• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Hexcity

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
INTRODUCTION

Hi there good people. I wanted to share an idea with you. As a new member i cant post url for a while so please google out to find the HEXCITY website or see below for a glimps of the plan. As I said before Im not a planner and a lot of the website documents the project using layman's terms.

For those who like to point out what has been done before (100 years exacly), thanks, I have been made aware that hexagonal planning has been seen before - however, not yet implemented. And this is baffling to me. Why a better design cant be implemented? Why are we not learning from good theoretical examples?

Looking at the article Hexagonal Planning in Theory and Practice, by Eran Ben-Josephand David Gordon, and compared it with my design, I can say that HEXCITY exceedes these plans. And some of these original 100 year old plans exceede anything know to man. So I feel im on to something.

HEXCITY

Hex City, also know as Hexagonal Town, is an example of town planning that aims to better serve new and developing cities in the areas of transport, environment, community and connectivity.

Combining the grid plan (typical of New York) with a radial system (typical of Paris), Hex City is a network of large hexagonal zones outlined by arterial roads.

Distilled to its bear minimum, the design is based on three main ideas.

The first idea separates the freeway system from the fabric of local roads and creating a one-way freeway suitable for longer journeys. Shorter journeys are more accessible by bicycle or on foot than by car, thus reducing the convenience of the car to go to the post office. The lack of through traffic and convenience-car-dependancy allowed the residential zones to do without signals too and improve the community as a whole.

Secondly and by far the main ideological shift people are faced with is decentralizing the city centre over a multitude of centers, referred to as nodes. Re-distribute centers of interest and you reduce congestion. The benefit is two fold, people live nearer nodes A and B and traveling to C D E F G H I and J is, quite literally, only a bike ride across the park.

Finally, the whole systems relies on a balance archived by strategic zoning. With an ambitious 50% of land designated as woodland, farmland and recreational land, the design contributes to the environmental aspect of cities and the quality of life of individuals. These huge hexagonal parks, surrounded by six residential areas and six commercial nodes, take centre stage in the cities identity. They differentiate Hex City from existing cities or previous hexagonal town designs and pave the way for new, sustainable, environmentally conscious cities.

Hex City, or any derivative plans that might developed from these ideas, could help model a new era in regional planning. Gone are the days of boldness and the brilliance and magic that comes from such movements. Yet more and more do we see an expensive, quick fix solution to congestion. We can now prevent this from happening. Solutions only come out of understanding the problem, not other known solutions. And as this example promises, one need not be a planner to find solutions.



THE URL IS NOW IN MY PROFILE
 
Last edited:

Luca

Cyburbian
Messages
1,146
Points
20
Among other considerations:

- why are the commercial / productive and reisdential zones so strictly separated
- what if the necessary amlunt of commercial / productive area is considerably greater / less than the amount resulting from 'pure' geometry?
- the residential 'pods' are strung along a fairly linear strip, that makes visiting another aprt of towna much longer than encessary trip? I guess the ratio of parkland to town seems quite exaggerated, a bit like Corbu's 'radiant city', it's not a city at all, more like an edge city.
 

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
comments returned

Thanks for your comments, this is the first comment I have recieved from a planner. Im chuffed.

why are the commercial / productive and reisdential zones so strictly separated?
I guess they dont have to be. I will make that clearer on the site documentation. I favour family run businesses, they are encouraged to operate in the residential areas.

what if the necessary amlunt of commercial / productive area is considerably greater / less than the amount resulting from 'pure' geometry?
good question, i never thought about that. Bend the rules, ocupy part of the residential area adjacent to the industrial area.

the residential 'pods' are strung along a fairly linear strip, that makes visiting another aprt of towna much longer than encessary trip?
This is kind of a relative question, right. Distance over speed. The fact that it is further away does not mean that it takes more time. We improve the transport system by thinning out the city. Is that a bad thing? I guess it is.

