Planned cities [Archive] - SkyscraperCity

Monkey

May 18th, 2005, 10:18 AM

many cities in Israel were planned!

Ashdod (before 40 years)
http://www.lagour.co.il/data/files/05/01/26/0.370810001106763864.jpg
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/625/6878ashdod.jpg
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/2987/ashdod201xl.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/7876/ashdod176ny.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/2955/ashdod131ax.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/513/ashdod8fw.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/9639/ashdod16kf.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/2685/ashdod29hd.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/421/ashdod34xv.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/8715/ashdod46up.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/8540/ashdod62qp.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/9471/ashdod79lq.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/5393/ashdod80yj.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/2290/ashdod114ck.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/937/ashdod127me.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/4739/ashdod147zk.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/4770/ashdod151nu.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/7702/ashdod160ey.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/8638/ashdod182qd.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/5654/ashdod199om.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/3112/ashdod211te.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/4355/ashdod220dh.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/9083/ashdod233iu.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/7163/ashdod240xt.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/8642/ashdod257hf.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/1723/ashdod340ky.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/7001/166ka.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/9409/156sc.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Hostel in Ashdod
http://img180.echo.cx/img180/8100/145jh.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Modiyin(only 12 years old)
http://www.nbn.org.il/community/images/modiin.jpg
http://www.and.co.il/large/398.jpg
http://www.shlomit-averbuch.co.il/heb/images/ilanot/av-ilanot-large06.jpg
http://franco-modiin.org/Cercle%20francofone%20de%20modiin.data/pic/files/images%20de%20modiin/mcenter.jpg
http://franco-modiin.org/Cercle%20francofone%20de%20modiin.data/pic/files/images%20de%20modiin/BOSTON10.JPG

Küsel

May 18th, 2005, 10:32 AM

Others:

Goiania
http://www.xxvisngb.tmp.br/xxvisngb/imagens/goiania.jpg

Belo Horizonte
http://www.solartours.com/shareweb/maps/Brazil/Belo%20Horizonte-Ouro%20Preto%20Map.gif

Canberra
http://www.froggyswebs.com/Inter_Travel/InterPhotos/Canberra.jpg

La Chaux-de-Fonds
http://www.kultur-schweiz.admin.ch/denkmal/image/unesco/m_la_chaux_de_fonds.jpg

wickedestcity

May 18th, 2005, 11:17 AM

heres a better one of Nahalal, isreal:

http://www.israelimages.com/medium/hi04-057.jpg

http://www.israelimages.com/medium/hi04-055.jpg

Küsel

May 18th, 2005, 11:25 AM

Sun City, Phoenix:
http://www.educnet.education.fr/obter/appliped/phoenix/theme/images/phoenix3.gif

I think it was planned as a neighbourhood for retired people.

PrimaVera

May 18th, 2005, 01:17 PM

the city of Modiin Israel

planned by Arc. Moshe Safdie ,first housing started in 1996.
the city today has some 60,000 people. in 15 years from now the city will grow up to 250,000 people.
Sited on a treeless, hilly terrain of rocky escarpments and fertile valleys, the new city of Modi'in, located between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, is planned for a population of 250,000. The topography consists of a series of valleys running east to west towards the sea converging at the site's center. The Modi'in master plan proposes a continuous network of urban roads and community services within the valleys culminating in the town center, where the valleys join the principal north/south highway. Each valley, planted with a different type of tree, becomes a winding spine of the city, devoted to parks and playgrounds, neighborhood shopping areas, schools, synagogues, clinics, and other facilities. Four-story apartments and terraced housing follow the natural topography up the hillside, with high-rise structures on the hilltops acting as landmarks with views of the Mediterranean and the coastal plain. The entire city, with the exception of schools and community services, is being constructed by the private sector.

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/9480/modiin15kh.jpg

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/2497/modiin1ar.jpg

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/9140/31320052004294170kq.jpg

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/2762/31327022004392955da.jpg

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/1779/313gallery443318lb.jpg

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/3613/centralpic27ia.jpgmain CBD

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/186/modiin29cn.jpg

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/6326/modiin32ds.jpg

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/7488/modiin42dc.jpg

http://img284.echo.cx/img284/4527/m6g9zf.jpg

Küsel

May 18th, 2005, 01:22 PM

That's impressive!! Looks like an Alphaville (and maybe is kind of... no, don't beat me up! :))

worldwide

May 18th, 2005, 09:06 PM

thanks everyone, those are all great pictures, i especially like sun city, even though its sprawly as hell, it looks so distinct, i would love to fly over it

rocky

May 18th, 2005, 09:27 PM

i live in a planned city of approx 280 000 people, with approx 200.000 new people

samsonyuen

May 18th, 2005, 11:20 PM

How many people live in Sun City? It looks crazy!

Azn_chi_boi

May 18th, 2005, 11:27 PM

about 40,000 a suburb of Phoniex,

here is a map of it, http://www.maps-n-stats.com/maps/us_az_sun_city_tc.gif

Skybean

May 18th, 2005, 11:53 PM

Toronto 1894
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/toronto_1894.jpg

Early 1900s
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/archives/photographs/f1244/images/00495.jpg
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/archives/photographs/f1244/images/00524.jpg
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/archives/photographs/f1244/images/01006.jpg
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/archives/photographs/f1244/images/00489.jpg
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/archives/photographs/f1244/images/00491.jpg
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/archives/photographs/f1244/images/00589.jpg
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/archives/photographs/f1244/images/00601.jpg
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/archives/photographs/f1244/images/00605.jpg

Architorture

May 19th, 2005, 12:11 AM

i've always been struck by brazilia... of course considering some of the social aspects of it kind of exposes the problems that many planned cities develop

mzn

May 19th, 2005, 12:24 AM

LA PLATA, ARGENTINA

It was designed to be the capital of Buenos Aires Province

http://www.laplata.gov.ar/turismo/img/aerea.jpg

http://img204.echo.cx/img204/4449/5214laplataaerea8uq.jpg

http://img45.echo.cx/img45/47/teatroargnuevolp2up.jpg

http://www.ing.unlp.edu.ar/sepcyt/laplata/planolp.jpg

http://img28.echo.cx/img28/4852/1catedral6tv.jpg

http://img224.echo.cx/img224/6062/interior03py.jpg

http://img97.echo.cx/img97/7508/plazamorenomunicipalidad6tr.jpg

http://img229.echo.cx/img229/6619/noctlp4tk.jpg

http://img46.echo.cx/img46/5520/museolp5eo.jpg

http://img46.echo.cx/img46/684/pasdardorochalp7zs.jpg

http://img45.echo.cx/img45/3848/09laplata5uo.jpg

http://img202.echo.cx/img202/5945/museocienciaslp3wq.jpg

Küsel

May 19th, 2005, 12:35 AM

Brasilia went in fact through some boring and dead times. Who of all these congress people, ministers and authority workers wanted to move from the pulsing Rio to the Planalto? But since the 80s the town changed. It started growing and a nice culture and subculture scene established itself (not only Legiao Urbana :))

samsonyuen

May 19th, 2005, 10:21 AM

Wow, La Plata's gorgeous! Did it ever become the capital of BA province?

SHiRO

May 20th, 2005, 02:58 AM

Almere, 160,000, suburb/satellite city of Amsterdam
http://members.chello.nl/dprinssen/Lotus/img/almere.jpg

urbane

May 20th, 2005, 08:46 PM

Palmanova in Italy:

http://img36.echo.cx/img36/5066/palmanova3cc.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://img36.echo.cx/img36/7414/palmanova22lz.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

http://profs.sci.univr.it/~fusiello/palmanova/Palmanova.html

samsonyuen

May 20th, 2005, 09:10 PM

It's interesting how many/most of thesse planned cities are in concentric circle patterns.

