This has puzzled me for a while and I'm hoping somebody can explain this for me:

Dubai is currently building various "cities" such as Sports City, Studio City, Knowledge Village, Healthcare City (I'm not kidding), ect. I don't understand the point of separating all of these elements into individual neighborhoods or zones, or whatever they are. You would think that any logical city would allow these elements such as sports centers, schools, and clinics to be scattered around the city depending on where the greatest demand for them is. Why make people drive to a certain part of the city just to get an education or to get health care? Why restrict the IT sector to one specific area? Where's the logic in this?

Also I'm curious to know if these zones are showing any signs of success yet, or are these simply hopes for the time being.

I'm sure public institutions in Dubai are scattered though these "cities" are dedicated in its various field whether its medicine, education, sports, etc.

If there is one thing about Dubai that I noticed is its a car-centric city. The majority of its residents rely on automobiles to get from point A to point B despite the presence of public transportation and a metro system.

The Old Town of Dubai is one of few walkable neighbourhoods.

Car centric cities are not all the same. There are different grades of madness. The longer the distances the worse, also in car based cities. This high grade of function separation is the best way to maximize the distances for the citizens. Have a look at Brasilia.

^^As long as oil is cheap overthere is should be no problem...

they DO things, they dont THINK about them... thats how i understand dubai... i dont wanna know how they will end up.

I'm sure public institutions in Dubai are scattered though these "cities" are dedicated in its various field whether its medicine, education, sports, etc.

If there is one thing about Dubai that I noticed is its a car-centric city. The majority of its residents rely on automobiles to get from point A to point B despite the presence of public transportation and a metro system.

The Old Town of Dubai is one of few walkable neighbourhoods.

Won't the fact that Dubai is car-centric only make things worse? If everybody has to go cross town for certain things then the already congested roads will be even more jammed.

^^As long as oil is cheap overthere is should be no problem...

It is not about the energy you are wasting its the time of people you are wasting and the infrastructure you are wasting. This actually matters no matter what the oil price is like.

I guess they think that clustering similar businesses near each other will help them succeed.

BTW, this phenomenon is not limited to Dubai.

Won't the fact that Dubai is car-centric only make things worse? If everybody has to go cross town for certain things then the already congested roads will be even more jammed.

To some extent yes. But Dubai already has a metro system which makes it more convenient for commuters.

Anyway, as with Dubai's car-centric model, take SZR for example.

http://k47.pbase.com/o6/93/329493/1/72583263.3VeZ8N2t.DubaiAerialsJan07066.jpg

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0701/feature3/images/gallery.3.6.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/353412962_730425ce12_o.jpg

Where you have high-rise buildings built around the boulevard.

The zones are industrial/commercial though, and are not community facilities. Why could they not be concentrated? It's like setting up an industrial park in suburbia in a North American city.

http://k47.pbase.com/o6/93/329493/1/72583263.3VeZ8N2t.DubaiAerialsJan07066.jpg


http://k47.pbase.com/o6/93/329493/1/72583263.3VeZ8N2t.DubaiAerialsJan07066.jpg

It looks like a 1960s UK transport planners dream! This is what they saw as being 'the city of the future'. Big road lined with skyscrapers. The thing is though with Dubai, is that its so hot! When you're in a place where its normally 40c+ you aren't gonna want to travel on a subway or bus, let alone walk! So many its fine for places like this...

The zones are industrial/commercial though, and are not community facilities. Why could they not be concentrated? It's like setting up an industrial park in suburbia in a North American city.

Depends on what Dubai is heading for. If it wants to be as ill equipped for the future as the random American suburbia than it should go for it. If it wants to create something which is more urban and more intelligently designed, keeping the length of distances efficient for the people living there it should seriously reconsider its plans.

Depends on what Dubai is heading for. If it wants to be as ill equipped for the future as the random American suburbia than it should go for it. If it wants to create something which is more urban and more intelligently designed, keeping the length of distances efficient for the people living there it should seriously reconsider its plans.

The notion of creating a "vibrant", people-filled streetscape in Dubai is more than hampered by the desert climate. People won't be outdoors much if it hits 40C most of summer.

I also don't think Dubai is too spread out for people to travel effectively. That line of skyscrapers is actually not many stops from the Creek by rail.

The notion of creating a "vibrant", people-filled streetscape in Dubai is more than hampered by the desert climate. People won't be outdoors much if it hits 40C most of summer.

I also don't think Dubai is too spread out for people to travel effectively. That line of skyscrapers is actually not many stops from the Creek by rail.

I think you misunderstood me. I was not talking about creating a "vibrant, people-filled streetscape". I was talking about creating a city of short (or at least not excessively long) distances. Thats something very different and it should be no problem at all also in ultra hot locations as this is not a question of climate nor one of having rather a street or a mall based city layout.

I don't know how far an average inhabitant of Dubai has to drive per day on average, also compared to people from other cities. But this question is an essential one and if a lot of those single use specialized clusters are built, the distances have to explode by design.

The zones are industrial/commercial though, and are not community facilities. Why could they not be concentrated? It's like setting up an industrial park in suburbia in a North American city.