I guess the ratio of parkland to town seems quite exaggerated, a bit like Corbu's 'radiant city', it's not a city at all, more like an edge city.
Thanks, I hadnt hear of Radiant City

Food for thought: New reading material:
http://www.infoclub.com.np/lifestyle/people/a&e/corb.htm (last paragraph)
http://www.architecture.ca/planningarchitecture/document/document3.html
 

Luca

Cyburbian
Messages
1,146
Points
20
exhibition1st said:
Thanks for your comments, this is the first comment I have recieved from a planner. Im chuffed.
Not a planner, just an interested amateur like you
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Moderator
Messages
7,303
Points
29
This reminds me a lot of the Radiant City by LeCorbusier (French Planner). From the look of what you posted, your design is very similar to his minus the archologies (les unites) and heavy emphasis on open space preservation. Based on the pattern you show, the roads will remain ground level unlike his and you won't have all of your needs met within a single-building as he described.

Come to think, it seems much like a very geometric hybrid of Mumford's Garden City and LeCorbesier's Radiant City.

Are the people in the residential pods supposed to find all of what they need (work, goods & services, etc.) in the adjacent commercial nodes? Luca also makes a good point that geometry can limit your abilities to provide all of the commercial services necessary for the residential pods.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
I don't think that putting a commercial district inside a roundabout is a very smart idea... a roundabout is not very pedestrian friendly...unless you make overpasses or underpasses, both solutions that are not the optimal. Of course the optimal is an onlevel pass, which is hardly an option in a roundabout.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
24
Geometry in city design is a very 18-19th century concept. For reasons others have noted, it's fallen out of favor.

Interestingly, the only geometric figure that became widely implemented is the one never advocated by planners (because it isn't beautiful and doesn't facilitate transportation like other shapes), the rectangle. The rectangle was the product of the necessities of 19th century surveyers who found it much easier to survey straight lines and right angles, and of real-estate developers who liked the uniformity in lot specification as well as the efficient creation of frontage it allowed.
 

jaws

BANNED
Messages
1,504
Points
20
Just a short question, have you given any thought as to what building such a city would cost? All this park space is going to be expensive and not necessarily valuable.
jordanb said:
Geometry in city design is a very 18-19th century concept. For reasons others have noted, it's fallen out of favor.

Interestingly, the only geometric figure that became widely implemented is the one never advocated by planners (because it isn't beautiful and doesn't facilitate transportation like other shapes), the rectangle. The rectangle was the product of the necessities of 19th century surveyers who found it much easier to survey straight lines and right angles, and of real-estate developers who liked the uniformity in lot specification as well as the efficient creation of frontage it allowed.
Rectangular cities are also a lot easier for orientation, so it's not just a big surveyor conspiracy.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
24
I use as my source Donald Miller's history of Chicago City of the Century where he writes on page 81 and 82 that Chicago, like all western American cities was gridded "because it was the easiest way to survey and divide land for quick sale and profit."
 
Messages
1,580
Points
21
I've only had time for a cursory glance but so far it would seem you are designing a transportation network rather than a city. The soul of a deceased transportation engineer rides within you.

Given that you have invested in this form I won't at this time suggest alternative ideas with exception of this: consider swapping the locations of the settlements and the green spaces, so you have rings of green rather than blobs of green. This might create a bit more of an actual settlement rather than disparate parts. Further, have you given any thought to scale?

The one-way road system is also a bit... well, its elaborate. I'm not sure this level of ordered complexity has much on offer, though, besides its complexity.

While utopian and [somewhat] romantic and interesting to think about, I'm not sure at all that the decentralized city is a desirable goal in and of itself. I think it would effectively sever the person from his or her surroundings. What sort of connotations spring to your mind when you use the word centralized? Are they negative?

jordanb said:
I use as my source Donald Miller's history of Chicago City of the Century where he writes on page 81 and 82 that Chicago, like all western American cities was gridded "because it was the easiest way to survey and divide land for quick sale and profit."
Agreed. "Simple" navigation grew from the grid system, not the other way around.
 

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
jaws said:
Just a short question, have you given any thought as to what building such a city would cost? All this park space is going to be expensive and not necessarily valuable.