Petronius

May 21st, 2005, 03:57 AM

the centre of Lisbon was completely planned after the terrible , disastrous earthquake that destroyed more than half of the city in 1755.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/baixapombalina/titulobaixapombalina.jpg

http://home.fa.utl.pt/~camarinhas/Baixa2.JPG

Petronius

May 21st, 2005, 04:15 AM

there is also a small village in Portugal called "aldeia da Luz, that has been submerged with the construction of an enormous dam.. the tgovernment made an exact replica of this medieval city.. :runaway: ten KMs away from where the old village used to stand... here go some photos:

the old:

http://seculo.com.sapo.pt/aldeialuz/2.jpg

the new:

http://www.idrha.min-agricultura.pt/emparcelamento/aldeia_luz/images/nova_aldeia.jpg

the old town(submerged):

http://www.pixagogo.com/S5HZAS91Ln3enEhL3y-P45P8ryzI8tudhNK5Rl3sqqmP0bidM8cxsT5G!DlLV7EyhgGc5-0Ip0vYsdm8rBXPep9ZZ2KYVq-1LP6HJrjrCMBIw_/aldeia1.jpg

the new town:

http://www.pixagogo.com/S5HZAS91Ln3ekz!JV6yyz1B!7fQ9vaxG!I5JgFWk7N!2P1lNtLG7ErI!IF4pFvvEJTrAKPfIciIBzF1EHEOeVpAQ46ChNekq6wYKT3C7pHv1g_/aldeia2.jpg

more at:

http://www.dec.estt.ipt.pt/trabalhos/20023353/aldeia_da_luz.htm

samsonyuen

May 21st, 2005, 09:52 AM

^That's cool!

Küsel

May 21st, 2005, 11:24 AM

That's a shame! Exact replica? I prefered the medieval town, it is natural, the other one looks more like an Alphaville with "antique touch" Las Vegas style :lol:

Petronius

May 21st, 2005, 02:36 PM

^^ yes I also don't know what to think of this. I find it cool in a way but also a bit weird

pakboy

May 21st, 2005, 11:17 PM

ISLAMABAD, capital of pakistan was planned, it was planned as a triangle.

2 more cities in pakistan have just been planned and will turn into big cities in the coming years GWADAR (to be made on the lines of dubai, masterplan is allready out) and LAKE VIEW CITY to be made in the outskirts of lahore.

how comes no ones mentioned putrajaya, nice new modern city,

worldwide

May 23rd, 2005, 09:05 AM

i saw in the National Post (a canadian newspaper, not that i would buy it, or buy in to its right wing politics) that there was a town in the mountains in British Columbia, canada, which was built but did not suceed as a town and was completely abandoned. i believe someone invested alot of money to fix the place up and re-market it, possibly as a resort or vacation town. i dont remember its name, but there was a large overhead photo of it, it was quite interesting to see

rocky

May 23rd, 2005, 12:44 PM

marne la vallée my city

this only shows the last sector, not fully developped yet . couldnt find pics of the other sectors

1
http://francefromtheair.free.fr/photos/highdef/2149.jpg
2
http://francefromtheair.free.fr/photos/highdef/1945.jpg
3
http://francefromtheair.free.fr/photos/highdef/447.jpg
4
http://francefromtheair.free.fr/photos/highdef/1430.jpg

Bombay Boy

May 23rd, 2005, 05:54 PM

largest planned city in the world - new bombay (navi mumbai). across the harbour from bombay, on the mainland

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) was specially set up by the Government of Maharashtra as its fully owned company to plan and develop the new metro centre i.e. Navi Mumbai across the Mumbai harbour over a sprawling area of about 344 sq.kms.

CIDCO's Navi Mumbai project, conceived more than 20 years ago, is indeed the largest new city project ever undertaken in the world. A strategically located, environment friendly alternative to the severely congested metropolis of Mumbai, it is a totally new 344 sq. km. fully planned modern metropolis, with an infrastructure designed to cope with the growing needs of life and commerce in the 21st century.

With Rs 40,000 million (US $ 1140 million) worth of basic infrastructure already in place, Navi Mumbai is ready, willing and able to absorb the imminent, large scale shift of population, business, commerce and non pollutant industry from Mumbai and elsewhere.

Poised to become the most sought after address for corporate India, Navi Mumbai is well balanced and beautifully landscaped, and has been conceived as 14 self-contained nodal settlements with the Central Business District (CBD) at the heart of the metropolis. It has been planned so as to avoid all the problems of urban congestion, nearly half of the total township area has been reserved for green spaces, making Navi Mumbai one of the greenest and healthiest places to live in the world.

Navi Mumbai: Salient Features

- largest fully planned new city in the world
- total area: 344 sq. kms.
- an efficient integrated transport system covering all modes of transports

an old thread

http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=126639&page=2&pp=20

SCL

May 23rd, 2005, 09:14 PM

Washington DC anyone??? Thanks L'Enfant!

mzn

May 23rd, 2005, 10:06 PM

Wow, La Plata's gorgeous! Did it ever become the capital of BA province?

Yes, it's been the capital of Buenos Aires Province for more than a century now!

BA used to be the capital of the province, until it became a federal district, separated from the province

http://www.dorto.com.ar/images/mapabsas.gif

resu eman

June 5th, 2008, 11:34 PM

What a gigantic joke!!!!! Planned????????????How?????????
Are all these cities, or any of them(to start with):
..Without any kind of rushhour jams TODAY??? Environmently ill jams where people does not only waste a lot of valuable time, but also waste a lot of very expensive fuel.
..BASED ON ONLY one, SINCES THEY SEEMINGLY ARE SO WELL PLANED, public transport system in them? Either only buses, trams or metro???
... PLUS THAT ONE SINGEL SYSTEM IS BOTH CHEAP AND COVER ALL PARTS OG THE CITIES, COMPLETY????
It is very far between drawing some IDEALISTIC lines and solving some big city problems.
Just to mention a few problems these cities would have been without if they were professionally planed.

timmy- brissy

June 7th, 2008, 01:27 AM

Canberra capital of Australia.

http://www.delsjourney.com/images/close-ups/oz/Map_of_Canberra_2.jpg

Washington DC capital of USA

http://www.dcpages.com/Tourism/Maps/Washington-DC-Map.gif

resu eman

June 7th, 2008, 01:47 AM

aaronaugi1

June 7th, 2008, 02:02 AM

Pardon?? Are these 2 cities answer to my questions? They are so well planed that they do not have any trafic jams? Please explain.
BTW also the capital city of Pakistan was (ill)planed. If that matters.

Canberra has no traffic jams. I think you are going over the top in setting criteria for what is planned and what isn't.

resu eman

June 7th, 2008, 02:17 AM

Canberra has no traffic jams. I think you are going over the top in setting criteria for what is planned and what isn't.

.............
Good for Canberra, But then:
..Canberra can hardly be called a city. May be a town?
..trafic jams would have been very strange in any citirs in a land rich country like Australia.
What i am saying is: it is wrong to say planed cities. Because most of them are totaly ill-planed.
The correct term would have been: cities build on virgin land. Relatively very new cities.

aaronaugi1

June 7th, 2008, 02:48 AM

.............
Good for Canberra, But then:
..Canberra can hardly be called a city. May be a town?
..trafic jams would have been very strange in any citirs in a land rich country like Australia.
What i am saying is: it is wrong to say planed cities. Because most of them are totaly ill-planed.
The correct term would have been: cities build on virgin land. Relatively very new cities.

Canberra's population is 334,000 and is the capital of Australia. You cannot call it a town. It is clearly a city, though does however, have low desnity.

For starters, over 75% of Australia's land mass is arid (extremely hard to live in). As for you comment of "no traffic jams in land rich countries"; building infrastructure for sprawling cities in expensive and for that reason Australia (like the US) try to "contain" their cities while still building low density dwellings. Could you imagine the cost of building 100km freeways and passener railways in cities!

Also, you have refered to age of cities (virgin cities). A cities age does not determine how "planned" it is. If i were to go build a completely planned city tomorrow would you not consider it planned?

resu eman

June 7th, 2008, 05:28 AM

Canberra's population is 334,000
---i did know that
and is the capital of Australia.
...that i did know
You cannot call it a town. It is clearly a city, though does however, have low desnity.
..IN TODAY`S world it is a town becoming ciry.

For starters, over 75% of Australia's land mass is arid (extremely hard to live in). As for you comment of "no traffic jams in land rich countries"; building infrastructure for sprawling cities in expensive
.....it depend om how well planed one build
and for that reason Australia (like the US) try to "contain" their cities while still building low density dwellings. Could you imagine the cost of building 100km freeways and passener railways in cities!
...less space or a lot of space. ciries should be built witk relatively high density. We must think of generations after us. We can behave like we are the last one this planet.

