3 ms·

Satellites emerge in big cities too, they're called neighbourhoods. The extent of how far people are willing to walk in their daily lives will scope the size of

by yason 15y ago

Satellites emerge in big cities too, they're called neighbourhoods. The extent of how far people are willing to walk in their daily lives will scope the size of a neighbourhood and that also pressures people to concentrate their daily activities within the same neighbourhood. Public transit will lift the limit somewhat: people are willing to spend only so much time commuting or going to/from hobbies but with good public transit people will frequent other neighbourhoods on a regular basis. Public transit will be cheap as long as densities are high enough and that's why big cities are dense and have public transit. Large car-based "cities" aren't actually cities, they're just glorified urban office parks with people living in the suburbs: public transit will never work there efficiently. The reason why you can't design a city is that a meaningful city can only grow organically based on whatever people happen to make of it. Commerce will surface when the place and time are right. Predesigning a neighbourhood will result in either a lot of dead space or a preformed area that nobody will consider their own.

nikhilalmeida 15y ago
The problem with organically grown neighborhoods is that it is difficult to build efficient public transportation that connect them, hence I was going for planned ones. More than half the cities population will live in the satellite areas, there by making it cheap and efficient to run subway lines 24x7. Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space increases.
- yason 15y ago
  The problem with organically grown neighborhoods is that it is difficult to build efficient public transportation that connect them, hence I was going for planned ones. This is false, though. The method of growing doesn't affect the feasibility of public transport: the density of the areas in question does. And no matter how the areas grew, an economically growing public transport network will naturally connect the most dense parts of a city together. That is, provided there are dense areas. Think London's 100+ year history of the Underground where underground railway companies, as soon as funding was secured, built little stretches that made the most economic sense. Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space increases. It doesn't if the environment doesn't lend itself to grow, change, and adapt as needed which is a big problem with designed areas. An area also needs both old and new lots and buildings to offer space for businesses that wouldn't survive with market rents. This is something nobody can design.
- paganel 15y ago
  > Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space increases. You're quite never sure of that. Just yesterday evening I was walking down on a street in my city (East-European capital) whose 19th-century buildings were raised to the ground around 25 years ago. There are still un-developed patches of land on that street, which, needless to say, make it look deserted and desolate even though it's only a 5-minute walk from the Prime-Minister's office building.

by yason 15y ago

nikhilalmeida 15y ago

The problem with organically grown neighborhoods is that it is difficult to build efficient public transportation that connect them, hence I was going for planned ones. More than half the cities population will live in the satellite areas, there by making it cheap and efficient to run subway lines 24x7. Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space increases.

yason 15y ago
The problem with organically grown neighborhoods is that it is difficult to build efficient public transportation that connect them, hence I was going for planned ones. This is false, though. The method of growing doesn't affect the feasibility of public transport: the density of the areas in question does. And no matter how the areas grew, an economically growing public transport network will naturally connect the most dense parts of a city together. That is, provided there are dense areas. Think London's 100+ year history of the Underground where underground railway companies, as soon as funding was secured, built little stretches that made the most economic sense. Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space increases. It doesn't if the environment doesn't lend itself to grow, change, and adapt as needed which is a big problem with designed areas. An area also needs both old and new lots and buildings to offer space for businesses that wouldn't survive with market rents. This is something nobody can design.
paganel 15y ago
> Also I believe the dead space problem will take care of itself as demand for space increases. You're quite never sure of that. Just yesterday evening I was walking down on a street in my city (East-European capital) whose 19th-century buildings were raised to the ground around 25 years ago. There are still un-developed patches of land on that street, which, needless to say, make it look deserted and desolate even though it's only a 5-minute walk from the Prime-Minister's office building.