Rectangular cities are also a lot easier for orientation, so it's not just a big surveyor conspiracy.
Are you kidding me, parks not valuable!!?? The plan is for new cities. The parks / woodlands are already there. They are free. The pan is to keep them.

The growth of the city will be as natural of that of a village to a town to a city. We build on demand... in allocated zones.

The arterial roads are at a higher level than the adjoining land. Underpasses are dotted along the way. Only near the roundabout is the road completerlly elevated, by colums, allowing people to travel under them with ease. The Roundabout are as big as they need to be. As a guide, imagine a 1km diameter.

First i want to thank you all for your comment so far. Its really intersting for me to see what other issues are. Please keep this up. Appart for a lack of understanding of the project, the clarity of my documentation, and different ideology, I dont see anything condeming this model. Granted that the effectiveness of the transport system has not been tested.

SkeLeton said:
I don't think that putting a commercial district inside a roundabout is a very smart idea... a roundabout is not very pedestrian friendly...
The arterial roads are at a higher level than the adjoining land. Underpasses are dotted along the way. Only near the roundabout is the road completerlly elevated, by colums, allowing people to travel under them with ease. The Roundabout are as big as they need to be. As a guide, imagine a 1km diameter. I guess they look a little small on this image.
http://www.ex1st.com/hexcity/images/h-innerpeople.jpg

Whats a good ratio commercail and industrial to residential?

abrowne said:
Consider swapping the locations of the settlements and the green spaces, so you have rings of green rather than blobs of green. This might create a bit more of an actual settlement rather than disparate parts. Further, have you given any thought to scale?
My reason for putting the grass in the middle was to avoid island, isolated communities. The plan connects communities to others via the commercail centre. http://www.ex1st.com/hexcity/community.html

abrowne said:
The one-way road system is also a bit... well, its elaborate. I'm not sure this level of ordered complexity has much on offer, though, besides its complexity.
No traffic lights, no congestion, no gridlock - the geometry was a result, not the initial idea of this design. This one way hexagonal design with roundabouts and slip roads looks like best solution to me. People thought using computers was complex and foreigh process. We have to move forward.


abrowne said:
While utopian and [somewhat] romantic and interesting to think about, I'm not sure at all that the decentralized city is a desirable goal in and of itself. I think it would effectively sever the person from his or her surroundings. What sort of connotations spring to your mind when you use the word centralized? Are they negative?
There are many centers. Some will be more popular for services, others tourism and leisure, other for retail, others for learning, others for business. The danger of centralization is everyone wanting the same space, and everyone going to the same place. If there were a centre in this city, it would be a park, perhaps the first one built, sorrounded by the most active commercail centers in the whole of the city.
I guess im also interested in regaining ownership of my center. I dont want my neighbour hood brought down by wallmart. If I start a business, I dont want to be financially excluded from my commercail centers. It makes things fair.

abrowne said:
Agreed. "Simple" navigation grew from the grid system, not the other way around.
If so why not give it a try - its never been implemented. People can navigate chaotic cities jsut as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
24
exhibition1st said:
The arterial roads are at a higher level than the adjoining land. Underpasses are dotted along the way. Only near the roundabout is the road completerlly elevated, by colums, allowing people to travel under them with ease. Only near the roundabout is the road completerlly elevated, by colums, allowing people to travel under them with ease. The Roundabout are as big as they need to be. As a guide, imagine a 1km diameter. I guess they look a little small on this image.
http://www.ex1st.com/hexcity/images/h-innerpeople.jpg
Elevated roadways tend not to be pedestrian friendly. Yes, they keep the cars seperated from the people, but the cost is that the people are left to scurry around concrete ratholes below the cars.


exhibition1st said:
Whats a good ratio commercail and industrial to residential?
That question is impossible to answer and depends on so many local issues. That's why modern city planning is flexible, to adapt to the needs of the community.

exhibition1st said:
No traffic lights, no congestion, no gridlock - the geometry was a result, not the initial idea of this design. This one way hexagonal design with roundabouts and slip roads looks like best solution to me. People thought using computers was complex and foreigh process. We have to move forward.
Traffic engineers have been designing road systems in an effort to eliminate congestion and gridlock for decades. From what I've seen, Japanese expressways tend to be pretty small (and you should be thankful for that) but in America, they've constructed vast stretches of gently curving and swaying, traffic-light free concrete. And yet, on any given rush hour even the most massive and elegant expressway system grinds into congestion.

