Supportive
Opposed
Indifferent
Actually I do know about the human condition, but I'm avoiding the subject there. I'm trying to use examples that relate to urban planning and architecture. This isn't a site for discussing faith, religion etc... (But just to clarify, no i'm not a fundamentalist, thankfully)Originally posted by btrage
And that is why you fail...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI
"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"
Not really, religion is an extremely sensitive issue.
What I'm basically trying to do here, is come up with a way to use my chosen profession to support positive changes in the human condition. I'm still trying to figure it out, and obviously there is no one way to do it, but I'm trying to figure it out.
I look at the conditions and the problems and I'm trying to find solutions to them in the field of architecture & urban planning.
The only aspect of architecture I refuse to budge on is ecclesiastical (church-related) architecture. Everything else is up for grabs, I'm just trying to find a way to support the solution of certain problems.
However, I would also say that my architectural/urban planning views do NOT reflect the views of my Church. In fact, unless it relates to church architecture, my Church has no position, and doesn't suggest any position.
Yes, suburbs are okay. Not ideal, but they exist. What should cities be designed for? Walking? Biking? Scootering? Trains? Tricycles?
The market allows development to exist where it exists. If the farmer wanted to farm the land - he wouldn't have sold it to the developer who wanted to develop it. There is plenty of farmland that will NEVER be developed. People live near there for a reason. Because they DON'T want to live in a city.
Yes.
It also can be attributed to having more food than other countries. So we should force people to only eat 1/4 lb of organic free range chicken per day until they aren't fat anymore. That will work for EVERYONE. No discussion on what you like to eat. This is what is best for you.
We have lots of coal. Lots of it. When you add in shale and other oil-like materials, the U.S. is rich in this stuff. No ideal, but if your argument is that we don't have enough... I would say for the foreseeable future that isn't true. Now obviously if we can get away from fossil fuels that would be ideal, but it isn't going to happen because of the points you are arguing.
Remember when gas was $4 a year or two ago. Sure people drove less, but they still drove. People won't change their lifestyles easily. It will takes years of pressure. States should be looking at trains as alternatives. Have you seen how many governors have returned the money from the fed to put in rail? Why is that? Because political pressure isn't there yet...
We won't. People will just pay for the trip. It will require higher pay to make the job worthwhile. You seem to assume people will change because of fuel costs. This hasn't proven itself over the past 30 years. Why would it change now? As an aside - a 30 minute commute is pretty reasonable for most communities for those on a normal salary. Most people can't afford to live where they work, or to live downtown.
What is your suggestion? Removing all existing highways and put in rail? Consider the cost. It would cost 50x what it would to just continue maintaining the system that currently exists. So if your argument is about cost, the better option is to maintain the roads like they are doing now.
I can't do this anymore. You write too long of posts with very few real issues.... unless there is something interesting said by you, or if you describe more your thoughts on how NU can be retrofitted into any developed community, I am out.
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams
Not true. This was caused in Detroit mainly through automation. You need a lot fewer workers today to produce a car then 70 years ago. The Highland Park plant alone had 10,000 workers per shift working 4 shifts a week. Today you get the same output out of a couple of thousand workers. Eventually you had too many workers fighting for too few jobs overlaid over areas where some politial jurisdictions were responsible for the brunt of the infastructure and poor.
Just read Linda's response. A lot of my experiences are the same.
We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805
So we shouldn't even attempt to try to change anything? I thought that was our job?
I suggest reading the entirety of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...rvard1978.html
Just a small clip:
Even though it was given in 1978, I'd argue it's still true today. The only difference is that the Soviet Union is gone, and Russia is actually moving forward; while at the same time, rejecting American/Western culture. (it still has a lot of room to improve though)In today's Western society, the inequality has been revealed of freedom for good deeds and freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something important and highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; there are thousands of hasty and irresponsible critics around him, parliament and the press keep rebuffing him. As he moves ahead, he has to prove that every single step of his is well-founded and absolutely flawless. Actually an outstanding and particularly gifted person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind hardly gets a chance to assert himself; from the very beginning, dozens of traps will be set out for him. Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions imposed by democracy.
As it's obvious that you have nothing but disdain for the democratic process and for "American/Western culture", perhaps you should look around for some place to live that's more to your authoritarian urbanist taste. You are NEVER going to be happy here because Americans are simply NOT going to embrace your vision of authoritarian urbanism even if it's "for our own good".
May I suggest that you investigate China? It's the perfect place for somebody who thinks that everyone should be forced to live in a dense urban environment whether he or she wishes to do so or not.