Also, you have refered to age of cities (virgin cities). A cities age does not determine how "planned" it is.
...i was only saying that planed cities are a relatively new fenomna.
If i were to go build a completely planned city tomorrow would you not consider it planned?
...of course. but that is also my point. the planed cities are very bad planed. they should have FOR FUTURE NOT ONLY FOR THE TIME THEY WERE BUILT.

so canberra have only bus service as punliv transport system?

Manila-X

June 7th, 2008, 06:45 AM

Alot of the new capital cities are well planned such as Canberra as posted above and Brasilla

Jardoga

June 7th, 2008, 07:39 AM

I know Canberra was a planned city

c0kelitr0

June 7th, 2008, 10:31 AM

Daniel Burnham made a plan for Manila (same as he did Chicago's, Cleveland's and San Francisco's). Sadly, only a small part of the plan was ever implemented.

Here's the link to the original plan:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/esambale/1927412897/sizes/l/

raggedy13

June 7th, 2008, 11:36 AM

Quite a lot of North American cities were planned from the beginning to some degree. Generally speaking I'm referring to the grid street system. Cities, like Vancouver, had their street system planned out well in advance of actual development. The development parcels were all set out before most of anything was built. In Vancouver's case it was the CPR (Canadian Pacific Railway) that really planned out the early city. Up until then it was just a pub and some sawmills.

MARACUCHisimo

June 7th, 2008, 06:57 PM

Puerto Ordaz, BO - Venezuela
The first planned city of the country; founded in 1952, it has around 900.000 people. It is located in Bolivar State near the amazon jungle. Puerto Ordaz and San Felix conform Guayana City wich is the 6th largest city of Venezuela, both areas are separated by the Caroni River. Puerto Ordaz is headquarters of basic industries such as Alcasa, Venalum, Bauxilum, Carbonorca (producers of primary aluminum, coils anodes for the aluminum industry, respectively), Ferrominera (extracts, processes and trades of iron), and Ternium Sidor (iron industry of Orinoco). There are also located in this area of the city the main electricity producer of Venezuela, Edelca and the organization to promote economic activity in the area, the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana, CVG

http://img418.imageshack.us/img418/9692/puertoordaz3lh.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/5158/puertoordaz0fi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9582/pzo1fg8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/5104/pzo2fq4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/8809/pzo3ym3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/8403/pzo4qs4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/5109/pzo5cp2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

wonwiin

June 8th, 2008, 12:05 AM

...of course. but that is also my point. the planed cities are very bad planed. they should have FOR FUTURE NOT ONLY FOR THE TIME THEY WERE BUILT.

so canberra have only bus service as punliv transport system?

Transportation is only one reason to plan a city. Until the 20th century a minor one for sure. Other reasons could be ceremonial, defensive, idealistic ...

Or maybe they all have planned for the future when we teleport from place to place!

Beam me up, Scotty!

lindow

June 8th, 2008, 08:35 AM

In Japan, Kyoto and Nara of the historic city are the most famous.

In the modern city, Tokyo's Denenchoufu, Seijo, and Tokiwadai are famous.
Ashiya of Hyogo is famous, too.

resu eman

June 9th, 2008, 01:55 AM

Transportation is only one reason to plan a city. Until the 20th century a minor one for sure. Other reasons could be ceremonial, defensive, idealistic ...

Or maybe they all have planned for the future when we teleport from place to place!

Beam me up, Scotty!

It amaze me a lot to read your reasons for planing cities. And those are the very reasons why kumanity is in so mant problems. From different kind of pollutions to food cricis. ++++++
I am sure you or anybody else here would not be able to find why almost every city on this planet has problems. When do not know the problems how will solve them?

aaronaugi1

June 9th, 2008, 02:32 AM

resu eman, i think the reason you fail to understand why Canberra is a planned city is becuase you dont understand Australian culture. We are a country with values for low density living. As for Canberra, it is an administrative city. There is no need for major public transport, density etc. If i'm correct 70% of people in Canberra work for the government in one way or another. As the needs of the government grow, Canberra will grow. It will never experience massive population growth.

I seriously doubt how you seem to think cities like Canberra AREN'T planned.

el casanovas

June 9th, 2008, 02:44 AM

Catalonia has had planned districts since the XVIIth century (Barceloneta) and the famed Eixample (XIXth century), and I'd say they're extremely well planned (although Barceloneta has had its problems since in the early XXth century its population density skyrocketed, with single-family buildings being replaced by buildings 3, 4, 5 and even 6 storeys high, and each of the flats being cut up into 25 m^2 microflats where a whole family had to live in. My grandfather was from Barceloneta -- and he had 7 brothers. Nowadays it's a nice place to live in if you don't mind really really really old buildings and live alone... it's kind of expensive, though, and there's too many tourists so in some ways it's not really an interesting place to live in. Although in some ways it is. If you care about Catalonia and the city. And if you can stand living in the most degraded district.) Parts of Sants and Gràcia (also in Barcelona) were also planned to some degree by Antoni Rovira i Tries, back in the XIXth century... I think he also had a hand in developing old Poblenou.

However, the Franco age brought along some of the worst planning ever made... this includes the planned town of Ciutat Badia, whose only purpose seemingly was being shaped like a map of Spain so as to upset us Catalans... otherwise it's an urban disaster of the first degree... same for Gramenet, St. Adrià, South Badalona, most of Nou Barris, most of L'Hospitalet de Llobregat... these satellite towns have only recently been turned into decent places to live in and in some ways they're still lacking :ohno:

Another nice planned neighbourhood: the Antigone District in Montpellier (back when Ricard Bofill's brain hadn't got stale yet...)

So, resu eman: city planning has many sides. Some planned cities are well planned, some aren't... some really aren't planned at all. But planning is not an "evil we must fight against" :P

wonwiin

June 9th, 2008, 06:59 PM

It amaze me a lot to read your reasons for planing cities. And those are the very reasons why kumanity is in so mant problems. From different kind of pollutions to food cricis. ++++++
I am sure you or anybody else here would not be able to find why almost every city on this planet has problems. When do not know the problems how will solve them?

Resu Eman,

the main failure in your argumentation is, that you think, planners from the past should have foreseen the problems of today, their future.

But cities were planned to solve the problems of their time. Washington for example is a perfect solution for the problem it had to solve. It is a representative seat of power. Cars were not existant in that time, so why should the planners have searched for the solution of a nonexistant problem.

It is always easy from the present to criticise the past for not seeing the solution to a problem. But you do not have the perfect solution for todays problems, do you?

And also:

42!

resu eman

June 9th, 2008, 08:26 PM

Resu Eman,

the main failure in your argumentation is, that you think, planners from the past should have foreseen the problems of today, their future.

But cities were planned to solve the problems of their time. Washington for example is a perfect solution for the problem it had to solve. It is a representative seat of power. Cars were not existant in that time, so why should the planners have searched for the solution of a nonexistant problem.

It is always easy from the present to criticise the past for not seeing the solution to a problem. But you do not have the perfect solution for todays problems, do you?

And also:

42!

I love this debate now because i have managed to have it where i wnated it. You pointed all the points i wanted to say. The main pont is, as you said very correctly(and i have known for many years), that city planers in those days planed for their time. They did not know problems coming later.
But hey man, those where old days.....
Still have we learnt anything FROM THEIR BLUNDERS?
Despite tremendous progress in every field otherwise, have mankind done any progress in city building or planing cities?
Of course not!
BTW what is the biggest failure, you think, those sity planers made and city planers TODAY are making? When you come up with that we can discuss more...

Kwame

June 10th, 2008, 02:11 AM

Abuja, Nigeria

http://www4.zoto.com/dunxd/img/51/cacb957cf7e63fa0c06382d6e78a4016.jpg

http://www.iata.org/NR/ContentConnector/CS2000/Siteinterface/sites/ps/file/abuja_nigeria.jpg

http://www.nigerianmuse.com/images/Abuja_map_large.jpg

el casanovas

June 10th, 2008, 06:13 AM

I love this debate now because i have managed to have it where i wnated it. You pointed all the points i wanted to say. The main pont is, as you said very correctly(and i have known for many years), that city planers in those days planed for their time. They did not know problems coming later.
But hey man, those where old days.....
Still have we learnt anything FROM THEIR BLUNDERS?
Despite tremendous progress in every field otherwise, have mankind done any progress in city building or planing cities?
Of course not!
BTW what is the biggest failure, you think, those sity planers made and city planers TODAY are making? When you come up with that we can discuss more...