exhibition1st said:
If so why not give it a try - its never been implemented. People can navigate chaotic cities jsut as well.
Well, a city is a massive thing. Probably the greatest thing we as people can collectively build. If you were designing a new toaster, you could say "give it a try" or even to some extend, you could say "give it a try" if you were designing a new type of building, or a new airplane. But the city is a type of thing where one aught to tread lightly, and the cost of "giving it a try" is often very, very great.

One thing that I would recommend you do is research the history of planning for a bit. Try reading some of the various theories, and the various successes and failures, especially those in mid-century American cities. Also I would recommend that you give the famous book by Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American CIties a look. Not because Mrs. Jacobs is right about everything (or even most things) but because you seem to have a lack of understanding of the difficulties of the issues you face and her book will perhaps open your eyes to true the complexity of the city.
 

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
jordanb said:
Elevated roadways tend not to be pedestrian friendly. Yes, they keep the cars seperated from the people, but the cost is that the people are left to scurry around concrete ratholes below the cars.
Is that not a design issue that can be solved? I imagine that a 4m wide tunnel that passes under 10m of highway will cause a negative effect. But a 20m span/wide bridge, that one can cycle under, party under, that forms the entrance to a massive park... couldnt be more inviting. You stand from the residential side, look through the vast opening into a green forest. I see it as a portal into another world not a dead end rat hole

jordanb said:
That question is impossible to answer and depends on so many local issues. That's why modern city planning is flexible, to adapt to the needs of the community.
Thanks i will bear this in mind when revising the plan.


jordanb said:
Traffic engineers have been designing road systems in an effort to eliminate congestion and gridlock for decades. From what I've seen, Japanese expressways tend to be pretty small (and you should be thankful for that) but in America, they've constructed vast stretches of gently curving and swaying, traffic-light free concrete. And yet, on any given rush hour even the most massive and elegant expressway system grinds into congestion.
Perhaps his is due to the need to travel east on the ONLY highway going east... creating a bottle neck. The HexCity design you can travel around any congestion areas, via longer routes. Granted more roads dont soleve the problem, smart roads would. Smart roads that encourage the people to use of trains that conviniently surface at residential areas only, servicing two commercial areas per station.

Perhaps this is due to a centralised city were people want to travel TO and FROM the same point as everybody else. In HexCity, the lack of a unique centre might resolve this issue. The quality of residential land (by that I mean the proximity to nature) is equal all over the city. People, I hope, would rather live closer to work... lets give them road tax breaks. Lets focus on these issues.

jordanb said:
Well, a city is a massive thing. Probably the greatest thing we as people can collectively build. If you were designing a new toaster, you could say "give it a try" or even to some extend, you could say "give it a try" if you were designing a new type of building, or a new airplane. But the city is a type of thing where one aught to tread lightly, and the cost of "giving it a try" is often very, very great.
Absolutely, but we cant stop being resourcefull and bold. This design is only possible as a new city, that grows from 1 hexagon to 7 hexagons... then to 19 hexagons. Perhaps then it is considered a failure and the huge parks can take the load... roads can be build though them, populated with all sorts of things. The risk is not that high. I dont propose to open a brand new city of 100,000 population. If the things works it will grow like a normal city would but with fantastic featuress that will make it successfull. But like most of my arguments, I dont know what will happen, neither do you, but you have abetter idea than me. Which is why I appreciuate your comments, recommendations and further refernces so much. : ) I will read that book... and try to contact her.

Thanks again, this is a very enjoyable debate.
 

Tide

Cyburbian
Messages
2,712
Points
21
I have finally had a chance to view your webpage and designs. In concept, like has been stated already, it is very Lecorbu 19th century city in the parks design. I also am at work and cannot give this concept the thoguht it deserves. However, I will tell you the first few thoughts that came to mind.