Planners do try to change things but it is an extremely slow process. I know planners who have pushed for decades in their jurisdiction to get basic zoning but to no avail. If the local officials and the public don't want something, there's nothing you can do to change it. Then of course some jurisdictions even refuse to enforce the regulations on the books.
Why leave when I can try to help change it?
As I said in the other thread, I'm a Democratic Socialist and I also have leanings towards Monarchy.
Plenty of European countries are based on Democratic Socialism and their people aren't oppressed.
Any kind of "socialist" with "monarchist leanings" = oxymoron. A "democratic socialist" with "monarchist leanings" is too strange to label. I suppose you see yourself as King -- or maybe Kunstler as King, and you as his Knight of the Planning Table?
Because no one wants the change you want. If no one wants to play with you, pick up your toys and get the eff out.
Last edited by Gedunker; 03 Jun 2011 at 12:17 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag
"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"
Our job is to inform decision makers on the public side and make recommendations that are consistent with an adopted comp plan...
On the private side our job is to create environments or places to the desire of the client
FYI
Brotip #2418 - know when it's time to switch from being "the little engine that could" to the "little engine that said, 'f*ck it'"
Lol... No, I just see the monarchy as a valid form of governance. As it relates to democracy, I actually favor a constitutional monarchy that stands alongside a president, prime minister/vice president and a parliament/congress.
But I really don't care what form of government I'm under, as long as it doesn't persecute me for my religious beliefs. Everything else doesn't really matter to me. (including architecture/urban planning)
If I, or anyone else doesnt get change done on the architectural/urban design scale, oh well; it isn't what is most important anyway. I simply see it as a profession that I love, that can carry me through the rest of my life. As long as I can provide for my family, and practice my beliefs, things are fine.
Allow me to post something that may (if suspicions are true) look familiar....
At the expense of repeating myself yet again, you are free to espouse the view that greater urban densities are required in every single situation, but as previously indicated, do not be a bit surprised when you find that other posters are almost certain to point out repeatedly that you are not addressing the mechanisms or methods of implementing the changes you desire in your posts.
Planners are by and large a very pragmatic lot and in order for them to see any plan come to fruition, a method of implementation must be followed and a certain number of real-world considerations must absolutely be taken into account. Namely, all development costs money, most land in the this country is privately owned, and most development is initiated by these same private owners. A body of laws has been created and implemented whereby certain ownership and economic rights have been perpetuated down successive generations since the Fall of Rome. While changing these laws through various legislative and judicial venues is certainly possible (and is in fact constantly being pursued in various quarters), it is a long, protracted, and arduous task. Precious few developers/owners will voluntarily surrender their development rights or accept reduced profits/returns on vested ownership interests without a fight in order to promote a New Urbanist agenda. Not as long as our capitalist economic systems are based on a desire to obtain the largest return on investment possible. And as long as the perception that 'sprawl' (incidently, no universally accepted definition for this term exists among planners) is a desirable living condition persists among the general public, developers will continue to build and sell to the consumers holding those dollars and buying those houses on two acre plots. Until such time as as the mechanisms for change can be meaningfully addressed, all discussion related to grand designs like forest rings around urban centers remains purely in the academic realm.
If you are truly interested in seeing sprawl diminished in your lifetime we, the Mod Team (a mix of seasoned professional planners) strongly advise you to:
- listen to what the professional planners say when they bring up considerations like the: costs involved in public transit, litigiation involved in regulatory 'takings', or ordinance amendments necessary to implement new planning practices. Many of the folks on Cyburbia have decades of practical experience dealing with these sorts of issues.
- Once you have identified the mechanisms of change identify the processes necessary to implement them. In other words, HOW can the public support and education be promoted whereby our democratic institutions will support the aforementioned mechanisms for change.
- Lastly, and perhaps most importantly as a Cyburbian: Respect and understand that we all have diverse viewpoints and life experiences. Showing respect for ones colleagues and peers is a must in the planning profession. Replying with terse one liners will get you nowhere on Cyburbia or even more importantly, in the profession.
Again, I hope that you continue to participate on the forums, and hope that you can become a valuable member.
"Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund
Heartland City Boy? Is this you! HCB in the house?!?
Brotip #2418 - know when it's time to switch from being "the little engine that could" to the "little engine that said, 'f*ck it'"
I've had that suspicion for a while myself.
Off-topic:
Brotip #2418 - know when it's time to switch from being "the little engine that could" to the "little engine that said, 'f*ck it'"
That thought crossed my mind as well
"I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."
~ Otterpop ~
Moderator note:
Alright, I think this thread has moved far from the original intent and always the origin question/topic has been amply discussed and debated.
Therefore, I'm closing this one
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
