continent are like that and they are very desirable places to live. And its easy to see why. 

We should have sprawl because some people like to drive? Are you serious? Roads and cars have been a major disaster as far as urbanity is concerned. And Im not even talking about health issues that comes with the pollution.

This is better -

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=41.391...=w4WWeEVr0KvOTaPP2_Ms1Q&cbp=12,224.79,,0,4.42

than this -

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=29.755...=d-fytOmJxpaQ4_-U-NY0Wg&cbp=12,173.54,,0,2.55


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

El_Greco said:


> Why do you keep making it out that living in a dense urban neighbourhood composed of mid/high-rises is a bad thing? Millions of people do it around the world and are perfectly happy. Pretty much all centres in big cities on the Continent are like that and they are very desirable places to live. And its easy to see why.
> 
> We should have sprawl because some people like to drive? Are you serious? Roads and cars have been a major disaster as far as urbanity is concerned. And Im not even talking about health issues that comes with the pollution.
> 
> ...


I truly understand what you are addressing. Yes, different strokes for different folks, in which each one of us has his or her own preferences. Some of us like to live in medium- to high-density apartment units with hundreds or thousands of people in it, while others prefer a quieter, relaxed feel of a single-detached home in the suburbs. For each housing type, there will be pros and cons to them, and I would be honest: living in a medium- to high-density apartment, *combined with* (rather than separated from) great access to public transportation, walkable area to shops and restaurants, high-quality education, and pleasant ways to get to work would be much, much better for people and the environment rather than getting to them by driving solo on a highway all the time.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> A follow up question: *Do you think compact cities will survive the test of time, should a rapid growth within its boundaries occur? Why?*


I don't think they will. Large sprawling cities have been around in the developed world for a long time now, and they do work. In recent years with people becoming more environmentally aware, the suburbs are seen as dated by many town planners but that doesn't make them bad. Compact cities have their advantages, but why would anyone want to live in one?

Some people (like me) like to be able to take the train out 20mins from the city centre deep into the outer suburbs to 'escape from work'. If I lived in a small apartment 5 mins walk from where I work I would go crazy haha. Suburbs can work very well without motorway, if they follow the English format, by integrating them in with heavy rail then they won't have the high car traffic that US suburbs make. No one in England really drives from their suburban home into the city centre as its just too impractical, or at least that is the modern view that came in the last 15 years.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> Why do you keep making it out that living in a dense urban neighbourhood composed of mid/high-rises is a bad thing? Millions of people do it around the world and are perfectly happy. Pretty much all centres in big cities on the Continent are like that and they are very desirable places to live. And its easy to see why.
> 
> We should have sprawl because some people like to drive? Are you serious? Roads and cars have been a major disaster as far as urbanity is concerned. And Im not even talking about health issues that comes with the pollution.
> 
> ...


From the English perspective (As I can't speak for other countries) I don't know anyone who would as their first choice pick a small apartment over a large detached home. Maybe some young gay guys as they seem to fear life outside the city (haha) or also some wild business man with no family.

I used to live in London, a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom apartment, it was a nice one in Kensington worth about 800k...my parents got fed up with it, and we moved to outer suburban Manchester (North East Cheshire). We have a nice garden and can walk back from a night out at 3am alone, and be safe.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

poshbakerloo said:


> I don't think they will. Large sprawling cities have been around in the developed world for a long time now, and they do work. In recent years with people becoming more environmentally aware, the suburbs are seen as dated by many town planners but that doesn't make them bad. Compact cities have their advantages, but why would anyone want to live in one?
> 
> Some people (like me) like to be able to take the train out 20mins from the city centre deep into the outer suburbs to 'escape from work'. If I lived in a small apartment 5 mins walk from where I work I would go crazy haha. Suburbs can work very well without motorway, if they follow the English format, by integrating them in with heavy rail then they won't have the high car traffic that US suburbs make. No one in England really drives from their suburban home into the city centre as its just too impractical, or at least that is the modern view that came in the last 15 years.


I understand what you mean. The problem with the US -- and I discovered it through a dinner party last night -- is that the transportation commissions and authorities that were set up to enhance mobility through various means have their own personal agenda first on hand that would pick some of the strangest projects and proposals to be bid upon by a handful of companies, and they rake in the commissions made by the companies that want to get them to begin with. In short, corruption plays key in transportation projects, designed specifically to create loopholes in the system... Thus the big Amtrak problem, as well as hyper local transit networks and projects. They can't seem to integrate both national and local solutions together in one piece.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> From the English perspective (As I can't speak for other countries) I don't know anyone who would as their first choice pick a small apartment over a large detached home. Maybe some young gay guys as they seem to fear life outside the city (haha) or also some wild business man with no family.


Do apartments only come in small sizes? If the cost is the issue than thats the fault of the market. Do families not live in city centres? Have you ever been on the Continent? Theres plenty of families in inner cities and city centres.