"This isn't simcity, you cannot lay a perfect grid like this"
"There is a severe lack of housing choices (mostly larger single family DUs)"
"There must be a lot of traffic noise along the arterials"
"This model, like many economic models, fails to incorporate environmental constraints and terrain into it's concept"

That last issue, how this is just a flat featureless plane is what makes this plan inconcieveable. Just by throwing a lake, river, major slope into the mix will change your design and one kink in the design and it does not work as it was intended because modal choices are then compromised which will lead to a disportionate level of say residences to services to job availability.
 

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
Thanks for finding some time to look into this.

Tide said:
"This isn't simcity, you cannot lay a perfect grid like this"
"This model, like many economic models, fails to incorporate environmental constraints and terrain into it's concept"
I would like to forward your attention to this page http://www.ex1st.com/hexcity/flexible.html which explains how to accomodate geographical features.

Could you elaborate on the following issues you raised, I dont understand them completely or fail to see the problem.

Tide said:
...disportionate level of say residences to services to job availability.
...severe lack of housing choices (mostly larger single family DUs)
...lot of traffic noise along the arterials
 

nerudite

Cyburbian
Messages
6,544
Points
29
This city would have an insane amount of taxes to support all of the park space maintenance and all of the infrastructure. There are too many roads without enough uses to support their on-going maintenance (or to make it economically viable to build in the first place). I think the costs would keep an idea like this from ever happening.
 

NHPlanner

Forums Administrator & Gallery Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
9,855
Points
38
nerudite said:
This city would have an insane amount of taxes to support all of the park space maintenance and all of the infrastructure. There are too many roads without enough uses to support their on-going maintenance (or to make it economically viable to build in the first place). I think the costs would keep an idea like this from ever happening.
Well put. Nice "theory" but would never fly in a politicized, topographic, real world situation.
 

Tide

Cyburbian
Messages
2,712
Points
21
*Warning* my math is a little rusty, but I have deduced that the area of one of your residential hexagons (on the smaller side) is 0.96 miles (correct me if I'm wrong). And you state that such a smaller hexagon (.5km by 1km) would suit about 25,000 people. That means your average density is 26,000+/mile. Is that true? If so that is outrageous! You could never accomodate that density in anything but sky high flats.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
24
^-- I gotta disagree there. The two and threeflat districts of Chicago approach 20,000 ppsm. Go with Parisian-style six story buildings and you can accommodate well past 26,000 ppsm with ease.

(BTW: IIRC, the highrise districts of Chicago are somewhere around 90,000 ppsm, and manhattan has districts that approach 200,000 ppsm.)
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
17,245
Points
51
Tide said:
Is that true? If so that is outrageous! You could never accomodate that density in anything but sky high flats.
When Buffalo's population was at its peak of 600,000 in 1951, the population density was around 12,500 residents per square mile - with high rise apartments only in a very small portion of the city. When the approximately 40% of land that was in vacant, underwater or predominantly industrial is discounted, the density rises to 20,833 residents per square mile - the majority living in detached single family houses and two-flats.

Here's an aerial photograph of a typical Buffalo neighborhood in 1951.

 

Tide

Cyburbian
Messages
2,712
Points
21
So my stats are right, my concept of density is off, thanks for humbling me guys :-$
 
Messages
1,580
Points
21
I'm still trying to figure out the purpose to all of that green space. It's not virgin land or unspoiled, as its surrounded by city pod things, and its not coherently structured, like a park. It's just kind of... there. Is it agricultural? It MIGHT be a bit more useful in that role, and that would certainly cement your utopian moniker for your plan. Sustainable local agriculture or something. But otherwise pretty placeless - which, really, seems to be what you are going for. This is like modernism distilled.
 

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
Again, thanks for your comments so far.

About the population and the size of the hexagons, pods and roundabouts: I have to leave that to the planners proper to make sense of the numbers. The design is flexible and the scale has not been set for this reason.

abrowne said:
I'm still trying to figure out the purpose to all of that green space. It's not virgin land or unspoiled, as its surrounded by city pod things, and its not coherently structured, like a park. It's just kind of... there. Is it agricultural?
The green land can be what ever you want. Unless you have an ambulance or some form of other emergency vehicle or a tractor - you cant drive on it, and you cant build on it (permanent structures). Sport events, concerts, woodland, agriculture, parks, birdwatching, canoeing,... You can do what you want. There are no rules, just guidelines that aim to clarify the idea.
 