It's not like an industrial park in suburbia because those industrial parks are small and scattered, and their purpose is to minimize travel between people's homes and jobs. Dubai's system is the opposite as I have already explained.

Also, American suburbia is not a good thing so I don't even know why you would make that comparison.

This has puzzled me for a while and I'm hoping somebody can explain this for me:

Dubai is currently building various "cities" such as Sports City, Studio City, Knowledge Village, Healthcare City (I'm not kidding), ect. I don't understand the point of separating all of these elements into individual neighborhoods or zones, or whatever they are. You would think that any logical city would allow these elements such as sports centers, schools, and clinics to be scattered around the city depending on where the greatest demand for them is. Why make people drive to a certain part of the city just to get an education or to get health care? Why restrict the IT sector to one specific area? Where's the logic in this?

Also I'm curious to know if these zones are showing any signs of success yet, or are these simply hopes for the time being.

Most of these areas are free zone which means that companies operating within these areas are exempt from certain criteria that they would have been under in the rest of Dubai. eg they can have 100% ownership, no tax etc.

They have also been established to ensure that businesses run more efficiently since they can set up factories within these areas and because businesses can interact.

Older parts of Dubai have been built in what you describe as a logic city but there is traffic and all businesses are not as accessible as in a free zone. Almost all new business can be seen and accessed from roads such as Sheikh Zayed Road, Emirates Road etc.

It is obviously more logic to build areas like this because people would then be forced to move to the suburbs between these cities/zones if they don’t want to sit in traffic. This also affects employment since people will then also need basic services etc in these suburbs and people will then be employed. This goes on to affect many other areas and the cycle goes on and on and on….

Free Zone areas also make it easier to start a new business since they have facilities that you can use at a low cost to start your business of with without investing in infrastructure needed for such business. This means you won’t be in a big crap hole if your business fails.

In my opinion the best free zone area in Dubai is Silicon Oasis since it really like a city in its own.

About your question are these zones successful?

Yes they are successful:

Dubai Internet City Registers Year-on-Year Growth in 2010 with 150 Companies Setting up Base at ICT Cluster
http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20110130102709/Dubai%20Internet%20City%20Registers%20Year-on-Year%20Growth%20in%202010

Dubai Silicon Oasis records 131% growth
http://gulfnews.com/business/property/dubai-silicon-oasis-records-131-growth-1.665047

His Highness Sheikh Ahmed Announces 296% Increase in Dubai Silicon Oasis Operating Profit
http://www.dsoa.ae/en/news.jsp?date=26-03-2011

JAFZA

1. Grown its customer base by over 60%
2. Increased its revenue at an average of 34% year-on-year
3. Contributed to Dubai’s GDP at 25% on a year-to-year basis
4. Sustained more than 160,000 jobs in the UAE through its companies
5. Accounted for more than 50% of Dubai’s total exports. It also accounts for 25% of all container throughputs through the Jebel Ali Port and 12% of all air freight at Dubai International Airport.
6. Accounted for 20% of all FDI inflow into the UAE.

http://www.jafza.ae/en/about-us/jafza-facts-at-a-glance.html

It's not like an industrial park in suburbia because those industrial parks are small and scattered, and their purpose is to minimize travel between people's homes and jobs. Dubai's system is the opposite as I have already explained.

Also, American suburbia is not a good thing so I don't even know why you would make that comparison.

The intention of North American industrial parks in the suburbs is also to reduce the amount of travel from home to work by bringing the jobs to the residents rather than have them travel to downtown. They both arose out of the same underlying purpose.

The intention of North American industrial parks in the suburbs is also to reduce the amount of travel from home to work by bringing the jobs to the residents rather than have them travel to downtown. They both arose out of the same underlying purpose.

But what Dubai is doing is the opposite as it seems. If you centre most of the activity of one kind into one single mono-functional "city" (a term which is a pretty strong abuse of the word "city") you increase distances, you don't decrease it.

^^

But the idea is to establish a main industry and to let other sub industries form around it based on small services demand like shopping malls etc. that suit the demand of people who live in the area because they work in the zone/city.

Most of the development in Dubai have taken place around such cities so I think it's working.

To continue on my point you then only drive far for services that you use once a year.

Most of these areas are free zone which means that companies operating within these areas are exempt from certain criteria that they would have been under in the rest of Dubai. eg they can have 100% ownership, no tax etc.

They have also been established to ensure that businesses run more efficiently since they can set up factories within these areas and because businesses can interact.We already know what these zones are. You still haven't answered the question which is why restrict them to specific parts of the city?

Older parts of Dubai have been built in what you describe as a logic city but there is traffic and all businesses are not as accessible as in a free zone. Almost all new business can be seen and accessed from roads such as Sheikh Zayed Road, Emirates Road etc.

It is obviously more logic to build areas like this because people would then be forced to move to the suburbs between these cities/zones if they don’t want to sit in traffic. This also affects employment since people will then also need basic services etc in these suburbs and people will then be employed. This goes on to affect many other areas and the cycle goes on and on and on….
None of this makes any sense at all.

Free Zone areas also make it easier to start a new business since they have facilities that you can use at a low cost to start your business of with without investing in infrastructure needed for such business. This means you won’t be in a big crap hole if your business fails..