Yes, we have learnt something. Also you should realise most of what is known as "new towns" nowadays was built (a) as an emergency measure and (b) in a time where pretty much everyone with creative power was experimenting with rebuilding the world after WW2 and taking advantage of the new economic, social, cultural and technological possibilities that had risen during the 40s, 50s and 60s.

Also there's a good percentage of supposed "planned cities" that are just attempts to get lots of money out of cheaply built, shoddy houses.

But that doesn't mean anything. Japan is one huge "planned town" and as far as I know it's not really bad as far as urbanism goes. Lots of European cities and towns underwent "expansion" plans during and after the Industrial Revolution which effectively turned them into "planned towns", and they're still magnificent. This includes big names such as Barcelona and Paris.

wonwiin

June 10th, 2008, 03:41 PM

Despite tremendous progress in every field otherwise, have mankind done any progress in city building or planing cities?
Of course not!
BTW what is the biggest failure, you think, those sity planers made and city planers TODAY are making? When you come up with that we can discuss more...

Well, I would say there was and is great progress in city building and planing.

- the canalisation
- public transport
- pavement

are great achievements. Or would you like to wade through your own garbage nowadays?

Many european cities are great to live in. Lots of green spaces, public transport and no need for a car. The failures of car centric planing in the 60s and 70s are being removed. Today they try to integrate living and working in the same place to reduce commuting times.

Would you please elaborate on todays planing failures? Sure there are made some, but I do not find them significant. And you can always change them.

resu eman

June 10th, 2008, 11:00 PM

Well, I would say there was and is great progress in city building and planing.
....I am not sure that is the fact. Fact is most of the solutions are only for the time they were biult for AND the specific and singel problem to be solved. Becuse of bad planed and still planing huge amounts of public money, (which surely could have been used on many other pressing\needy tasks?), are used WORLD WIDE on cometics improvments. Of course this kind of "improvments" creates a lot of jobs every 20-30 or 40 years. reSON FOR THAT IS the repeating of the jobs,But if one study things closer one will find out that despite all these used money problems are only moved from one place to an other.
I am here talking about improvements kind of "the Big Digg" in Boston for exeample(hope somebody has the link, i do not). Every city in the world has their own Big Diggs. Often not only one , but many more.

- the canalisation
- public transport
- pavement

are great achievements. Or would you like to wade through your own garbage nowadays?
----- If even that was NOT done, then what would have been the mening of all progresses?

Many european cities are great to live in. Lots of green spaces, public transport and no need for a car. The failures of car centric planing in the 60s and 70s are being removed. Today they try to integrate living and working in the same place to reduce commuting times.

Would you please elaborate on todays planing failures? Sure there are made some, but I do not find them significant. And you can always change them.
.........The biggest singel, among many others, failure is, and has always been(thought you knew that?): Even today city builders\planers do not see that cities will grow. They do not plan for the growr of the city. Planing is, after all much less costly, then building citiies.
When city planers realise cities will grow their planes would be much better.

Alphaville

June 10th, 2008, 11:07 PM

.........The biggest singel, among many others, failure is, and has always been(thought you knew that?): Even today city builders\planers do not see that cities will grow. They do not plan for the growr of the city. Planing is, after all much less costly, then building citiies.
When city planers realise cities will grow their planes would be much better.

Are you claiming all city planners do not consider that cities will grow ?

Sorry, but you make little sense or logic to me.

resu eman

June 10th, 2008, 11:41 PM

Are you claiming all city planners do not consider that cities will grow ?
.............Namely. For start you do not need to go very far. You just lay back and can see this link( ONLY\JUST one of the bad planed city problems. There are many many more) :
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=622501
You can not say we are here talking about old problems? Or this is only relevant for one city? Or only cities in poor nations facing this?
Seen from world perpective, how much very expensive fuel and costlytime do you think is wasted here every year? This must be kind of the biggest and regularly practising relgion world wide? Do jews, christians or muslims use more time praying?
Is IT not directly related to bad planning when it is imposible to solve the problems OR IT COSTS TOO MUCH TO DO SO? Will we be giving people real choice when we take from them cars and force them to use BAD, costly and\or time wasting PUBLIC transport for moving from A to B or C?

Sorry, but you make little sense or logic to me.
-----No no no. It is not me. I see the problems. But the problem is 90% of people, like you are, so used to problems that you think:
..there are no other solutions to all the mess.
--things have to be like that, becuse they have always been like that.

wonwiin

June 11th, 2008, 12:30 AM

-----No no no. It is not me. I see the problems. But the problem is 90% of people, like you are, so used to problems that you think:
..there are no other solutions to all the mess.
--things have to be like that, becuse they have always been like that.

The problem lies not with city planners, more with politics, money and lobbies. Planners are not a very powerful group.

For example Marseille has sufficient water because of the construction of a channel system in the 80s. Barcelona has to import water by tankers because the administration didn't want to invest money into the supply of water (particular a channel from the Ebro to Barcelona). The planing was there, the political will not.

Many cities plan for the future, e.g. canalisation with higher capacity than necessary now, building metro stations for future lines now.

But of course third world cities will struggle to finance future needs when they even cannot solve todays problems. Planing costs money. Such cities are only reacting to much higher populations, traffic and so on.

Another problem is time. Most infrastructure projects need several decades to be planed and built. But change can be rapid. Dublin for example has one of the worst public transport systems in Europe. The infrastructure could not keep up with the fast economic growth of Ireland the last decades. And Europe and Ireland are pumbing lots of money into the infrastructure. Only now the situation starts to get better.

So planing needs to be successful:
- political will
- money
- time

I am sure there are other factors I forgot.

And would you please list the problems you see and we do not?

Alphaville

June 11th, 2008, 12:45 AM

-----No no no. It is not me. I see the problems. But the problem is 90% of people, like you are, so used to problems that you think:
..there are no other solutions to all the mess.
--things have to be like that, becuse they have always been like that.

Do not assume my beliefs and thoughts in regards to good planning. I find your tone to be extremely condescending.

This is a thread relating to the Planned (for better or worse) City Movement. You seem to have alot of trouble understanding the definition of that.

If you wish to discuss movement and integration of cities then start your own thread.

resu eman

June 11th, 2008, 12:48 AM

The problem lies not with city planners, more with politics, money and lobbies. Planners are not a very powerful group.

For example Marseille has sufficient water because of the construction of a channel system in the 80s. Barcelona has to import water by tankers because the administration didn't want to invest money into the supply of water (particular a channel from the Ebro to Barcelona). The planing was there, the political will not.

Many cities plan for the future, e.g. canalisation with higher capacity than necessary now, building metro stations for future lines now.

But of course third world cities will struggle to finance future needs when they even cannot solve todays problems. Planing costs money. Such cities are only reacting to much higher populations, traffic and so on.

Another problem is time. Most infrastructure projects need several decades to be planed and built. But change can be rapid. Dublin for example has one of the worst public transport systems in Europe. The infrastructure could not keep up with the fast economic growth of Ireland the last decades. And Europe and Ireland are pumbing lots of money into the infrastructure. Only now the situation starts to get better.

So planing needs to be successful:
- political will
- money
- time

I am sure there are other factors I forgot.

And would you please list the problems you see and we do not?
.............................................................
First of all i am very glad that you at least see\realize that there are some serious problems. Intially you were very kind of "arrogant". You and others did not want to admit the extitens of the problems. Better late than never........

=Of course poltical will is very important. But this political will be earsier to get if the planing is good. The lack of good city planing is direclty linked to lack of will. Even the dumbest poltican do not want to waste more money than they must. And most of the plans are nothing but wasting of piles of money. Be it Big Diggs or tunnels or flyovers or widening of the roads or building of new metro systems.

=One of the most importnat sign of good city planing is saving A LOT MONEY.bOTH SHORTLY and on long terms. This rules is totaly out of question today. Very sadly.