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
Closing Comment

I think this round of debate has come to an end. So I wanted to wrap up soon with a view to EDIT the documentation I have on the website http://www.ex1st.com/hexcity I will post again when the changes have been made. Please post you ideas on plan presentation:

Which is the best way to present the plan?

Do you know of any well documented plans that where easy to absorb?
How were they presented?
Can you send me a link to it?
How do I break things down?
How can I improve the website I have at the moment?
Do I need more images?
Is there any terminology I need to use?


Thank you all for comments and conisderations.
 

Tide

Cyburbian
Messages
2,712
Points
21
Just for kicks and my own curiosity why wouldn't this alternative with green belts (which are much more accessable to surrounding hexes) and more highly concentrated residential areas work? then you have your green belts seperating your uses (to a degree) or then each hex could be a residential or industrial use completely seperated by greenery? Just some thoughts.
hex alt.JPG
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,580
Points
21
That's what I suggested awhile ago - thought it would balance better. I think the fellow is pretty heart set on his method, though.
 

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
abrowne said:
That's what I suggested awhile ago - thought it would balance better. I think the fellow is pretty heart set on his method, though.
I just thought you would be isolating the residential areas more, like islands. Expanding on Tides idea... How about a more divese aproach. A random pattern throughout the city:
Some hexagon centers parks others residential.
Some pods commercail others industial others residential others parks.
The subway terminals still pop up at the centre of each pod.

Any thoughts on the presentation, folks? Or does it look good / professional.

 
Last edited:

Tide

Cyburbian
Messages
2,712
Points
21
exhibition1st - I think your theory is decent ... if we ever populate Mars you'll be the first to call. I think on the small scale the blocks don't mesh well and the traffic patterns can be a bit confusing, people like a direct path to work. However, on the large scale, say each hex is a city, not a neighborhood, the model probably works much better. Say the lines you drew are the highways and inside the hex the city has been able to grow more naturally, but in the scheme of the region the hexes work like villages, towns, or cities (which could be a super hex).

My 2 cents, play with it if you like.
 
Messages
1,580
Points
21
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, so to speak. Fundamentally the rigid form you propose is entirely un-civic in that cities tend to be adaptable and flexible, and when they are not, they often fail. And by relaxing this rigid form you are leaving behind the reasons for proposing it in the first place, so either position is questionable. I think as a large city this would be mostly disastrous, but I'm reminded of Soleri's arcology concept... this might work wonderfully as small outposts, or an "ideal" urban agricultural village (by this I mean dense, rural development). I think downscaling this to only a few (say less than 3, ideally 1) hex's and developing and living along sustainanable guidelines would be an interesting application.

The presentation on the web site was excellent, I thought. The navigation was kind of intuitive and counterintuitive all at once. Once I got the hang of it I was speeding along. It was unclear at times what was a subheading vs a larger heading (of the links - ie which lead to a new page vs. a new section on the current page).

The reason I had proposed swapping the green for the developed land was to try and correct the ratio to something more useful. I had no designs on mix of uses or segregation of uses... simply a swapping of green and built.
 

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
savemattoon said:
Looks like my Grandma's couch;-)
Where do you think i got the idea from?

Tide said:
... people like a direct path to work...
Sure they do. But few people have one. I live up the road from my work place, I wouldnt go to work by car coz its too close. The rest of the neighbours drive all over the place to get to work. My point is, they dont have adirect route anaway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

exhibition1st

Member
Messages
16
Points
1
limited imagination

When putting out an idea for people to comment on I expected to get a range of opinions about the idea in general, concerns that had been already considered and included in the design (please read the documentation) and concerns that I hadn't foreseen. This last one being the most helpful and humbling.