Again this doesn't answer my question or make much sense.

The intention of North American industrial parks in the suburbs is also to reduce the amount of travel from home to work by bringing the jobs to the residents rather than have them travel to downtown.
What was the point of repeating what I said?
They both arose out of the same underlying purpose.
How do they have the same purpose? They have the opposite purpose as I have already explained. These zones mean that all businesses of that type are restricted to a single part of the city meaning that everybody has to travel to that zone no matter where in the city they are.

What's the point of replying to me if you're just going to repeat what I say and then say "nuh-uh"?

^^

But the idea is to establish a main industry and to let other sub industries form around it based on small services demand like shopping malls etc. that suit the demand of people who live in the area because they work in the zone/city.

Most of the development in Dubai have taken place around such cities so I think it's working.
You're completely missing the point being made in this thread. If you restrict businesses to a specific area then you are forcing everybody to travel to that specific zone. In any functional city you would not have to travel far to reach certain businesses or services, in Dubai on the other hand everybody has to travel to a certain area even if they live on the other side of the city.

^^

It is the classic and pure concept of modernism. Go to Brasilia to see how it works and why it is terrible.

What was the point of repeating what I said?

How do they have the same purpose? They have the opposite purpose as I have already explained. These zones mean that all businesses of that type are restricted to a single part of the city meaning that everybody has to travel to that zone no matter where in the city they are.

What's the point of replying to me if you're just going to repeat what I say and then say "nuh-uh"?


You're completely missing the point being made in this thread. If you restrict businesses to a specific area then you are forcing everybody to travel to that specific zone. In any functional city you would not have to travel far to reach certain businesses or services, in Dubai on the other hand everybody has to travel to a certain area even if they live on the other side of the city.

I'm saying Dubai's urban planning layout is very similar to how North American cities were designed, with a central downtown node and people living in the peripheral areas commuting into downtown. Then that evolved into multiple central nodes and the central downtown was no longer the sole core. Dubai's evolution is consistent with other cities and is nothing spectacularly new or unusual.

The original urban design meant most residents had to travel to the central downtown for work. As the outlying nodes evolved, people were more enticed to driving as they no longer had an efficient transit connection to work. While it was quite idealistic to design outlying nodes so people could live closer to work, in reality that has never worked and people still commuted, but in different ways. Transit infrastructure could not keep up with these "irregular" commutes anymore.

Hence, the optimal solution is not so much how far people travel from a distance perspective, but how efficiently and timely they can do so. You're from Toronto, right? That city has seen multiple nodes being developed along the periphery in the past decade. Yet commute times have increased and so has congestion. That contradicts the original intention of bringing jobs closer to people's homes. Clearly, the situation is now worse than the time when most people commuted to downtown. Transit has not improved much especially between suburbs to keep up with the growth. It looks like Dubai is growing with a multi-node plan, and may be heading down the same path as its North American counterparts.

I'm saying Dubai's urban planning layout is very similar to how North American cities were designed, with a central downtown node and people living in the peripheral areas commuting into downtown. Then that evolved into multiple central nodes and the central downtown was no longer the sole core. Dubai's evolution is consistent with other cities and is nothing spectacularly new or unusual.The North American design of having a central core is flawed and is exactly what created the American car culture. It's the reason why many Americans spend two or three hours a day getting to and from work. It's not a system you should be emulating, and many American cities are now looking for ways to get out of this system.

The original urban design meant most residents had to travel to the central downtown for work. As the outlying nodes evolved, people were more enticed to driving as they no longer had an efficient transit connection to work. While it was quite idealistic to design outlying nodes so people could live closer to work, in reality that has never worked and people still commuted, but in different ways. Transit infrastructure could not keep up with these "irregular" commutes anymore.

Hence, the optimal solution is not so much how far people travel from a distance perspective, but how efficiently and timely they can do so. You're from Toronto, right? That city has seen multiple nodes being developed along the periphery in the past decade. Yet commute times have increased and so has congestion. That contradicts the original intention of bringing jobs closer to people's homes. Clearly, the situation is now worse than the time when most people commuted to downtown. Transit has not improved much especially between suburbs to keep up with the growth. It looks like Dubai is growing with a multi-node plan, and may be heading down the same path as its North American counterparts.
Dubai does not have a multi node plan, that's the whole point I made in m original post and you have yet to point out where I'm wrong with that. The whole problem here is, as I have already pointed out several times, is that Dubai focuses certain things such as universities, sports, and healthcare into single specific nodes.

Toronto is developing a multi-node plan specifically as a response to the problem of having one downtown core. It was created as a response to the increasing congestion, and so far it has worked. Public transit here is irrelevant so I don't know why you even bring it up, because the system exists because almost everybody drives. If these nodes didn't exist hen everybody in the city would be driving downtown every single morning, and that would be a nightmare. You can't change the fact that everybody drives, because everybody lives in the suburbs and giving suburbs good public transportation is extremely difficult and expensive. Public transportation continues to exist as it always did, and it's purpose in car oriented cities is to further reduce congestion on the roads, and in Toronto it has done it's job well so far.

