4 ms·

How come the United States has never seen a planned metropolis, built on the principles of maximum security and maximum density? I know many people who would gi

by cmwelsh 13y ago

How come the United States has never seen a planned metropolis, built on the principles of maximum security and maximum density? I know many people who would give up their "freedom" for the ability to live affordably in an environment like that. Where is our Silicon Arcology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology

beachstartup 13y ago
> planned metropolis, built on the principles of maximum security and maximum density this is exactly what new york is. it was a military base in a protected harbor, that turned into a planned city after several changes of ownership (some would say over-planned). that perfect grid system didn't spring forth organically. i would recommend 'new york', the ric burns documentary.
scarmig 13y ago
Planned metropolises tend to break: cities are complex, emergent structures. Brasilia gets more shit than it deserves, but the planning that went behind it certainly wasn't good for it. Maybe "planning better" or "planning for better things" could work, but its hyper-modern conceit to not consider how it has failed in the past. Or is failing in the present: see the grand, empty cities that the PRC has been building.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  Many great european cities grew entirely out of deliberate projects. Some noble family would want to harbor a thriving marketplace so they could tax it. American cities did used to be planned. Philadelphia and New York didn't just assemble as grids. It's only in the postwar era suburbia build out that urban planning became haphazard and driven by developers. The idea of a polity building a well planned city from scratch has loads of successful historical precedent.
snowwrestler 13y ago
Because central planning doesn't work. Ok, it might work if the central planners could accurately predict the future. But they can't, so centrally planned economies and societies tend to fall behind.
- muzz 13y ago
  Agreed that central planning doesn't work. But somehow pundits like the author think that their second-guessing of markets somehow would.
angersock 13y ago
Basically, because the street finds its own uses for things. Moreover, any place that is planned, instead of evolving organically, tends to be boring as shit to live in--for evidence, consider suburbs. Very planned, very boring.

by cmwelsh 13y ago

beachstartup 13y ago

> planned metropolis, built on the principles of maximum security and maximum density this is exactly what new york is. it was a military base in a protected harbor, that turned into a planned city after several changes of ownership (some would say over-planned). that perfect grid system didn't spring forth organically. i would recommend 'new york', the ric burns documentary.

scarmig 13y ago

Planned metropolises tend to break: cities are complex, emergent structures. Brasilia gets more shit than it deserves, but the planning that went behind it certainly wasn't good for it. Maybe "planning better" or "planning for better things" could work, but its hyper-modern conceit to not consider how it has failed in the past. Or is failing in the present: see the grand, empty cities that the PRC has been building.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
Many great european cities grew entirely out of deliberate projects. Some noble family would want to harbor a thriving marketplace so they could tax it. American cities did used to be planned. Philadelphia and New York didn't just assemble as grids. It's only in the postwar era suburbia build out that urban planning became haphazard and driven by developers. The idea of a polity building a well planned city from scratch has loads of successful historical precedent.

snowwrestler 13y ago

Because central planning doesn't work. Ok, it might work if the central planners could accurately predict the future. But they can't, so centrally planned economies and societies tend to fall behind.

muzz 13y ago
Agreed that central planning doesn't work. But somehow pundits like the author think that their second-guessing of markets somehow would.

angersock 13y ago

Basically, because the street finds its own uses for things. Moreover, any place that is planned, instead of evolving organically, tends to be boring as shit to live in--for evidence, consider suburbs. Very planned, very boring.