> I used to live in London, a family of 4 in a 2 bedroom apartment, it was a nice one in Kensington worth about 800k...my parents got fed up with it, and we moved to outer suburban Manchester (North East Cheshire). We have a nice garden and can walk back from a night out at 3am alone, and be safe.


I can walk around city centre and be safe too. Its not overrun by murderers and terrorists. So whats the problem? You keep talking about how bad city centres are but never quite say why you think so. 



poshbakerloo said:


> Large sprawling cities have been around in the developed world for a long time now


Cities have been around for around 6000 years, sprawl for less than 100.



> Compact cities have their advantages, but why would anyone want to live in one?


Compact and dense city can house far more people than a sprawly one of the same size. Everything (work, home, entertainment etc) is close. Its easier to roll out city-wide improvement schemes. Better business opportunities. Infrastructure is easier and cheaper to maintain. And. So. On.



> 'escape from work'.


And living in the apartment in the city centre you cant do that because?



> If I lived in a small apartment 5 mins walk from where I work I would go crazy haha.


Why? What exactly are you going to do with all that extra space?


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Hmmm very interesting thoughts indeed. Perhaps there are larger apartment sizes for rent (let in the UK) or sale, and those are perfect for families. However, my notion is that those might be more expensive than purchasing a decent home in the suburbs as you are paying for convenience and location, which is close to the city center. And yes, many city centers are safe to walk around, even at night, if properly patrolled and well-guarded... Yet, I would trust my instincts and stay off certain streets if I sense something rough.

You have provided sensible arguments, dude. Duly noted for consideration.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Yet, I would trust my instincts and stay off certain streets if I sense something rough.


In Europe city centres are pretty safe. However Id steer clear of the suburbs.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

El_Greco said:


> In Europe city centres are pretty safe. However Id steer clear of the suburbs.


Really? It looks like in the US, it's the reverse: safe in the suburbs, some unpleasant areas in the city center. Tell me more about the "unsafe" suburbs in my supplement thread, "Suburbia: Your Thoughts and Ideas", here since it provides an interesting aspect of suburbia in Europe.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Yes. I have no fear to roam the centres of London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Berlin or any other city in Europe, no matter the time of day. The fact its the reverse in the USA is the direct result of the suburbanization.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

aaabbbccc said:


> I do not like how Casablanca is so compact , less than 100 KM 2 with 5 million people is not good
> Rabat is much bigger in size with only 2 million people which is perfect not too compact but not too sprawl out either


I really dont understand why some people are communicating datas that are completely wrong. Casablanca has 3,5 Mio City population (2010) and it's size is 324 Km2.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> they have never been ideal for raising families


Those late 19th century apartment blocks that you find on the Continent were designed for families, so how can they be not ideal or suitable for them? Because you cant cut the grass? Families do live in them, all you need to do to see this is to go to the Continent, and they live in them not because they are "forced" but because they like it.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> Those late 19th century apartment blocks that you find on the Continent were designed for families, so how can they be not ideal or suitable for them? Because you cant cut the grass? Families do live in them, all you need to do to see this is to go to the Continent, and they live in them not because they are "forced" but because they like it.


I still don't think its a case of that they like living there, and given the opportunity they wouldn't move out. I think its more a because there is a lack of suburban housing for them to live in. But anyway, I'm not really talking about other countries as I have only lived in Moscow outside England...There are a lot of apartment based families, and whilst they were used to it, it wasn't their dream home at all. We were quite lucky that we had a large apartment for ambassador families, but we really were 'locked in the compound' and anyone else lived on the 16th floor of some dive.

I was just speaking to my mum before about this, and she said that she loves the city, as do I...but when the children came along things just became too awkward. They could never use the tube at all, and the buses were pretty hard to use.

They could only really take us all out in the car, which in central London even before the congestion charge was a nightmare.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

What makes you think they will move to a big house in auto-centric suburbia? Have you asked any of them?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> I still don't think its a case of that they like living there.


If that were the case then they would not be living there and these areas would be full of depressed people longing for suburbia. Thats not the case. They are full of life - people chatting, dining out, playing and just hanging out. Suburbs dont offer any of that. They are insular and car dependant worlds.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

El_Greco said:


> If that were the case then they would not be living there and these areas would be full of depressed people longing for suburbia. Thats not the case. They are full of life - people chatting, dining out, playing and just hanging out. Suburbs dont offer any of that. They are insular and car dependant worlds.


That's the result we got here, at least in the US: houses here tend to look like cookie-cutter style, housing tends to be segregated, a culture of NIMBY exists (even for a slightest noise of a dump truck in the evening can annoy the neighbors), poor transportation options, and shops and stores are like heaven and earth in terms of distance (e.g. Minimum of 1/2 mile away, and people need to drive there instead of walk because there's none to see along the way). I would rather have a home close to a city center (High Street) rather than be stuck in a sanitized (yet very quiet) suburban home here in the US. It's just my culture that wants me to live in a big city, I just need to shell out some money to get a great home or rental space.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

LtBk said:


> What makes you think they will move to a big house in auto-centric suburbia? Have you asked any of them?