The North American design of having a central core is flawed and is exactly what created the American car culture. It's the reason why many Americans spend two or three hours a day getting to and from work. It's not a system you should be emulating, and many American cities are now looking for ways to get out of this system.


Dubai does not have a multi node plan, that's the whole point I made in m original post and you have yet to point out where I'm wrong with that. The whole problem here is, as I have already pointed out several times, is that Dubai focuses certain things such as universities, sports, and healthcare into single specific nodes.

Toronto is developing a multi-node plan specifically as a response to the problem of having one downtown core. It was created as a response to the increasing congestion, and so far it has worked. Public transit here is irrelevant so I don't know why you even bring it up, because the system exists because almost everybody drives. If these nodes didn't exist hen everybody in the city would be driving downtown every single morning, and that would be a nightmare. You can't change the fact that everybody drives, because everybody lives in the suburbs and giving suburbs good public transportation is extremely difficult and expensive. Public transportation continues to exist as it always did, and it's purpose in car oriented cities is to further reduce congestion on the roads, and in Toronto it has done it's job well so far.

Even New York is also of the typical North American design. The only difference is its city centre is much larger compared to those of other American cities and better public transportation and metro system.

The North American design of having a central core is flawed and is exactly what created the American car culture. It's the reason why many Americans spend two or three hours a day getting to and from work. It's not a system you should be emulating, and many American cities are now looking for ways to get out of this system.

I don't think car culture originated from the central node model, since transit systems have traditionally funnelled people from outlying areas into the central node, so there is less incentive to pop into a car and pay expensive parking downtown. The dawn of the consumer automobile prompted urban sprawl and the development of suburbia. Then urban planning models changed as people questioned the need to commute long distances to the central node. Idealists then suggested building employment centres closer to where people live, and the suburban industrial park was born. However, transit developments have not kept pace with this new planning style. Ironically, this very system to reduce commute times has done the opposite in practice.

Toronto is developing a multi-node plan specifically as a response to the problem of having one downtown core. It was created as a response to the increasing congestion, and so far it has worked. Public transit here is irrelevant so I don't know why you even bring it up, because the system exists because almost everybody drives. If these nodes didn't exist hen everybody in the city would be driving downtown every single morning, and that would be a nightmare. You can't change the fact that everybody drives, because everybody lives in the suburbs and giving suburbs good public transportation is extremely difficult and expensive. Public transportation continues to exist as it always did, and it's purpose in car oriented cities is to further reduce congestion on the roads, and in Toronto it has done it's job well so far.
Public transit is an integral part of urban planning. Congestion is heavily impacted by the availability of transit. That's why planners are trying to expand transit to capture as many of the irregular commutes as possible. Ultimately, the availability of transit will force people out of cars, even if they live in suburbs. Car-oriented cities can change with the right mix of urban planning and transit infrastructure. However, Toronto's multi-nodal approach is causing more congestion and longer travel times, not less. This should automatically put big question marks over how effective are multi-nodal cities.

Sorry I haven't checked back in a while.
I don't think car culture originated from the central node model, since transit systems have traditionally funnelled people from outlying areas into the central node, so there is less incentive to pop into a car and pay expensive parking downtown. The dawn of the consumer automobile prompted urban sprawl and the development of suburbia. Then urban planning models changed as people questioned the need to commute long distances to the central node. Idealists then suggested building employment centres closer to where people live, and the suburban industrial park was born. However, transit developments have not kept pace with this new planning style.Ironically, this very system to reduce commute times has done the opposite in practice.Okay, again, HOW? Why do you bother replying to me if you don't even try to explain your reasoning? How do these nodes increase travel times? How is it faster to drive all the way to downtown instead of to a nearby employment node?


Public transit is an integral part of urban planning. Congestion is heavily impacted by the availability of transit. That's why planners are trying to expand transit to capture as many of the irregular commutes as possible. Ultimately, the availability of transit will force people out of cars, even if they live in suburbs. Car-oriented cities can change with the right mix of urban planning and transit infrastructure. However, Toronto's multi-nodal approach is causing more congestion and longer travel times, not less. This should automatically put big question marks over how effective are multi-nodal cities.Yeah, I know tranist is an important part of urban planing, what does this have to do with our discussion? And et again you make a claim without justifying it at all. How is Toronto's mode increasing travel time?

Seriously, why would you even consider posting a reply if you have no intention of explaining your point?

Ervin, are those industries all concentrated in ONE place, or are different industries in different locations? I think this is the main source of confusion between you and hkskyline.

To answer the general question about concentrated versus spread out, my belief is that, the former works well for high-level services and employement, and the latter for low level services and employment.

The problem of scattered business parks is that (skilled) people and firms need to look well beyond their neighbourhood to find a good match, and you also have the problem with husband and wife having different jobs, so 'working close' is never really possible. So you are better off concentrating tertiary activities in the city centre so travel pattern is simple enough to warrant efficient mass transit.

If you imagine traffic volumn on a continuum:
Free flow - congestion starts - mass transit becomes viable - private transport becomes impossible to support.