=Time is something we just have use. The funny things regatding time is that time is not waiting. It is running. With or without plans. So why not make time our ally?

resu eman

June 11th, 2008, 12:56 AM

Do not assume my beliefs and thoughts in regards to good planning. I find your tone to be extremely condescending.

This is a thread relating to the Planned (for better or worse) City Movement. You seem to have alot of trouble understanding the definition of that.

If you wish to discuss movement and integration of cities then start your own thread.
..................
Why shall we makr 1000s of treads? I THINK this movement of your is totaly on wrong track. These are some extremly serious problems humanity is facing. My task is to ceate some awarness about the issue. Making you a bit angry proves that i am doing a job here. I ANSWERED YOUR 2 LINERS WITH long reply and you not reply my arguments?
May be you shall just let some people who have the knowledge discuss further? And learn a lot by that?

Alphaville

June 11th, 2008, 12:58 AM

Alphaville

June 11th, 2008, 01:03 AM

I ANSWERED YOUR 2 LINERS WITH long reply and you not reply my arguments?
May be you shall just let some people who have the knowledge discuss further? And learn a lot by that?

Because your arguements are militant and dismissive of others opinions.

In addition to this, after looking back over the thread-- I cannot see anything you have said that is constructive (as in-- what we CAN do)... all you have posted is "Planed cities are badly planned".

I think we are mostly aware of this, but you need to remember that they were invisioned out of political movement and different ideals. Nobody ever said it was a successful notion.

wonwiin

June 11th, 2008, 01:05 AM

.............................................................
First of all i am very glad that you at least see\realize that there are some serious problems. Intially you were very kind of "arrogant". You and others did not want to admit the extitens of the problems. Better late than never........

I have to say it is arrogant of you to presume our ignorance ;). The problems (you still have not stated) just had nothing to do with the initial topic: Planned cities. The topic was about examples of planned cities. The problems you "not" talked about are universal to every city and are not specific to planned cities. Planned cities on the other hand have to be seen in the context of their time and intentions.

And I am still waiting on the problems you so love to talk about but never mention.

resu eman

June 11th, 2008, 01:09 AM

Before you go labelling others as arrogant for not sharing your point-of-view (is that not arrogance, itself?), you are failing to realise that this in an inappropriate thread to be debating this.
................
My dear friend, firstly i do not want everybody to share my point of view. I only want to show how people are not aware of big problems, because they do not see them. I back my facts by proves\links.
Problems arise when do not want to discuss with me the case, but start discussing my technics.
Mostly they do not like their argument is no more valid.

resu eman

June 11th, 2008, 01:24 AM

I have to say it is arrogant of you to presume our ignorance ;). The problems (you still have not stated) just had nothing to do with the initial topic: Planned cities. The topic was about examples of planned cities. The problems you "not" talked about are universal to every city and are not specific to planned cities. Planned cities on the other hand have to be seen in the context of their time and intentions.

And I am still waiting on the problems you so love to talk about but never mention.
..............................
How wrong can it be said?
"Planned cities on the other hand have to be seen in the context of their time and intentions".
That is exactly what they are not living up to. It is just like the international spase station. What were the intentions of it? But if there is always something wrong with it, how can these orignal intention be acheieved as easy as they were planed to do so?
If these cities were planed for solving I OR 2 specific problems, but create 10 oe 20 more, are they then good planed?
There are 1000s of problems based on bad city planing. It is difficult to mention all of them here. I proved the bad planed trafic systems, did i not?. But there are environment and expensice housing and of course wasting public money problems. These problems have many "under" problems.
For exanmple expensive houses in one area of the city, expensive land, imposible to build houses in bigger scale and thereby more rational and cheaper for the common man.
etc etc....

resu eman

June 11th, 2008, 01:31 AM

Because your arguements are militant and dismissive of others opinions.
..........
This eglish is not my mother language, therefore i can not select i lot of words.

In addition to this, after looking back over the thread-- I cannot see anything you have said that is constructive (as in-- what we CAN do)... all you have posted is "Planed cities are badly planned".
..................
Of course i know what we can do. That is the basic. IF I DID NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO HOW COULD I SEE THE PROBLEMS??????????

I think we are mostly aware of this, but you need to remember that they were invisioned out of political movement and different ideals. Nobody ever said it was a successful notion.
..................................
NOW YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS. And hopefully more people will be.... Then the movement will be on the RIGHT PATH. Then there will be hope for humanity.

Alphaville

June 11th, 2008, 02:14 AM

..................................
NOW YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS. And hopefully more people will be.... Then the movement will be on the RIGHT PATH. Then there will be hope for humanity.

'now' I am aware of this?? Again, you are extremely arrogant to think I have only just become aware of this as a result of your incoherant ranting.

You are extremely deluded if you think you can bring about change by writing in Caps Lock on a message board-- or that it will bring hope for humanity.

el casanovas

June 11th, 2008, 05:30 AM

For example Marseille has sufficient water because of the construction of a channel system in the 80s. Barcelona has to import water by tankers because the administration didn't want to invest money into the supply of water (particular a channel from the Ebro to Barcelona). The planing was there, the political will not.

Wait, this is not a good example. Politicians DID want to build a channel from the Ebre, but popular response against it was very strong because the Ebre zone is not particularly rich in water and it's a rural zone where water is needed for agriculture. In short it is NOT a good option. Some other politicians wanted to build a channel to French rivers, but certain other politicians didn't like this because it's expensive and pharaonical and it involves Catalonia interfacing with other countries on its own, which the central government doesn't seem to like for some reason. What's more, other politicians wanted to build a channel from the Ebre to zones south of Catalonia... where there's a lot of golf courts and similar water-wasting stuff being built.

In short, there has been an all-out political fight over this for quite some time now, and pretty much the only people who wanted the channel actually built were politicians.

There's a channel which connects the Barcelona water system with rivers on the Girona area, which is were our water comes from.

The Barcelona water problem doesn't stem from poor planning, it stems from the weather not behaving like it usually does coupled with a sudden increase in population around the Urban Area. The channel would only have been operative until the El Prat desalinisation plant is finished, which is where our water should come from according to plan.

ddes

June 11th, 2008, 06:08 AM

The topic "Planned Cities" is a little vague.

Most cities are planned, regardless of the result.

New York City, Shanghai, Paris and Singapore, for example were planned. Hausseman did it for Paris as we all know, and some guy did for New York, who implemented the first grid system for a large scale city.

ØlandDK

June 11th, 2008, 12:54 PM

wonwiin

June 11th, 2008, 03:18 PM

In short, there has been an all-out political fight over this for quite some time now, and pretty much the only people who wanted the channel actually built were politicians.

Ok, I did not know that. But it seems like Barcelona is one of the first european cities that has to cope with the climate change.

I will be visiting Barcelona in July, looking forward to it and taking some bottles of water with me ;).

resu eman

June 11th, 2008, 06:55 PM

'now' I am aware of this?? Again, you are extremely arrogant to think I have only just become aware of this as a result of your incoherant ranting.
=============
Well you were not so sure when you wrote this:

""Are you claiming all city planners do not consider that cities will grow ?
Sorry, but you make little sense or logic to me.""

You are extremely deluded if you think you can bring about change by writing in Caps Lock on a message board-- or that it will bring hope for humanity.

======
I am not hoping for any revolution. To beginn with I am only interested in getting those so-called city planers and experts on forums back on earth again.

resu eman

June 11th, 2008, 07:06 PM

The topic "Planned Cities" is a little vague.
=======
Agree with you about that. Planned city should mean that they were planed for almost every eventuality.

Most cities are planned, regardless of the result.
===========
Do not agree with you here. This a general mistake a lot of person make. It is very big different between planing a city and planing some houses\area\blocks
And building these without thinking their influence on rest of the city. This is the perfevt reipie for making all the mess afterwards.

