# Planned cities



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

i have some photos of some planned cities that i heve seen in the book The City Shaped by Spiro Kostof. if anyone has any other pictures of planned cities fell free to post them.

this is Nahalal, isreal


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

another

[img=http://img284.echo.cx/img284/6180/nahalal5rp.th.jpg]


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

Milton Keynes, england


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

and another


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

does anyone know about this project, the city in the desert, Arcosanti, arizona, usa


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

this is a photo of it under construction, i dont know if it was ever completed though


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

sorry about the size of the images, but mabey someone else can post some better photos


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Nothing beats...


----------



## waccamatt (Mar 7, 2004)

*2nd Planned City in the World (1786)*

This is the city of Columbia, SC, the second planned city, chartered in 1786.

An 1872 "bird's eye view".










and Columbia today:


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

thanks for the pics, anymore pictures of Columbia, what is the population? metro?


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Karlsruhe is also a good example, founded 1715:


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

many cities in Israel were planned!

Ashdod (before 40 years)










































Hostel in Ashdod


Modiyin(only 12 years old)


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Others:

Goiania









Belo Horizonte









Canberra









La Chaux-de-Fonds


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

heres a better one of Nahalal, isreal:


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Sun City, Phoenix:









I think it was planned as a neighbourhood for retired people.


----------



## PrimaVera (Mar 15, 2005)

the city of *Modiin Israel*

planned by Arc. Moshe Safdie ,first housing started in *1996*.
the city today has some 60,000 people. in 15 years from now the city will grow up to 250,000 people.
Sited on a treeless, hilly terrain of rocky escarpments and fertile valleys, the new city of Modi'in, located between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, is planned for a population of 250,000. The topography consists of a series of valleys running east to west towards the sea converging at the site's center. The Modi'in master plan proposes a continuous network of urban roads and community services within the valleys culminating in the town center, where the valleys join the principal north/south highway. Each valley, planted with a different type of tree, becomes a winding spine of the city, devoted to parks and playgrounds, neighborhood shopping areas, schools, synagogues, clinics, and other facilities. Four-story apartments and terraced housing follow the natural topography up the hillside, with high-rise structures on the hilltops acting as landmarks with views of the Mediterranean and the coastal plain. The entire city, with the exception of schools and community services, is being constructed by the private sector.





















































main CBD


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

That's impressive!! Looks like an Alphaville (and maybe is kind of... no, don't beat me up! )


----------



## worldwide (May 3, 2005)

thanks everyone, those are all great pictures, i especially like sun city, even though its sprawly as hell, it looks so distinct, i would love to fly over it


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

i live in a planned city of approx 280 000 people, with approx 200.000 new people


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

How many people live in Sun City? It looks crazy!


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

What a gigantic joke!!!!! Planned????????????How?????????
Are all these cities, or any of them(to start with):
..Without any kind of rushhour jams TODAY??? Environmently ill jams where people does not only waste a lot of valuable time, but also waste a lot of very expensive fuel. 
..BASED ON ONLY one, SINCES THEY SEEMINGLY ARE SO WELL PLANED, public transport system in them? Either only buses, trams or metro???
... PLUS THAT ONE SINGEL SYSTEM IS BOTH CHEAP AND COVER ALL PARTS OG THE CITIES, COMPLETY???? 
It is very far between drawing some IDEALISTIC lines and solving some big city problems.
Just to mention a few problems these cities would have been without if they were professionally planed.


----------



## timmy- brissy (Aug 28, 2007)

Canberra capital of Australia.










Washington DC capital of USA


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

Pardon?? Are these 2 cities answer to my questions? They are so well planed that they do not have any trafic jams? Please explain.
BTW also the capital city of Pakistan was (ill)planed. If that matters.


----------



## aaronaugi1 (Apr 23, 2008)

resu eman said:


> Pardon?? Are these 2 cities answer to my questions? They are so well planed that they do not have any trafic jams? Please explain.
> BTW also the capital city of Pakistan was (ill)planed. If that matters.


Canberra has no traffic jams. I think you are going over the top in setting criteria for what is planned and what isn't.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

aaronaugi1 said:


> Canberra has no traffic jams. I think you are going over the top in setting criteria for what is planned and what isn't.


.............
Good for Canberra, But then:
..Canberra can hardly be called a city. May be a town?
..trafic jams would have been very strange in any citirs in a land rich country like Australia.
What i am saying is: it is wrong to say planed cities. Because most of them are totaly ill-planed.
The correct term would have been: cities build on virgin land. Relatively very new cities.