Unfortunately congestion does start BEFORE mass transit becomes viable, so you want to avoid falling into this sorry stage, which unfortunately happens in multi-nodal but low density North American cities, with travel patterns so sporadic.

For low-level employment, and basic retail, education and health care, of course having one close to home is better as it's not that difficult to round up a few shop assistants, teachers and GPs and they don't need a big catchment area of service users to become viable either. Comparison goods stores, the best universities and hospitals are still better suited for a city-centre location.

Well yes, to me it seems that it would be a good idea for example to keep the headquarters' of large companies in the downtown area, where you don't have customers but do have a lot of employees, because you can't spread a headquarters over a wide area so the best place to keep it is in one spot with the best infrastructure and location in the city. But that's about the only example I can think of, and it's not what Dubai has.

This has puzzled me for a while and I'm hoping somebody can explain this for me:

Dubai is currently building various "cities" such as Sports City, Studio City, Knowledge Village, Healthcare City (I'm not kidding), ect. I don't understand the point of separating all of these elements into individual neighborhoods or zones, or whatever they are. You would think that any logical city would allow these elements such as sports centers, schools, and clinics to be scattered around the city depending on where the greatest demand for them is. Why make people drive to a certain part of the city just to get an education or to get health care? Why restrict the IT sector to one specific area? Where's the logic in this?

Also I'm curious to know if these zones are showing any signs of success yet, or are these simply hopes for the time being.
You could also make the same argument for a Central Business District vs. businesses spread all over the city. I actually once started a thread on it some time back.

Edit: Nevermind, looks like everyone's discussing this on the second page.

The North American design of having a central core is flawed and is exactly what created the American car culture. It's the reason why many Americans spend two or three hours a day getting to and from work. It's not a system you should be emulating, and many American cities are now looking for ways to get out of this system.


Blatant exaggeration. The median commute time for Americans in 2009 was 32,6 minutes (each way), with New York, the metro which most heavily relies on transit, scoring the highest median commute time with 48,3 minutes, according to the US Census Bureau.

People love to loath American cities, but it pays to check some hard facts.

In relation to clustering business, I think there is nothing inherently good or bad in that. If you end up having 10 different clusters connected to one another, you'll end up with a similar situation of having those business all scattered around a business district.

The problem, the paradigm that I despise and reject, is the SCC (and planning community in general) desire for a dictatorship of mixed use neighborhoods only, as if every city in every place should aim to have "walkable streets" or other b.s. as precondition to its success.

When you have specialized business that are not meant to serve costumers on a daily and repeated basis, clustering them or not makes no noticeable difference once you assume they will not be located in the middle of housing blocks.

It took centuries for us to push filthy business that smell, make noise and expel toxic fumes out of our residential streets, and now we see some hardcore urban planners even saying that it is "detrimental for social consciousness that people are just able to send their trash hundreds of km away" instead of having to dealing with their own mess or that place of residence and work no longer bear a relation "weakening the sense that factories are more than merely employers". :bash: :ohno:

Dubai is my most favorite city
last year i went there and enjoy so much,I also visited Abu Dhabi...it was also beautiful city

Good to know, but that isn't the topic here ;)

I'm saying Dubai's urban planning layout is very similar to how North American cities were designed, with a central downtown node and people living in the peripheral areas commuting into downtown. Then that evolved into multiple central nodes and the central downtown was no longer the sole core. Dubai's evolution is consistent with other cities and is nothing spectacularly new or unusual.

Umm, actually Dubai has not much in common with the "typical" American city.

Dubai is basically "split" in cities/areas/neighbourhoods/whatever because it was easier for developers to make profit for it (instead of having a single prime downtown you create "prime" locations all over the place).

The evolution is certainly innovative in the sense that privatization of the city and public spaces has reached new heights. Basically every ""public"" space is a private area sponsored by a developer.

Also there are some additional particularities to Dubai's evolution. Photography and even GE are elements taken into consideration. Sheikh Zayed Road is an (impressive) backdrop. Palm Jumeirah or The World are probably one of the first urban structures designed thinking on aerial/from space photography.

Blatant exaggeration. The median commute time for Americans in 2009 was 32,6 minutes (each way), with New York, the metro which most heavily relies on transit, scoring the highest median commute time with 48,3 minutes, according to the US Census Bureau.

People love to loath American cities, but it pays to check some hard facts.

In relation to clustering business, I think there is nothing inherently good or bad in that. If you end up having 10 different clusters connected to one another, you'll end up with a similar situation of having those business all scattered around a business district.

The problem, the paradigm that I despise and reject, is the SCC (and planning community in general) desire for a dictatorship of mixed use neighborhoods only, as if every city in every place should aim to have "walkable streets" or other b.s. as precondition to its success.

When you have specialized business that are not meant to serve costumers on a daily and repeated basis, clustering them or not makes no noticeable difference once you assume they will not be located in the middle of housing blocks.