New York City, Shanghai, Paris and Singapore, for example were planned. Hausseman did it for Paris as we all know, and some guy did for New York, who implemented the first grid system for a large scale city.
=============
But those planers never thought these or other cities would grow like they have done. The perfect plans would have been that could have followed the city all the way along. No matter how big they became or they stopped growing.
That kind of city planing has not been available.

resu eman

June 11th, 2008, 07:11 PM

The Copenhagen fingerplan from 1936 should secure that the urban areas always were close to green areas.

http://www.regjeringen.no/Rpub/STM/20012002/023EN/HFIG/fig4-2.gif

The S-Train tracks of course pretty much follows the fingerplan:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/S-tog-plan.png/501px-S-tog-plan.png

A look at googlemap shows that the plan is stille follow to some point:
http://maps.google.dk/maps?hl=da&q=K%C3%B8benhavn,+Danmark&ie=UTF8&ll=55.708545,12.458496&spn=0.271186,0.601501&t=h&z=11
===================
These plans are a bit good, but not perfect:
1. To costly to build.
2. If some kind accident happens in the center of the city, ALL trains will stopp.
3. It does not cover all the city.
4. Other public transport systems like buse are STILL needed.

PedroGabriel

June 12th, 2008, 12:16 AM

Aren't all American cities planned? All of them look like being planned in the 19th century, with that grid pattern which is typical from that time, in fact it is impressive! it doesn't mean I think it is perfect, it is not, but it has its advantages.

In Portugal, that cannot be done, because most settlements have milennia of existence and most of the land is occupied and have several owners, and in the North that retained some old Germanic traditions, the land was split over and over for one's children over generations and that creates still today some problems for real estate investments. Nonetheless some cities where created in the 19th century, and have that American grid pattern, in fact, 19th century ideas as today city planners do no like grid patterns.

wonwiin

June 12th, 2008, 09:06 AM

Aren't all American cities planned? All of them look like being planned in the 19th century, with that grid pattern which is typical from that time, in fact it is impressive! it doesn't mean I think it is perfect, it is not, but it has its advantages.

I think most cities where planned in one kind or another during their founding. May it be they were a roman castrum or an inn. The grid pattern is quite traditional in city planing. The romans liked to use it in their new cities. Mediveal times just erased the pattern in those cities.

I also think every planned city leaves the status of a planned city with the first house built not according to the original plan. With the years of existence like everything cities tend to become chaos. Humans try to fight it with planing.

Today it is interesting for me how the new planned cities on the Arabic peninsula and China will develope. The emirates are trying to built a economic, scientific and cultural center of world importance and hope the people will come. I am also interested where all the water necessary will come from.

The Chinese on the other hand have to "store" millions of workers in their new cities and on the same time have to try to save their agricultural region to feed the people. This conflict between economic growth and agriculture seems to be one of the biggest questions for China's future.

resu eman

June 12th, 2008, 06:13 PM

I think most cities where planned in one kind or another during their founding. May it be they were a roman castrum or an inn. The grid pattern is quite traditional in city planing. The romans liked to use it in their new cities. Mediveal times just erased the pattern in those cities.

I also think every planned city leaves the status of a planned city with the first house built not according to the original plan. With the years of existence like everything cities tend to become chaos. Humans try to fight it with planing.
=========
If that is case, should we not go back to the plans of every city? Although the plans were not perfect, they surely are better than cities without any plans.

Today it is interesting for me how the new planned cities on the Arabic peninsula and China will develope. The emirates are trying to built a economic, scientific and cultural center of world importance and hope the people will come. I am also interested where all the water necessary will come from.
======================
FUNNY You did not ask the right question here. Which is:
..Would these cities, since they seemingly are both new and planed, not have any fuctional problems???? What about rushours in 50 years???

The Chinese on the other hand have to "store" millions of workers in their new cities and on the same time have to try to save their agricultural region to feed the people. This conflict between economic growth and agriculture seems to be one of the biggest questions for China's future.
==========
agree about this. but will "millions of worker" have "cleaner, healthier and safer" lives in cities?

wonwiin

June 12th, 2008, 09:54 PM

==========
agree about this. but will "millions of worker" have "cleaner, healthier and safer" lives in cities?

In China living as a migrant worker seems to be far better than being a farmer. The probability of cleaner (sanitation) and healthier (health service) life is there. Safer? Probably not.

The point is that these new cities are a reaction to the economic growth and resulting problems. The migrant workers are existing now and they will not magically disappear. So China has to provide living space or face worse social problems. Chinas new cities are a necessity, not an option.

resu eman

June 13th, 2008, 12:13 AM

In China living as a migrant worker seems to be far better than being a farmer. The probability of cleaner (sanitation) and healthier (health service) life is there. Safer? Probably not.

The point is that these new cities are a reaction to the economic growth and resulting problems. The migrant workers are existing now and they will not magically disappear. So China has to provide living space or face worse social problems. Chinas new cities are a necessity, not an option.
=================00
This is the core issue. And is also my main point here. The point you people do not understand or not willing to.
My point is: When china has to build all those kouses\cities for millions of workers flying the countryside, WHY NOT do it better? More planned? After all we here talknig about very fast chanaging of living. We should have more control over the development. More coordination. We can not blame, in this case that things happened so slowly that no plan were followed. Like in the old cities.
Which age are we living now? Have not mankind made progress in almost every field? Why are we not making any progress in city planing? I am not about high tech cities. But simples cities which satify most of human need. Simple but advanced at the same time.

hoosier

June 13th, 2008, 12:18 AM

While a few American cities were planned, it only occurred in the very early stages of the cities history and development. Therefore only the streets in the DT area of American cities have some sort of planning. The problem lies in the fact that as cities grew, planning did not. As a result, most metro areas have confusing and inefficient road and rail networks that boggle the mind.

wonwiin

June 13th, 2008, 12:53 AM

=================00
This is the core issue. And is also my main point here. The point you people do not understand or not willing to.

This is a very unfriendly sentence. Fortunately it only belittles you ;). Formulating sentences in a public forum is an art because 90% of a normal conversation (the nonverbal part) are missing in text only communication. So the word has to substitute for the 90% nonverbal. I just want to say, be careful how to write in public. Harsh sentences are easily misunderstood.

My point is: When china has to build all those kouses\cities for millions of workers flying the countryside, WHY NOT do it better? More planned? After all we here talknig about very fast chanaging of living. We should have more control over the development. More coordination. We can not blame, in this case that things happened so slowly that no plan were followed. Like in the old cities.
Which age are we living now? Have not mankind made progress in almost every field? Why are we not making any progress in city planing? I am not about high tech cities. But simples cities which satify most of human need. Simple but advanced at the same time.

Well, the communistic system with 5 and 10 year plans didn't work out so good. Humanity thrives with competition, free market and a little chaos. Developement is not easy to predict.

Your point seems to be to get the best in city planning. But the best solution is normaly not fundable. You see, life is a compromise. City planners have to work with a given situation, often small funding and I am sure they try to get the maximum out of the given investment. It is easy to say, they do bad work. But do you really understand the situation city planners are in? I am not a city planner, I am just compiling knowledge from different sources to come to the for me most likely answer to how city planning functions. And I am sure a professional has much more knowledge on the topic. The city planners of China are trying to get the best out of the resources, may they be political, economical or financial. But these resources are limited. Would we have unlimited resources we probably would have a weekend cottage on the moon.

It seems to me you just wanted to state your point without investing a bit of time to delve into the topic, e.g. google city planning and so on. Your point is like a skeleton without the flesh to support it. It has no life without explanations, examples and reasoning.

This may have been a bit to much on the topic but hope is lost last ;).

resu eman

June 13th, 2008, 01:18 AM

This is a very unfriendly sentence. Fortunately it only belittles you ;). Formulating sentences in a public forum is an art because 90% of a normal conversation (the nonverbal part) are missing in text only communication. So the word has to substitute for the 90% nonverbal. I just want to say, be careful how to write in public. Harsh sentences are easily misunderstood.