----------



## aaronaugi1 (Apr 23, 2008)

resu eman said:


> .............
> Good for Canberra, But then:
> ..Canberra can hardly be called a city. May be a town?
> ..trafic jams would have been very strange in any citirs in a land rich country like Australia.
> ...


Canberra's population is 334,000 and is the capital of Australia. You cannot call it a town. It is clearly a city, though does however, have low desnity. 

For starters, over 75% of Australia's land mass is arid (extremely hard to live in). As for you comment of "no traffic jams in land rich countries"; building infrastructure for sprawling cities in expensive and for that reason Australia (like the US) try to "contain" their cities while still building low density dwellings. Could you imagine the cost of building 100km freeways and passener railways in cities!

Also, you have refered to age of cities (virgin cities). A cities age does not determine how "planned" it is. If i were to go build a completely planned city tomorrow would you not consider it planned?


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

aaronaugi1 said:


> Canberra's population is 334,000
> ---i did know that
> and is the capital of Australia.
> ...that i did know
> ...


...of course. but that is also my point. the planed cities are very bad planed. they should have FOR FUTURE NOT ONLY FOR THE TIME THEY WERE BUILT.

so canberra have only bus service as punliv transport system?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Alot of the new capital cities are well planned such as Canberra as posted above and Brasilla


----------



## Jardoga (Feb 9, 2008)

I know Canberra was a planned city


----------



## c0kelitr0 (Jul 6, 2005)

Daniel Burnham made a plan for Manila (same as he did Chicago's, Cleveland's and San Francisco's). Sadly, only a small part of the plan was ever implemented.

Here's the link to the original plan:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/esambale/1927412897/sizes/l/


----------



## raggedy13 (Jan 25, 2007)

Quite a lot of North American cities were planned from the beginning to some degree. Generally speaking I'm referring to the grid street system. Cities, like Vancouver, had their street system planned out well in advance of actual development. The development parcels were all set out before most of anything was built. In Vancouver's case it was the CPR (Canadian Pacific Railway) that really planned out the early city. Up until then it was just a pub and some sawmills.


----------



## MARACUCHisimo (May 13, 2006)

*Puerto Ordaz, BO - Venezuela*
*The first planned city of the country; founded in 1952, it has around 900.000 people. It is located in Bolivar State near the amazon jungle. Puerto Ordaz and San Felix conform Guayana City wich is the 6th largest city of Venezuela, both areas are separated by the Caroni River. Puerto Ordaz is headquarters of basic industries such as Alcasa, Venalum, Bauxilum, Carbonorca (producers of primary aluminum, coils anodes for the aluminum industry, respectively), Ferrominera (extracts, processes and trades of iron), and Ternium Sidor (iron industry of Orinoco). There are also located in this area of the city the main electricity producer of Venezuela, Edelca and the organization to promote economic activity in the area, the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana, CVG​*












​


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

resu eman said:


> ...of course. but that is also my point. the planed cities are very bad planed. they should have FOR FUTURE NOT ONLY FOR THE TIME THEY WERE BUILT.
> 
> so canberra have only bus service as punliv transport system?


Transportation is only one reason to plan a city. Until the 20th century a minor one for sure. Other reasons could be ceremonial, defensive, idealistic ...

Or maybe they all have planned for the future when we teleport from place to place!

Beam me up, Scotty!


----------



## lindow (Apr 1, 2008)

In Japan, Kyoto and Nara of the historic city are the most famous. 

In the modern city, Tokyo's Denenchoufu, Seijo, and Tokiwadai are famous. 
Ashiya of Hyogo is famous, too.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

wonwiin said:


> Transportation is only one reason to plan a city. Until the 20th century a minor one for sure. Other reasons could be ceremonial, defensive, idealistic ...
> 
> Or maybe they all have planned for the future when we teleport from place to place!
> 
> Beam me up, Scotty!


It amaze me a lot to read your reasons for planing cities. And those are the very reasons why kumanity is in so mant problems. From different kind of pollutions to food cricis. ++++++
I am sure you or anybody else here would not be able to find why almost every city on this planet has problems. When do not know the problems how will solve them?


----------



## aaronaugi1 (Apr 23, 2008)

resu eman, i think the reason you fail to understand why Canberra is a planned city is becuase you dont understand Australian culture. We are a country with values for low density living. As for Canberra, it is an administrative city. There is no need for major public transport, density etc. If i'm correct 70% of people in Canberra work for the government in one way or another. As the needs of the government grow, Canberra will grow. It will never experience massive population growth.