It took centuries for us to push filthy business that smell, make noise and expel toxic fumes out of our residential streets, and now we see some hardcore urban planners even saying that it is "detrimental for social consciousness that people are just able to send their trash hundreds of km away" instead of having to dealing with their own mess or that place of residence and work no longer bear a relation "weakening the sense that factories are more than merely employers". :bash: :ohno:
Funny thing is that these very people who can't stop whining about cookie-cutter suburbs are no less cookie-cutter themselves. For them every single city should follow the same formula

no cars and roads
cycles + subways + other gay-ass transportation systems
big green areas
a walkable rundown downtown with rapes, robberies and other crimes
a cluster of commieblocks
no houses
walkable neighborhoods

Yup, EVERY single city on earth should follow the same formula. Nope, nothing cookie-cutter about THAT!!!

u mad?

siamu maharaj:

:ohno:

Those "whining about cookie-cutter suburbs" probably want cities to be cities, not an awkward mix of urban and rural societies which one finds in "cookie-cutter suburbs", without having any of the benefits of urban nor rural life.

no cars and roads
Being able to transport oneself to the desired location easily is vital. This isn't to say that cars shouldn't be allowed in city centres (except for when streets are too narrow, etc.), but buses and other public transport should definitely be favoured by local governments because we'll then have fewer cars, thus less congestion and space for more buses, allowing for more people in the same vehicle. Thus, of course, traffic becomes smoother and the city becomes more enjoyable for everyone. In large cities, congestion charge and bus lanes (as in London) may be necessary in order to have anything resembling traffic flow.

cycles + subways + other gay-ass transportation systems
Such modes of transportation allow for much better traffic flow and shorter travel times compared to if "everyone" passed through the city in a car. The centres of some large cities literally wouldn't function because of hellish traffic caused by, potentially, millions of people commuting in a car. This would be especially true in cities with a lot of narrow streets, like, for example, London.

big green areas
Urban parks provide a perfect oppurtunity to relax, while still having easy access to work, entertainment, residential areas etc. I've grown up in a suburban area with no real parks but everyone has their own huge gardens. I often visit relatives living in the centre of a relatively large (nearly 1,4 million) European city, literally less than a 10 minute walk from the most central point of the city and, in the other direction, a large urban park. Personally (some people may disagree) I find urban parks to fill their position, so to speak, so much better than simply a private garden in suburbia.

a walkable rundown downtown with rapes, robberies and other crimes
People-friendly cities are walkable, yes. Of course, there's pretty much bound to be more "incidents" than in a quiet, residential, suburban cul-de-sac, but that's down to there simply being more people around.

a cluster of commieblocks
Paris (roughly inside the ring road) has a very high population density, 24,448 inhabitants per square kilometre (1999) according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris. Despite this, pretty much all of the buildings are low-rise, typically 4-6 stories, and city blocks often have communal gardens between the individual buildings (on the inside of the block). Very high density can be achieved with the "old-fashioned" European-style apartment buildings, such buildings are the norm for large(-ish) European cities.

no houses
As in "single-family, detached houses", you're right. Such buildings generally don't fit into cities. All cities probably have some suburban sprawl, though.

walkable neighborhoods
Yes! Cities need to be walkable in order to feel like cities.

^^ I particularly like subways and express/commute railways because they free more space on the streets for cars. So as long as people think it is awesome to travel touching butts' sides and smelling odors of fellow dwellers cramped as in 4 people sharing one single square meter of space, that is fine for me: cramp yourselves and free the road for me.

In regard of green areas, the debate is just endless. It is a matter of taste, and some times a matter of use.

If I had kids, I'd rather have a big private lawn where I can control, up to the point the kids are more grown up, who enters my house and who doesn't. It is far more difficult to control the life of kids if you have to take them to a park, where they can socialize with elements I'd rather keep outside the view and interaction with my children until they have some discernment about the dangers out there.

Small apartments also have the disadvantage of being not suitable to throw parties and receptions after you are past that college age in which people sit in your bed with a glass of beer. If you want to have a barbecue with friends, where can you do it if you live in a high-rise? Nowhere! At the best case, in the communal garden, where all neighbors can peek at you and your crowd.

^^ I particularly like subways and express/commute railways because they free more space on the streets for cars. So as long as people think it is awesome to travel touching butts' sides and smelling odors of fellow dwellers cramped as in 4 people sharing one single square meter of space, that is fine for me: cramp yourselves and free the road for me.

In regard of green areas, the debate is just endless. It is a matter of taste, and some times a matter of use.

If I had kids, I'd rather have a big private lawn where I can control, up to the point the kids are more grown up, who enters my house and who doesn't. It is far more difficult to control the life of kids if you have to take them to a park, where they can socialize with elements I'd rather keep outside the view and interaction with my children until they have some discernment about the dangers out there.

Small apartments also have the disadvantage of being not suitable to throw parties and receptions after you are past that college age in which people sit in your bed with a glass of beer. If you want to have a barbecue with friends, where can you do it if you live in a high-rise? Nowhere! At the best case, in the communal garden, where all neighbors can peek at you and your crowd.
I was talking about life in cities, i.e. not suburbs. In a nutshell, suburs are probably safer for young children, but often extremely boring for teenagers, with "everything" (i.e. "everything interesting") too far away. Instead of throwing a barbecue party, city dwellers would maybe go down to one of the local pubs with their friends, maybe making new friends once there.