Thanks again for all the comments you posted. This is a first for me. Its the time I use a forum, the first time I try to design regional planning (or planning of any kind) and the first time I get feedback from people in the filed.

I wanted to write about how some of these comments have struck me. Im not setting out to point posts out, just to express what effect they have had on me in general.

The most frustrating wasn't people commenting on things that are in the documentation, I do the same thing when I try to use a VCR without reading the manual. The most frustrating thing was a cynical or pessimistic overtone in some posts. You can comment on something... lets say "litter".

"There will be a lot of litter."...


Already they have visualized the environment differently to what I see it as. And why does it seem to be, most of the time, a disastrous world. Might this have something to do with not giving a young designer the chance to plan something interesting - collaboratively.

About collaboration, "prevention" or "solution" are lacking in their post. You might as well say "There is a pencil jabbed in you back and you are going to die." instead of doing something about it. Well, at least I know why I might die. The comment about the litter is like saying "You are going to die." not including any rational explanation or reason why this might happen.

Facts may not be supported. How can you predict something like that without testing it? I don't know **** about litter simulations, but I know you don't just knock one up and post about it. NOTE: If anyone can make a simulation for HexCity I would be very willing to part with some money.

Please don't be limited by your own imagination and think about the possibilities. Thank you to those who have done so in this thread.
 

DougGorin

Member
Messages
2
Points
0
What's up Charles. I decided to revisit da original site 2 add my 2 cents.

:D:D:):):):(:(:D:-c8-!:)

ha ha ha halha!

Seriously, Though I wish Hex City were real. I have a few ideas of my own to share. Soon I want to post them here. "The only place for hex theorist and city designers to come together and share idea." Thanks for putting this out there... I enjoy your work. Good Evening from Memphis TN. Let me see if I can find something on my computer to share that is Hexagonal like!

____Damn.. I can't figure out how to post an image but, I will be back later to try again. Love da plan Charles. Peace. Bro.
 

DougGorin

Member
Messages
2
Points
0
Just for kicks and my own curiosity why wouldn't this alternative with green belts (which are much more accessable to surrounding hexes) and more highly concentrated residential areas work? then you have your green belts seperating your uses (to a degree) or then each hex could be a residential or industrial use completely seperated by greenery? Just some thoughts.
View attachment 3471
Why not a living cell inside the honeycomb that raises young and produces food like the honey bees comb. A land of milk and honey like a matrix to plan other stuff on it could be layered with other perfect tessallations like the perfect square and perfect triangle. Connect the suspended maxtrixs into one comb. The individual has a choice of that matrix or level to live on. Hanging from da sky this kyte can be set free to roll threw da milky way and beyond. ::)D):(
:):)
Fish Rule

EXCUSE me. I want to know how many people are in this group is it 88? Interesting thing about repeating numbers. LIke utopian dream they repeat over and over again every 100 years or so. Who am I? To judge. I am an artist. I specialize in honeycomb designs. This plan is a feast for me. Like nothing I have seen before.

Welcome to the show. Ladies and Gentle man please come inside. Good Evening. You will not believe your eyes. Your ears? Ladies and Gentle man Please come inside. Come a little bit closer to my side of da room. Lend me your ear. I have arrived to raise da room on this one by any way I can. I will help.

Collaboration Accepted

Charles. It's been so long man. I can't help but laugh. ha ha. Da last time I spoke to you I was living in public housing. I bought your book even though I can't read it. You sent me da English version. It took me almost 2 years to read it. I've been busy. I am out of public housing now. Have my own place in da sun wit a beautiful view of da forrest near
Shelby Farms Park da largest urban park in America. It is less than a mile from were I live. I have a farming plot of land at da farm. I like to grow Okra it is a very hardy plant. I cook for myself and my girlfriend all the time and have gotten pretty good. I cook other things. Mostly vegatables and meat. I love to eat sushi and drink Reeds Ginger Brew. If you are ever in da U.S. I'd like to meet you for lunch. Chat wit you later buddy. I have to learn some more stuff on da internet friend.

If I had a Billion or even a Trilliion dollars I would try to make Hex City happen man. Bro. Well my lunch is ready........ DougGorin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top