I seriously doubt how you seem to think cities like Canberra AREN'T planned.


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

Catalonia has had planned districts since the XVIIth century (Barceloneta) and the famed Eixample (XIXth century), and I'd say they're extremely well planned (although Barceloneta has had its problems since in the early XXth century its population density skyrocketed, with single-family buildings being replaced by buildings 3, 4, 5 and even 6 storeys high, and each of the flats being cut up into 25 m^2 microflats where a whole family had to live in. My grandfather was from Barceloneta -- and he had 7 brothers. Nowadays it's a nice place to live in if you don't mind really really _really_ old buildings and live alone... it's kind of expensive, though, and there's too many tourists so in some ways it's not really an interesting place to live in. Although in some ways it is. If you care about Catalonia and the city. And if you can stand living in the most degraded district.) Parts of Sants and Gràcia (also in Barcelona) were also planned to some degree by Antoni Rovira i Tries, back in the XIXth century... I think he also had a hand in developing old Poblenou.

However, the Franco age brought along some of the worst planning ever made... this includes the planned town of Ciutat Badia, whose only purpose seemingly was being shaped like a map of Spain so as to upset us Catalans... otherwise it's an urban disaster of the first degree... same for Gramenet, St. Adrià, South Badalona, most of Nou Barris, most of L'Hospitalet de Llobregat... these satellite towns have only recently been turned into decent places to live in and in some ways they're still lacking hno:

Another nice planned neighbourhood: the Antigone District in Montpellier (back when Ricard Bofill's brain hadn't got stale yet...)


So, resu eman: city planning has many sides. Some planned cities are well planned, some aren't... some really aren't planned at all. But planning is not an "evil we must fight against"


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

resu eman said:


> It amaze me a lot to read your reasons for planing cities. And those are the very reasons why kumanity is in so mant problems. From different kind of pollutions to food cricis. ++++++
> I am sure you or anybody else here would not be able to find why almost every city on this planet has problems. When do not know the problems how will solve them?


Resu Eman,

the main failure in your argumentation is, that you think, planners from the past should have foreseen the problems of today, their future. 

But cities were planned to solve the problems of their time. Washington for example is a perfect solution for the problem it had to solve. It is a representative seat of power. Cars were not existant in that time, so why should the planners have searched for the solution of a nonexistant problem.

It is always easy from the present to criticise the past for not seeing the solution to a problem. But you do not have the perfect solution for todays problems, do you?

And also:

42!


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

wonwiin said:


> Resu Eman,
> 
> the main failure in your argumentation is, that you think, planners from the past should have foreseen the problems of today, their future.
> 
> ...


I love this debate now because i have managed to have it where i wnated it. You pointed all the points i wanted to say. The main pont is, as you said very correctly(and i have known for many years), that city planers in those days planed for their time. They did not know problems coming later.
But hey man, those where old days.....
Still have we learnt anything FROM THEIR BLUNDERS?
Despite tremendous progress in every field otherwise, have mankind done any progress in city building or planing cities?
Of course not!
BTW what is the biggest failure, you think, those sity planers made and city planers TODAY are making? When you come up with that we can discuss more...


----------



## Kwame (Nov 18, 2005)

Abuja, Nigeria


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

resu eman said:


> I love this debate now because i have managed to have it where i wnated it. You pointed all the points i wanted to say. The main pont is, as you said very correctly(and i have known for many years), that city planers in those days planed for their time. They did not know problems coming later.
> But hey man, those where old days.....
> Still have we learnt anything FROM THEIR BLUNDERS?
> Despite tremendous progress in every field otherwise, have mankind done any progress in city building or planing cities?
> ...


Yes, we have learnt something. Also you should realise most of what is known as "new towns" nowadays was built (a) as an emergency measure and (b) in a time where pretty much everyone with creative power was experimenting with rebuilding the world after WW2 and taking advantage of the new economic, social, cultural and technological possibilities that had risen during the 40s, 50s and 60s.

Also there's a good percentage of supposed "planned cities" that are just attempts to get lots of money out of cheaply built, shoddy houses.

But that doesn't mean anything. Japan is one huge "planned town" and as far as I know it's not really bad as far as urbanism goes. Lots of European cities and towns underwent "expansion" plans during and after the Industrial Revolution which effectively turned them into "planned towns", and they're still magnificent. This includes big names such as Barcelona and Paris.