Cramped underground trains etc. are a fact of life in many bigger cities, it becomes like that when a lot of people want to be in the same place. But not to worry, just around the corner there's often an urban park in which to relax.

But I can understand you, not everyone likes living in a city. I grew up in a suburb and hated it, in a few month I'll be moving to London and I can't wait finally living in a real city.

People are, fortunately, different from each other. :)

(Sorry for OT.)

Regulations and resident association imposed rules aside, it is perfectly possible to throw a barbeque party in the communal garden.

Regulations and resident association imposed rules aside, it is perfectly possible to throw a barbeque party in the communal garden.

Sure, but even if the party didn't involve cooking smell/fumes, it would be like a barbecue under Big Brother watch: your neighbors know there was a party and can monitor who comes and goes. It is like when you live in a student dorm and there is always a guy down the corridor that you know keep track of your visitors, particularly overnight visitors.

^^ Yeah, because your neighbours can't monitor your party in a suburb :|

Sure, but even if the party didn't involve cooking smell/fumes, it would be like a barbecue under Big Brother watch: your neighbors know there was a party and can monitor who comes and goes. It is like when you live in a student dorm and there is always a guy down the corridor that you know keep track of your visitors, particularly overnight visitors.

That's the funniest argument ever. I know both perspectives, rural/suburban life and urban life. You are much less watched and observed in an urban setting. I don't know where you have your myth from. Even a dorm is not nearly is big brother like as is Suburbia.

That's the funniest argument ever. I know both perspectives, rural/suburban life and urban life. You are much less watched and observed in an urban setting. I don't know where you have your myth from. Even a dorm is not nearly is big brother like as is Suburbia.

It's a matter of personal preferences only. I don't like physical proximity with strangers unless I'm in a social function like a concert, a party etc. I'd rather have the ability to go from the garage of my workplace to the garage of my house without having to say a word to any stranger. I don't see any benefit in having a lot of strange people scooping over my newspaper, evaluating my looks, asking for directions or time etc. I'd rather avoid such unwanted social contact, people distract me of my usually highly engaged state of mind when I'm driving or walking. Strange people (and wildlife for that matter) are annoying most of the time I guess lol, I'd rather contact cool people online than give small talk for a random folk sit by my side on a subway, except if the person is an intelligent, articualte and handsome lady, but such ladies are not to be found on subways.

=====================
Back to Dubai: I don't see how the clustering of business can affect, in any positive of negative way, the "connectivity" of the city. As long as you have many different clusters, and they are connected, it is pretty much irrelevant to have specialized hospitals, IT, pharmaceutical and financial companies all mixed with one another or clustered around each of its similar businesses.

I'd rather avoid such unwanted social contact, people distract me of my usually highly engaged state of mind when I'm driving or walking. Strange people (and wildlife for that matter) are annoying most of the time I guess lol


You get beat up a lot as a kid or something?


I'd rather contact cool people online than give small talk for a random folk sit by my side on a subway, except if the person is an intelligent, articualte and handsome lady, but such ladies are not to be found on subways.


Sounds like you need to get out a lot more :ohno:

It's a matter of personal preferences only. I don't like physical proximity with strangers unless I'm in a social function like a concert, a party etc. I'd rather have the ability to go from the garage of my workplace to the garage of my house without having to say a word to any stranger. I don't see any benefit in having a lot of strange people scooping over my newspaper, evaluating my looks, asking for directions or time etc. I'd rather avoid such unwanted social contact, people distract me of my usually highly engaged state of mind when I'm driving or walking. Strange people (and wildlife for that matter) are annoying most of the time I guess lol, I'd rather contact cool people online than give small talk for a random folk sit by my side on a subway, except if the person is an intelligent, articualte and handsome lady, but such ladies are not to be found on subways.

Wow, you really have issues. You don't have to do small talk with anyone on the subway. I don't know where you get your idea from that you don't find "intelligent, articulate and handsome ladies" there. At least in Vienna you can find almost anyone there. And if someone is asking you for directions, you really have to be an ass not help him out. I think that is a rewarding social activity. You don't have to become friends or get into small talk at all. Just help him out with directions. So what?

The funny thing is however that you said, you'd feel so controlled in an urban area when in reality, you are being much closer watched in a suburban setting, also possibly by neighbours you don't like or don't know that well.


=====================
Back to Dubai: I don't see how the clustering of business can affect, in any positive of negative way, the "connectivity" of the city. As long as you have many different clusters, and they are connected, it is pretty much irrelevant to have specialized hospitals, IT, pharmaceutical and financial companies all mixed with one another or clustered around each of its similar businesses.

I wonder why Brasilia is then considered such an unfriendly and harsh city.

^^As long as oil is cheap overthere is should be no problem...

hahahahahahahaha trudat!:lol:

Funny thing is that these very people who can't stop whining about cookie-cutter suburbs are no less cookie-cutter themselves. For them every single city should follow the same formula

no cars and roads
cycles + subways + other gay-ass transportation systems
big green areas
a walkable rundown downtown with rapes, robberies and other crimes
a cluster of commieblocks
no houses
walkable neighborhoods

Yup, EVERY single city on earth should follow the same formula. Nope, nothing cookie-cutter about THAT!!!
Do you enjoy being an idiot? Is that some kind of a hobby of yours?