Well, the communistic system with 5 and 10 year plans didn't work out so good. Humanity thrives with competition, free market and a little chaos. Developement is not easy to predict.
======================
I do not know how ro put it. You are both right and wrong at the same time. May be the commi skit did not work, but the fact is commi-like system may the best to get the best city planning. BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT ANY OPPISITION. They do not need to take care ot consideration og anybody. So there is no doubt the best chanses for best planned cities would be in commi-land. BUT THE PROBLEMS IS THAT EVEN THEY DO NOT HAVE CITY PLANNING HIGH ON THEIR PRIORTY LIST

Your point seems to be to get the best in city planning. But the best solution is normaly not fundable. You see, life is a compromise. City planners have to work with a given situation, often small funding and I am sure they try to get the maximum out of the given investment. It is easy to say, they do bad work. But do you really understand the situation city planners are in? I am not a city planner, I am just compiling knowledge from different sources to come to the for me most likely answer to how city planning functions. And I am sure a professional has much more knowledge on the topic. The city planners of China are trying to get the best out of the resources, may they be political, economical or financial. But these resources are limited. Would we have unlimited resources we probably would have a weekend cottage on the moon.
==================
dO NOT AGREE HERE. The problems is that there no good city planers around. EXCEPT OF COURSE ME.

It seems to me you just wanted to state your point without investing a bit of time to delve into the topic, e.g. google city planning and so on. Your point is like a skeleton without the flesh to support it. It has no life without explanations, examples and reasoning.
============== I HAVE PLANS AND examples. i have done my home work. I JUST DO NOT WANT REVEAL THEM HERE. It is based on my knowledge and background that find so many failures in today`s city planning. The findings many of you did not know exicited. City planning is very interesting and the only way to save humanity from coming catastrophe.

This may have been a bit to much on the topic but hope is lost last ;).
=======
agre here, but the main problem is that nobody is willing to find good solutions.

resu eman

June 13th, 2008, 01:21 AM

[QUOTE=hoosier;21671255]While a few American cities were planned, it only occurred in the very early stages of the cities history and development. Therefore only the streets in the DT area of American cities have some sort of planning. The problem lies in the fact that as cities grew, planning did not. As a result, most metro areas have confusing and inefficient road and rail networks that boggle the mind.
================
This is what happened in the past. When population was much smaller and theerfore consikvenses og city planing derailing were not so big.But in futre we are vound to have good city planing. We just cant not afford to lose control.

PotatoGuy

June 14th, 2008, 06:42 AM

freeksregistration

June 14th, 2008, 01:22 PM

the new city Ras Al-Khaimah planned in the deserts of the UAE (dubai)
http://www.fotosop.nl/files/thumb_big_200806141319151721251160.jpg (http://www.fotosop.nl/mijn_fotos.html?show=172125116020080614131915)
http://www.fotosop.nl/files/thumb_big_20080614131937580873798.jpg (http://www.fotosop.nl/mijn_fotos.html?show=58087379820080614131937)
http://www.fotosop.nl/files/thumb_big_200806141320012042707194.jpg (http://www.fotosop.nl/mijn_fotos.html?show=204270719420080614132001)

Cosmo Urbano

June 14th, 2008, 02:03 PM

This is the city of Columbia, SC, the second planned city, chartered in 1786.

An 1872 "bird's eye view".

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/waccamatt/Columbia%201872.JPG

and Columbia today:

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/waccamatt/pano%20from%20I%2077.jpg
are you kindding?!
many hundread cities were planned in Europe during the renaissance!

read more man!

Cosmo Urbano

June 14th, 2008, 02:48 PM

La Plata, planned on XIX. (Buenos Aires is Argentinas capital city, La Plata is Buenos Aires Province capital city)

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/1.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/1195530052_f.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/171418_3621898184.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/2.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/2375-CatedralLaPlata.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/5682041.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/CasadeGobiernoLP.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/FOTO20013.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/LP.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/MinisteriodeHaciendaLP.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/PalaciodeJusticiaLP.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/agujas-goticas.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/b.gif
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/bust.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/cat.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/cat2.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/cat3.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/ciudad-de-la-plata-museo-de-las-cie.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/dep.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/diagonal-calle.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/esquina-tribunales.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/estacion-tren-plata-siempre.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/gob.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/index-contenido-01.gif
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/legislatura-de-la-provincia-1.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/legislatura-de-la-provincia2-1.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/ministerio-economia-pcia-1.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/pas-1.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/santelmobuenosairesargenk8-1.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/teatro-1.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/legislatura-de-la-provincia.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/legislatura-de-la-provincia2.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/ministerio-economia-pcia.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/pas.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/santelmobuenosairesargenk8.jpg
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn22/juanisimoita/teatro.jpg

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 05:23 PM

I agree w/ resu eman... Cities today even are not planned they way they should be, and if they do decide to plan they should stick to the plan and follow it through, not just drop it once initial construction is over, which is what happened in most planned cities in the World
===========
NAMELY!!! Ameen to that. Slowly more and more people are understanding my points. Thanks.
I think every city on earth big or small, new or old should have city plans. Plans my be discussed and debated, but after that, when choosen the right one, those plans should be followed slavishly. Period. Cities goes to hell, when there no plans at all or plans are abondoned. And the consecvenses og this big scale madness are in front of you. You see\meet them every day. Many times a day. Until now you have just not noticed them or been aware of them. Mainly because, as i said earlier, most people think there are no other ways.

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 05:29 PM

[QUOTE=freeksregistration;21718085]the new city Ras Al-Khaimah planned in the deserts of the UAE (dubai)
http://www.fotosop.nl/files/thumb_big_200806141319151721251160.jpg (http://www.fotosop.nl/mijn_fotos.html?show=172125116020080614131915)
http://www.fotosop.nl/files/thumb_big_20080614131937580873798.jpg (http://www.fotosop.nl/mijn_fotos.html?show=58087379820080614131937)
http://www.fotosop.nl/files/thumb_big_200806141320012042707194.jpg (http://www.fotosop.nl/mijn_fotos.html?show=204270719420080614132001)[/QUOTE
=====
Better than no plans at all. But it look kind of scarey. Kind of city on Mars or an abondoned city. But again still better than no plans at all. I only hope they have planed:
.. the transportsystems.
..and plans for if the city get the double of population it is planned for. What then?
BTW: Anybody knows which company has made\drawn these planes?

cjfjapan

June 14th, 2008, 06:01 PM

Energy2003

June 14th, 2008, 07:20 PM

freeksregistration

June 14th, 2008, 07:47 PM

if you want more info about this UAE project, resu eman
go to: http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_projects&view=portal&id=443&Itemid=10

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 08:51 PM

[QUOTE=resu eman;21673029]

It might be more illuminating to say that most American cities were PLATTED as they were founded, but there was no comprehensive PLAN as the cities grew.
========
Very Correct observed. And this lack of no comprehensive PLAN, has been the greatest tragedy for not only america(n) cities but for cities and countries all over the world. Can you imagaine, for time being just ONE problem, how much public money has been wasted all over the world to solve city functional problems?

Shado

June 14th, 2008, 08:52 PM

This is silly, there are only two types of cities that are planned. The ones that before the plan to build a CITY on the site, there was no settlement there. The ones that have been reshaped completely to suit a plan (New York).

The number of cities that were built to a plan and had NO variation to that plan probably numbers less than 5 and they're likely all crap or brand new because no one can plan for all eventualities.

I don't know how you can say cities like Washington D.C. and Canberra aren't planned when they held competitions for their planning. And Canberra was picked to be built on an empty site, with nothing there. At the time cars were going to be 'the future' so they were built with cars in mind, they are incredibly car centric. Now eventualities come up (like high oil prices) that were just not thought possible at the time. Additions and changes get made to plans, but the difference between a planned one and one that isn't is remarkable. Cities that aren't planned start out as more rural areas, and begin to grow into cities as more buildings are placed. Those buildings may have some semblence of a plan in relation to each other, but by the time most people think to plan a whole city, they don't want to knock down the buildings that were already there. One place where this did happen was New York, it was stamped right into the grid plan regardless of which buildings were in the way.

It doesn't matter how badly you think a city was planned. If it was planned it was planned. If you're discounting even cities that had a public competition for their design from scratch into an eventual city then you might as well forget about the whole concept, no planned city will ever meet your expectations. Can you imagine a city that had to turn away people and businesses because it was 'full'.

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 08:56 PM

is the place where "weeds - deals with neighbours" was filmed, a classical suburb or an example for that what you are looking for (planed city) ?

also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration%2C_Florida
=========
(Man???) thanks for helping, but I am here talking about towns, cities and Mega cities. Suburbs are not so interesting in this connetion.