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

resu eman said:


> Despite tremendous progress in every field otherwise, have mankind done any progress in city building or planing cities?
> Of course not!
> BTW what is the biggest failure, you think, those sity planers made and city planers TODAY are making? When you come up with that we can discuss more...


Well, I would say there was and is great progress in city building and planing.

- the canalisation
- public transport
- pavement

are great achievements. Or would you like to wade through your own garbage nowadays?

Many european cities are great to live in. Lots of green spaces, public transport and no need for a car. The failures of car centric planing in the 60s and 70s are being removed. Today they try to integrate living and working in the same place to reduce commuting times. 

Would you please elaborate on todays planing failures? Sure there are made some, but I do not find them significant. And you can always change them.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

wonwiin said:


> Well, I would say there was and is great progress in city building and planing.
> ....I am not sure that is the fact. Fact is most of the solutions are only for the time they were biult for AND the specific and singel problem to be solved. Becuse of bad planed and still planing huge amounts of public money, (which surely could have been used on many other pressing\needy tasks?), are used WORLD WIDE on cometics improvments. Of course this kind of "improvments" creates a lot of jobs every 20-30 or 40 years. reSON FOR THAT IS the repeating of the jobs,But if one study things closer one will find out that despite all these used money problems are only moved from one place to an other.
> I am here talking about improvements kind of "the Big Digg" in Boston for exeample(hope somebody has the link, i do not). Every city in the world has their own Big Diggs. Often not only one , but many more.
> 
> ...


.........The biggest singel, among many others, failure is, and has always been(thought you knew that?): Even today city builders\planers do not see that cities will grow. They do not plan for the growr of the city. Planing is, after all much less costly, then building citiies.
When city planers realise cities will grow their planes would be much better.


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

resu eman said:


> .........The biggest singel, among many others, failure is, and has always been(thought you knew that?): Even today city builders\planers do not see that cities will grow. They do not plan for the growr of the city. Planing is, after all much less costly, then building citiies.
> When city planers realise cities will grow their planes would be much better.


Are you claiming all city planners do not consider that cities will grow ?

Sorry, but you make little sense or logic to me.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

Alphaville said:


> Are you claiming all city planners do not consider that cities will grow ?
> .............Namely. For start you do not need to go very far. You just lay back and can see this link( ONLY\JUST one of the bad planed city problems. There are many many more) :
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=622501
> You can not say we are here talking about old problems? Or this is only relevant for one city? Or only cities in poor nations facing this?
> ...


-----No no no. It is not me. I see the problems. But the problem is 90% of people, like you are, so used to problems that you think:
..there are no other solutions to all the mess.
--things have to be like that, becuse they have always been like that.


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

resu eman said:


> -----No no no. It is not me. I see the problems. But the problem is 90% of people, like you are, so used to problems that you think:
> ..there are no other solutions to all the mess.
> --things have to be like that, becuse they have always been like that.


The problem lies not with city planners, more with politics, money and lobbies. Planners are not a very powerful group.

For example Marseille has sufficient water because of the construction of a channel system in the 80s. Barcelona has to import water by tankers because the administration didn't want to invest money into the supply of water (particular a channel from the Ebro to Barcelona). The planing was there, the political will not.

Many cities plan for the future, e.g. canalisation with higher capacity than necessary now, building metro stations for future lines now.

But of course third world cities will struggle to finance future needs when they even cannot solve todays problems. Planing costs money. Such cities are only reacting to much higher populations, traffic and so on.

Another problem is time. Most infrastructure projects need several decades to be planed and built. But change can be rapid. Dublin for example has one of the worst public transport systems in Europe. The infrastructure could not keep up with the fast economic growth of Ireland the last decades. And Europe and Ireland are pumbing lots of money into the infrastructure. Only now the situation starts to get better.

So planing needs to be successful:
- political will
- money
- time

I am sure there are other factors I forgot.

And would you please list the problems you see and we do not?


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

resu eman said:


> -----No no no. It is not me. I see the problems. But the problem is 90% of people, like you are, so used to problems that you think:
> ..there are no other solutions to all the mess.
> --things have to be like that, becuse they have always been like that.


Do not assume my beliefs and thoughts in regards to good planning. I find your tone to be extremely condescending. 

This is a thread relating to the Planned (for better or worse) City Movement. You seem to have alot of trouble understanding the definition of that. 