Who says it has to be auto centric? And anyway, as long as fuel is cheap enough and the roads wide enough that's not really a problem anyway. 

English suburbs are big, sprawling but...not auto centric.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> If that were the case then they would not be living there and these areas would be full of depressed people longing for suburbia. Thats not the case. They are full of life - people chatting, dining out, playing and just hanging out. Suburbs dont offer any of that. They are insular and car dependant worlds.


People get used to it. I'm sure even I could get used to the thought of being a father of 3 and living on the 16th floor, pathetically if that is the only type of home I have ever known.

I have lived in both extremes...2 bed apartment in central London, and the 5 bedroom detached house in out suburban Manchester (Cheshire). I love London a lot, but would much rather have a large house a bit further out if I went back.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> pathetically


So people that live in apartments are pathetic and have pathetic lives? icard:

Perhaps they like living in them as city centre lifestyle offers far more than a suburb ever could.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I don't think that's what he meant. What he is addressing is that he has lived in different types of houses, with extremes set in them, and that if he was desperate enough to find a home, he would end up getting a home on the 16th floor of a tall apartment block. He has children to consider, thus his home options.


----------



## Sweet Zombie Jesus (Sep 11, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have lived in both extremes...2 bed apartment in central London, and the 5 bedroom detached house in out suburban Manchester (Cheshire). I love London a lot, but would much rather have a large house a bit further out if I went back.


You have to remember, within a UK context, that the world of the "5 bedroom detached house" in Cheshire is not the suburbia most people know, or can afford. The quality of your average 3 bed Barratt-box is shockingly low. The rooms and windows are tiny and the private garden is a fenced-off postage stamp. The build quality is too often terrible. Even these places are quite expensive and most young lower-middle class families now will find themselves in a flat or a small older house, even outside London. 

Around Glasgow the satellite towns (once industrial in purpose but now very much bedroom communities) have been surrounded by new housing, but it is not the green and pleasant land of detached homes and lush rolling gardens you describe, it is a world of detached and semi-detached hutches crammed together with little greenery to at least cover the short gap between plots and afford privacy. The houses are close enough together that every last drop of profit is squeezed from the patch of land it sits on while still giving the illusion of an 'estate'. Often, on or near main roads, the housing is piled up into unimaginably crap blocks of flats. These almost reach some kind of urban density in some cases while denying any kind of urban amenities such as joined up street grids, ground floor commercial space, etc. People aren't moving here because they _want_ these places, but in an environment with no other choice they are being cast into this mock-Georgian wilderness against their will. This includes those who would like to live in a decend urban location but can't because there are only so many flats, new ones being built just aren't good enough and developers aren't tapping into this market because it's more profitable to throw them out to some bleak hinterland estate. If governments grew a pair and decided to enforce some actual building and space regulations to stop the shocking treatment people in need of decent housing recieve, then I wouldn't be here moaning, because we would have both dense urban housing and suburban areas which actually work.

Funnily enough, many of the families in Glasgow's inner city tenement areas could afford to sell up and decant themselves to the 'burbs, but choose not to, even in the east end area I just linked which doesn't have anything close to the lovely continental street culture Greco has described.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> So people that live in apartments are pathetic and have pathetic lives? icard:
> 
> Perhaps they like living in them as city centre lifestyle offers far more than a suburb ever could.


I meant particularly


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Reviving this thread, I want to ask a new question:

*Can compact cities stem from a working transit-oriented development? If so, how can such cities be sustained and avoid any overgrowth beyond its defined boundaries?*


----------



## skanny (Aug 9, 2012)

I think that these planned cities cannot last a long time , they have to deal with their proper expansion and they have to wrestle with the boundaries and chaotic suburbs , wich is not easy at all , especially when you impose to yourself a too strict urban growth's program ...

And Personnaly , I love to see chaotic cities and I feel like I'am in a paradise when I take a walk in cities like Tokyo , Seoul or even Istanbul , I don't appreciate the planned and previsible cities like Ordos for exemple , there're not beautiful and I find them without caracter ...


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Sure, that's usually the case. However, I want to ask: where is the limit of expansion, and when can such expansion become harmful rather than helpful to a city's overall growth and development? Cities expand and grow, but, there will always be a limit to it.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Let me revive this thread with a brand new question:

*If you are to consider building a compact city, what would be your development limit in terms of city size horizontally?* What I mean by that is, cities usually grow outward, and that for it to thrive, people build homes and apartments as close to the city center as possible. However, there is a limit to such housing development to the point that it may become too long of a commute that it may be better driving rather than taking public transport. 

Compact cities usually have a set size, but, if we follow the natural growth of a city, up to what extent—in terms of length—would you aim for, and why?


----------