You get beat up a lot as a kid or something?



Sounds like you need to get out a lot more :ohno:

Sounds like you need to stop being an annoying douchebag.

Do you enjoy being an idiot? Is that some kind of a hobby of yours?



Sounds like you need to stop being an annoying douchebag.
Thanks for the compliments.

As already mentioned, those zones were created to primary attract businesses under an free zone umbrella (100% foreign ownership, relaxed employment regulations and commitment to 50 years tax free, in case direct taxation does get introduced). Dubai is the hub of the entire MENA region and almost every corporation that operates in the region, has their HQ here.

Some of them established before the foreign leased/owned properties were allowed, don't have a residential elements, while others established later, do have them. You have to keep in mind that foreign ownership is allowed only on these areas who used to be barren desert before. In the "old" city you can't own anything.

Yes the commute is long, but I have lived in Vienna and there is long too, despite the city being overall very conservative in layout.

Because of the airport, not much could be build in the "old" city so they expanded sideways on empty quarters. That's why there seams to be emptiness besides the skyscrapers.

Yes the commute is long, but I have lived in Vienna and there is long too, despite the city being overall very conservative in layout.

What is a "long commute"? And how long are usual commuting times in Dubai?

Dubai is spread out along the coast for some 30 km. To give you an idea, the Metro Red Line in operation, runs for around 50 km.

Driving around for 20 - 30 km to go certain places isn't much of a problem, since it will mostly involve highway driving, that even during rush hours, isn't as bad as going to the old town (which in some parts is a terrible experience)

I drive 38 km to and from work, with 30 of them being on the highway. It takes me from 25 min with no traffic, to 1h 1.5h in heavy one, although nowdays it rarely goes above 1h. The Metro, new roads, changes in demographicsand where people live and work, etc.

Dubai is spread out along the coast for some 30 km. To give you an idea, the Metro Red Line in operation, runs for around 50 km.

Driving around for 20 - 30 km to go certain places isn't much of a problem, since it will mostly involve highway driving, that even during rush hours, isn't as bad as going to the old town (which in some parts is a terrible experience)

I drive 38 km to and from work, with 30 of them being on the highway. It takes me from 25 min with no traffic, to 1h 1.5h in heavy one, although nowdays it rarely goes above 1h. The Metro, new roads, changes in demographicsand where people live and work, etc.

The time is not so extreme, as you can have it in Vienna as well to need 1 hour if you are really going all across it. What I find more shocking is how much it can vary. Well, maybe that's the way it is if you have to rely in Vienna on your car as well I don't know. My commute distance is more than 10 times shorter than yours, I'll do it usually by bicycle (10 min, I know thats no option in Dubai) or PT (20 min, well its not really purely PT, as I walk half of the distance then, and include a short stop over in a bakery for getting my breakfast).

The schocking thing with Dubai is that it has so many ultra dense areas, with skyscrapers en masse and still such far distance commutes don't sound like they are anything special there, are they? Maybe the Metro system is going to change that a bit, I don't know.

The schocking thing with Dubai is that it has so many ultra dense areas, with skyscrapers en masse and still such far distance commutes don't sound like they are anything special there, are they? Maybe the Metro system is going to change that a bit, I don't know.

Please explain what you mean exactly so I'll try to answer.

This night satelite pic (courtesy of Wikipedia) perfectly shows the layout of the city. To put things into perspective, the Palm Jumeirah that you can clearly see on the picture extending out to sea, is 5 km accross.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/a/a5/20110316112521!City_of_Dubai_at_Night,_United_Arab_Emirates.jpg

Please explain what you mean exactly so I'll try to answer.

I was thinking about the Metro maybe being an incentive for people to move a bit closer to their working place, into areas of high density. Honestly I don't know Dubai well enough to judge that.

I don't see how the Metro can effect your decission to live closer to your work place. If your workplace is accessible by the Metro then the max is that you can move to an area also accessed by the Metro, otherwise there are other reasons why people live where they do. Affordability of the rents for the commoners, and prestige for the well off ones.

However pople try to live closer to their workplace if they can.

I can't afford to move closer to my work place. The rents would be 2 - 3 times more expensive, plus I would still have to drive 10 - 15 km to rich there.

At the moment both work and home are about 1.5 km from the nearest Metro Station, but when the Green Line opens in September, there will be a station just 300 - 400 meters away, that is perfectly fine to walk even in the summer, but I am not ditching my car.

I took the Metro a few weeks back. The train ride was 50 minutes, with 15 - 20 minutes of walking both to reach the station from work and reach home from the station. Way too long of a jorney and certanly not pleasant in mid 30s with high humidity. That's why I took a taxi to go to office (as usual when carless)

How long will it take to drive from the international airport to the Dubai Marina on the metro? Are we talking about an hour or so?

^^ 50 minutes I would say. Though, there are 2 metro stations each serving the starting and ending points of your journey.

I know you have to get down on the furthest of those 2 stations. And you'll board at the furthest away at the Airport as well if you're comming with Emirates, for any other Airlines you'll board on the closer one.