If you wish to discuss movement and integration of cities then start your own thread.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

wonwiin said:


> The problem lies not with city planners, more with politics, money and lobbies. Planners are not a very powerful group.
> 
> For example Marseille has sufficient water because of the construction of a channel system in the 80s. Barcelona has to import water by tankers because the administration didn't want to invest money into the supply of water (particular a channel from the Ebro to Barcelona). The planing was there, the political will not.
> 
> ...


.............................................................
First of all i am very glad that you at least see\realize that there are some serious problems. Intially you were very kind of "arrogant". You and others did not want to admit the extitens of the problems. Better late than never........

=Of course poltical will is very important. But this political will be earsier to get if the planing is good. The lack of good city planing is direclty linked to lack of will. Even the dumbest poltican do not want to waste more money than they must. And most of the plans are nothing but wasting of piles of money. Be it Big Diggs or tunnels or flyovers or widening of the roads or building of new metro systems.

=One of the most importnat sign of good city planing is saving A LOT MONEY.bOTH SHORTLY and on long terms. This rules is totaly out of question today. Very sadly.

=Time is something we just have use. The funny things regatding time is that time is not waiting. It is running. With or without plans. So why not make time our ally?


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

Alphaville said:


> Do not assume my beliefs and thoughts in regards to good planning. I find your tone to be extremely condescending.
> 
> This is a thread relating to the Planned (for better or worse) City Movement. You seem to have alot of trouble understanding the definition of that.
> 
> If you wish to discuss movement and integration of cities then start your own thread.


..................
Why shall we makr 1000s of treads? I THINK this movement of your is totaly on wrong track. These are some extremly serious problems humanity is facing. My task is to ceate some awarness about the issue. Making you a bit angry proves that i am doing a job here. I ANSWERED YOUR 2 LINERS WITH long reply and you not reply my arguments?
May be you shall just let some people who have the knowledge discuss further? And learn a lot by that?


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

resu eman said:


> .............................................................
> First of all i am very glad that you at least see\realize that there are some serious problems. Intially you were very kind of "arrogant". You and others did not want to admit the extitens of the problems. Better late than never........


Before you go labelling others as arrogant for not sharing your point-of-view (is that not arrogance, itself?), you are failing to realise that this in an inappropriate thread to be debating this.


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

resu eman said:


> I ANSWERED YOUR 2 LINERS WITH long reply and you not reply my arguments?
> May be you shall just let some people who have the knowledge discuss further? And learn a lot by that?


Because your arguements are militant and dismissive of others opinions. 

In addition to this, after looking back over the thread-- I cannot see anything you have said that is constructive (as in-- what we CAN do)... all you have posted is "Planed cities are badly planned". 

I think we are mostly aware of this, but you need to remember that they were invisioned out of political movement and different ideals. Nobody ever said it was a successful notion.


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

resu eman said:


> .............................................................
> First of all i am very glad that you at least see\realize that there are some serious problems. Intially you were very kind of "arrogant". You and others did not want to admit the extitens of the problems. Better late than never........


I have to say it is arrogant of you to presume our ignorance . The problems (you still have not stated) just had nothing to do with the initial topic: Planned cities. The topic was about examples of planned cities. The problems you "not" talked about are universal to every city and are not specific to planned cities. Planned cities on the other hand have to be seen in the context of their time and intentions.

And I am still waiting on the problems you so love to talk about but never mention.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

Alphaville said:


> Before you go labelling others as arrogant for not sharing your point-of-view (is that not arrogance, itself?), you are failing to realise that this in an inappropriate thread to be debating this.


................
My dear friend, firstly i do not want everybody to share my point of view. I only want to show how people are not aware of big problems, because they do not see them. I back my facts by proves\links.
Problems arise when do not want to discuss with me the case, but start discussing my technics.
Mostly they do not like their argument is no more valid.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

wonwiin said:


> I have to say it is arrogant of you to presume our ignorance . The problems (you still have not stated) just had nothing to do with the initial topic: Planned cities. The topic was about examples of planned cities. The problems you "not" talked about are universal to every city and are not specific to planned cities. Planned cities on the other hand have to be seen in the context of their time and intentions.
> 
> And I am still waiting on the problems you so love to talk about but never mention.


..............................
How wrong can it be said?
"Planned cities on the other hand have to be seen in the context of their time and intentions".
That is exactly what they are not living up to. It is just like the international spase station. What were the intentions of it? But if there is always something wrong with it, how can these orignal intention be acheieved as easy as they were planed to do so?
If these cities were planed for solving I OR 2 specific problems, but create 10 oe 20 more, are they then good planed?
There are 1000s of problems based on bad city planing. It is difficult to mention all of them here. I proved the bad planed trafic systems, did i not?. But there are environment and expensice housing and of course wasting public money problems. These problems have many "under" problems.
For exanmple expensive houses in one area of the city, expensive land, imposible to build houses in bigger scale and thereby more rational and cheaper for the common man.
etc etc....


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

Alphaville said:


> Because your arguements are militant and dismissive of others opinions.
> ..........
> This eglish is not my mother language, therefore i can not select i lot of words.
> 
> ...


..................................
NOW YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS. And hopefully more people will be.... Then the movement will be on the RIGHT PATH. Then there will be hope for humanity.


----------



## Alphaville (Nov 28, 2007)

resu eman said:


> ..................................
> NOW YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS. And hopefully more people will be.... Then the movement will be on the RIGHT PATH. Then there will be hope for humanity.


'now' I am aware of this?? Again, you are extremely arrogant to think I have only just become aware of this as a result of your incoherant ranting.

You are extremely deluded if you think you can bring about change by writing in Caps Lock on a message board-- or that it will bring hope for humanity.


----------



## el casanovas (Jun 1, 2008)

wonwiin said:


> For example Marseille has sufficient water because of the construction of a channel system in the 80s. Barcelona has to import water by tankers because the administration didn't want to invest money into the supply of water (particular a channel from the Ebro to Barcelona). The planing was there, the political will not.


Wait, this is not a good example. Politicians DID want to build a channel from the Ebre, but popular response against it was very strong because the Ebre zone is not particularly rich in water and it's a rural zone where water is needed for agriculture. In short it is NOT a good option. Some other politicians wanted to build a channel to French rivers, but certain other politicians didn't like this because it's expensive and pharaonical and it involves Catalonia interfacing with other countries on its own, which the central government doesn't seem to like for some reason. What's more, other politicians wanted to build a channel from the Ebre to zones south of Catalonia... where there's a lot of golf courts and similar water-wasting stuff being built.

In short, there has been an all-out political fight over this for quite some time now, and pretty much the only people who wanted the channel actually built were politicians.

There's a channel which connects the Barcelona water system with rivers on the Girona area, which is were our water comes from.

The Barcelona water problem doesn't stem from poor planning, it stems from the weather not behaving like it usually does coupled with a sudden increase in population around the Urban Area. The channel would only have been operative until the El Prat desalinisation plant is finished, which is where our water should come from according to plan.


----------



## ddes (Oct 17, 2006)

The topic "Planned Cities" is a little vague.

Most cities are planned, regardless of the result.

New York City, Shanghai, Paris and Singapore, for example were planned. Hausseman did it for Paris as we all know, and some guy did for New York, who implemented the first grid system for a large scale city.


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

The Copenhagen fingerplan from 1936 should secure that the urban areas always were close to green areas. 










The S-Train tracks of course pretty much follows the fingerplan:









A look at googlemap shows that the plan is stille follow to some point:
http://maps.google.dk/maps?hl=da&q=...8545,12.458496&spn=0.271186,0.601501&t=h&z=11


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

el casanovas said:


> In short, there has been an all-out political fight over this for quite some time now, and pretty much the only people who wanted the channel actually built were politicians.


Ok, I did not know that. But it seems like Barcelona is one of the first european cities that has to cope with the climate change. 

I will be visiting Barcelona in July, looking forward to it and taking some bottles of water with me .


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

Alphaville said:


> 'now' I am aware of this?? Again, you are extremely arrogant to think I have only just become aware of this as a result of your incoherant ranting.
> =============
> Well you were not so sure when you wrote this:
> 
> ...


======
I am not hoping for any revolution. To beginn with I am only interested in getting those so-called city planers and experts on forums back on earth again.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

ddes said:


> The topic "Planned Cities" is a little vague.
> =======
> Agree with you about that. Planned city should mean that they were planed for almost every eventuality.
> 
> ...


=============
But those planers never thought these or other cities would grow like they have done. The perfect plans would have been that could have followed the city all the way along. No matter how big they became or they stopped growing.
That kind of city planing has not been available.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

ØlandDK said:


> The Copenhagen fingerplan from 1936 should secure that the urban areas always were close to green areas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


===================
These plans are a bit good, but not perfect:
1. To costly to build.
2. If some kind accident happens in the center of the city, ALL trains will stopp.
3. It does not cover all the city.
4. Other public transport systems like buse are STILL needed.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Aren't all American cities planned? All of them look like being planned in the 19th century, with that grid pattern which is typical from that time, in fact it is impressive! it doesn't mean I think it is perfect, it is not, but it has its advantages.

In Portugal, that cannot be done, because most settlements have milennia of existence and most of the land is occupied and have several owners, and in the North that retained some old Germanic traditions, the land was split over and over for one's children over generations and that creates still today some problems for real estate investments. Nonetheless some cities where created in the 19th century, and have that American grid pattern, in fact, 19th century ideas as today city planners do no like grid patterns.


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

PedroGabriel said:


> Aren't all American cities planned? All of them look like being planned in the 19th century, with that grid pattern which is typical from that time, in fact it is impressive! it doesn't mean I think it is perfect, it is not, but it has its advantages.


I think most cities where planned in one kind or another during their founding. May it be they were a roman castrum or an inn. The grid pattern is quite traditional in city planing. The romans liked to use it in their new cities. Mediveal times just erased the pattern in those cities.

I also think every planned city leaves the status of a planned city with the first house built not according to the original plan. With the years of existence like everything cities tend to become chaos. Humans try to fight it with planing.


Today it is interesting for me how the new planned cities on the Arabic peninsula and China will develope. The emirates are trying to built a economic, scientific and cultural center of world importance and hope the people will come. I am also interested where all the water necessary will come from.

The Chinese on the other hand have to "store" millions of workers in their new cities and on the same time have to try to save their agricultural region to feed the people. This conflict between economic growth and agriculture seems to be one of the biggest questions for China's future.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

wonwiin said:


> I think most cities where planned in one kind or another during their founding. May it be they were a roman castrum or an inn. The grid pattern is quite traditional in city planing. The romans liked to use it in their new cities. Mediveal times just erased the pattern in those cities.
> 
> I also think every planned city leaves the status of a planned city with the first house built not according to the original plan. With the years of existence like everything cities tend to become chaos. Humans try to fight it with planing.
> =========
> ...


==========
agree about this. but will "millions of worker" have "cleaner, healthier and safer" lives in cities?


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

resu eman said:


> ==========
> agree about this. but will "millions of worker" have "cleaner, healthier and safer" lives in cities?


In China living as a migrant worker seems to be far better than being a farmer. The probability of cleaner (sanitation) and healthier (health service) life is there. Safer? Probably not.

The point is that these new cities are a reaction to the economic growth and resulting problems. The migrant workers are existing now and they will not magically disappear. So China has to provide living space or face worse social problems. Chinas new cities are a necessity, not an option.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

wonwiin said:


> In China living as a migrant worker seems to be far better than being a farmer. The probability of cleaner (sanitation) and healthier (health service) life is there. Safer? Probably not.
> 
> The point is that these new cities are a reaction to the economic growth and resulting problems. The migrant workers are existing now and they will not magically disappear. So China has to provide living space or face worse social problems. Chinas new cities are a necessity, not an option.


=================00
This is the core issue. And is also my main point here. The point you people do not understand or not willing to.
My point is: When china has to build all those kouses\cities for millions of workers flying the countryside, WHY NOT do it better? More planned? After all we here talknig about very fast chanaging of living. We should have more control over the development. More coordination. We can not blame, in this case that things happened so slowly that no plan were followed. Like in the old cities.
Which age are we living now? Have not mankind made progress in almost every field? Why are we not making any progress in city planing? I am not about high tech cities. But simples cities which satify most of human need. Simple but advanced at the same time.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

While a few American cities were planned, it only occurred in the very early stages of the cities history and development. Therefore only the streets in the DT area of American cities have some sort of planning. The problem lies in the fact that as cities grew, planning did not. As a result, most metro areas have confusing and inefficient road and rail networks that boggle the mind.


----------



## wonwiin (Jan 12, 2008)

resu eman said:


> =================00
> This is the core issue. And is also my main point here. The point you people do not understand or not willing to.


This is a very unfriendly sentence. Fortunately it only belittles you . Formulating sentences in a public forum is an art because 90% of a normal conversation (the nonverbal part) are missing in text only communication. So the word has to substitute for the 90% nonverbal. I just want to say, be careful how to write in public. Harsh sentences are easily misunderstood.



> My point is: When china has to build all those kouses\cities for millions of workers flying the countryside, WHY NOT do it better? More planned? After all we here talknig about very fast chanaging of living. We should have more control over the development. More coordination. We can not blame, in this case that things happened so slowly that no plan were followed. Like in the old cities.
> Which age are we living now? Have not mankind made progress in almost every field? Why are we not making any progress in city planing? I am not about high tech cities. But simples cities which satify most of human need. Simple but advanced at the same time.


Well, the communistic system with 5 and 10 year plans didn't work out so good. Humanity thrives with competition, free market and a little chaos. Developement is not easy to predict. 

Your point seems to be to get the best in city planning. But the best solution is normaly not fundable. You see, life is a compromise. City planners have to work with a given situation, often small funding and I am sure they try to get the maximum out of the given investment. It is easy to say, they do bad work. But do you really understand the situation city planners are in? I am not a city planner, I am just compiling knowledge from different sources to come to the for me most likely answer to how city planning functions. And I am sure a professional has much more knowledge on the topic. The city planners of China are trying to get the best out of the resources, may they be political, economical or financial. But these resources are limited. Would we have unlimited resources we probably would have a weekend cottage on the moon.

It seems to me you just wanted to state your point without investing a bit of time to delve into the topic, e.g. google city planning and so on. Your point is like a skeleton without the flesh to support it. It has no life without explanations, examples and reasoning.

This may have been a bit to much on the topic but hope is lost last .


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

wonwiin said:


> This is a very unfriendly sentence. Fortunately it only belittles you . Formulating sentences in a public forum is an art because 90% of a normal conversation (the nonverbal part) are missing in text only communication. So the word has to substitute for the 90% nonverbal. I just want to say, be careful how to write in public. Harsh sentences are easily misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


=======
agre here, but the main problem is that nobody is willing to find good solutions.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

hoosier said:


> While a few American cities were planned, it only occurred in the very early stages of the cities history and development. Therefore only the streets in the DT area of American cities have some sort of planning. The problem lies in the fact that as cities grew, planning did not. As a result, most metro areas have confusing and inefficient road and rail networks that boggle the mind.
> ================
> This is what happened in the past. When population was much smaller and theerfore consikvenses og city planing derailing were not so big.But in futre we are vound to have good city planing. We just cant not afford to lose control.


----------



## PotatoGuy (May 10, 2005)

I agree w/ resu eman... Cities today even are not planned they way they should be, and if they do decide to plan they should stick to the plan and follow it through, not just drop it once initial construction is over, which is what happened in most planned cities in the World


----------



## freeksregistration (Dec 29, 2007)

the new city Ras Al-Khaimah planned in the deserts of the UAE (dubai)


----------



## Cosmo Urbano (Nov 17, 2006)

waccamatt said:


> This is the city of Columbia, SC, the second planned city, chartered in 1786.
> 
> An 1872 "bird's eye view".
> 
> ...


are you kindding?!
many hundread cities were planned in Europe during the renaissance!

read more man!


----------



## Cosmo Urbano (Nov 17, 2006)

La Plata, planned on XIX. (Buenos Aires is Argentinas capital city, La Plata is Buenos Aires Province capital city)


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

PotatoGuy said:


> I agree w/ resu eman... Cities today even are not planned they way they should be, and if they do decide to plan they should stick to the plan and follow it through, not just drop it once initial construction is over, which is what happened in most planned cities in the World


===========
NAMELY!!! Ameen to that. Slowly more and more people are understanding my points. Thanks.
I think every city on earth big or small, new or old should have city plans. Plans my be discussed and debated, but after that, when choosen the right one, those plans should be followed slavishly. Period. Cities goes to hell, when there no plans at all or plans are abondoned. And the consecvenses og this big scale madness are in front of you. You see\meet them every day. Many times a day. Until now you have just not noticed them or been aware of them. Mainly because, as i said earlier, most people think there are no other ways.


----------



## resu eman (Mar 9, 2008)

freeksregistration said:


> the new city Ras Al-Khaimah planned in the deserts of the UAE (dubai)
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## cjfjapan (Oct 10, 2004)

resu eman said:


> hoosier said:
> 
> 
> > While a few American cities were planned, it only occurred in the very early stages of the cities history and development. Therefore only the streets in the DT area of American cities have some sort of planning. The problem lies in the fact that as cities grew, planning did not. As a result, most metro areas have confusing and inefficient road and rail networks that boggle the mind.
> ...


----------



## Energy2003 (Jun 13, 2007)

is the place where "weeds - deals with neighbours" was filmed, a classical suburb or an example for that what you are looking for (planed city) ? 


also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida


----------