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 09:20 PM

This is silly, there are only two types of cities that are planned. The ones that before the plan to build a CITY on the site, there was no settlement there. The ones that have been reshaped completely to suit a plan (New York).
========
What is silly? Planed cities are without any kind of doubt much better than not planed.

The number of cities that were built to a plan and had NO variation to that plan probably numbers less than 5 and they're likely all crap or brand new because no one can plan for all eventualities.
=================
Not correct. Even if I can not plan for all eventualties, i am sure i can plan for 95% of the eventualities. The reason for that is very simple:
..All cities grows, slowly or quickly.
..All cities need transport of goods and people. Weather veachles run on fossil fuels or on pure drinking water? Will there be less ques when cars use water?
These facts are there today and they will be there in 500 years also. The big questions how to have these problems in mind.

I don't know how you can say cities like Washington D.C. and Canberra aren't planned when they held competitions for their planning. And Canberra was picked to be built on an empty site, with nothing there. At the time cars were going to be 'the future' so they were built with cars in mind, they are incredibly car centric. Now eventualities come up (like high oil prices) that were just not thought possible at the time. Additions and changes get made to plans, but the difference between a planned one and one that isn't is remarkable. Cities that aren't planned start out as more rural areas, and begin to grow into cities as more buildings are placed. Those buildings may have some semblence of a plan in relation to each other, but by the time most people think to plan a whole city, they don't want to knock down the buildings that were already there. One place where this did happen was New York, it was stamped right into the grid plan regardless of which buildings were in the way.
=============
What if we can take time for help????? We do not need to smash all the buildings. BUT BUILDINGS DO NOT STAND FOR EVER.They get old and new buildings are built were old stood.

It doesn't matter how badly you think a city was planned. If it was planned it was planned. If you're discounting even cities that had a public competition for their design from scratch into an eventual city then you might as well forget about the whole concept, no planned city will ever meet your expectations. Can you imagine a city that had to turn away people and businesses because it was 'full'.
=======
First of all; i am the biggest supporter of planned cities. There are ALWAYS better than those not planed. Problems arise when plans are left\abondoned.
Man the beauty of planned my planed cities is they will never become full. What would have been the point of planing a city if people should be turned away????? ON THE CONTRARY: The point is to atract new people AND ON THE TOP GIVE THEM GOOD LIFES.

Energy2003

June 14th, 2008, 09:47 PM

=========
(Man???) thanks for helping, but I am here talking about towns, cities and Mega cities. Suburbs are not so interesting in this connetion.

ok, than brasilia is THE example in my opinion

the aspect what planned cities do well, would be also very interesting

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 10:02 PM

ok, than brasilia is THE example in my opinion
========
BRAzilia is a planed city. No doubt at all about it. But persoly i would not have choosen to place a GROWING city in the middel of amazonas. I would say it was a blunder to place it there. Very much jungel has been cut both for the roads TO THE city and for the city itself. It would have mush better to have it placed by sea. It could have been placed inland if there was not much valuable jungel there.
I DO NOT KNOE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CONDITIONS in todays Brazilia, therefore it would have been interesting to know if everything is ok in the city? Are there no rushour problems? Is there only one public transportsystem?

the aspect what planned cities do well, would be also very interesting
=========
No planed city do well. because they are not planed optimal. They are often planed to solve one problem. For that they are ok, but they create many other.

Energy2003

June 14th, 2008, 10:09 PM

wonwiin

June 14th, 2008, 10:13 PM

The search for the illusional perfect planned city. What would it look like? Could somebody please describe it? Or does nobody know ;).

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 10:41 PM

it looks like they wanted to bring more "Power" to the middle of the country. which would be a very simple and strange reason. because the other big cities are all at the coast and more in the south.
=======
I do not know the exact reason for placing it there. May be the power-people did NOT want to live in existing DIRT BIG cities? May be brazilians wanted to concuer the wild jungel? Spread the population? Show the world how modern (builders)they were? etc etc.......
But they seemingly did not know in the 60s how much need there would be for jungel in future. That is for sure.

also the population IN Brasilia and around Brasilia (10 times more) is interesting
=======
so are the problems people there face every day.

Shado

June 14th, 2008, 10:43 PM

A planned city will have problems just like any other, it may have less but it will still have some. Money solves problems, money is not infinite. Problems are as numerous as people are.

Planned cities are also not always better, you can plan all you like, you can end up with large problems that simply can't be solved without changing the plan radically. On the other hand additions to an unplanned city may have already solved this problem. Because even unplanned cities now have plans, they may have come after the city, so there may be some things that are much harder to change, but the same still applies.

I mean in Canberra's case, it's planned but that doesn't solve the fact that the climate isn't great for many people. It doesn't change the fact that places outside the city have an effect on the amount of people in the city and the amount of traffic etc.

Completely sticking to a plan can also be bad, when circumstances change that make that original plan a foolish idea, you can get a better result if you make changes taking into account the new circumstances. The best you can do, is spend a long time making a plan, try and think of everything, leave some room for change if your assumptions are incorrect, and react the best you can to anything unforseen.

Xusein

June 14th, 2008, 10:45 PM

Not all American cities were "planned", look at Boston for example. What a mess! ;)

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 10:47 PM

The search for the illusional perfect planned city. What would it look like? Could somebody please describe it? Or does nobody know ;).
===========0
Why not????
BTW what you call illusional perfect planned city is NOT at all neither illusional nor very difficult to design or build . You only need a pile of knowledage. From almost 20 different fields. From architeuel to sosial. From history to politics. From demografy to geography .......
Besides why not let some of the sharpest brains on this forum try this exilent idea of your? The truth is the idea should be the topp tread here on this forum.

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 10:49 PM

Not all American cities were "planned", look at Boston for example. What a mess! ;)
=======
Namely. Have you the link for the BIG Dig OF Boston. A masterpiece classical of the concecvenses for bad or lacking city planing.
I FOUND KIND OF IT http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318387,00.html
What i wonder is: Are there no other (and better?)city or country tasks this pile of money could have been spent on? wHAT IF Boston or other cities in the world for that matter were SO WELL PLANED THAT this kind of money wasting championship was never needed at all? Do not schools and hospitals need some money?

resu eman

June 14th, 2008, 11:04 PM

A planned city will have problems just like any other, it may have less but it will still have some. Money solves problems, money is not infinite. Problems are as numerous as people are.
=============
Of course planed cities have also problems. But that is beacuse they are badly planed.That is also my point. But the best planed cities have less problems. What would else be point of planing the near perfect city? And saving money, both public and privat, is also ONE OF the main reason for my aim for planing new and better cities.

Planned cities are also not always better, you can plan all you like, you can end up with large problems that simply can't be solved without changing the plan radically.
=====
It depends on plans. But the best planed cities have already taken into considreraton the futre needs for changes. What a folish plan would that be if that does not think of that?

On the other hand additions to an unplanned city may have already solved this problem. Because even unplanned cities now have plans, they may have come after the city, so there may be some things that are much harder to change, but the same still applies.
========
The is the core issues. Planed or not planed cities DO HAVE planes. BUT there is a big diffrenece here. Namely these plans are often for ONLY parts of the city. These partplanes only moves one problem to another plce. They do not have PLAN FOR WHOLE city. Thatis their mizry.

I mean in Canberra's case, it's planned but that doesn't solve the fact that the climate isn't great for many people. It doesn't change the fact that places outside the city have an effect on the amount of people in the city and the amount of traffic etc.
======
Climate is difficult to change. Neither is Canberra going to become a MEGA city in the near future. Altough of course smart people would HAVE TAKEN in consideration ALSO the posibilty. When they planned it or chosed the location for it. What if in 500 years time Australia gets the same population Chaina has today? Do they have plans for a million inhabitant city?

Completely sticking to a plan can also be bad, when circumstances change that make that original plan a foolish idea, you can get a better result if you make changes taking into account the new circumstances. The best you can do, is spend a long time making a plan, try and think of everything, leave some room for change if your assumptions are incorrect, and react the best you can to anything unforseen.
========
Mainly there are only one or two planes. Like there are only one or 5 jokes in the world. Rest is only biproducts.
The fact is also planes can be kind of industrilized.

wonwiin

June 15th, 2008, 01:57 PM

========
Mainly there are only one or two planes. Like there are only one or 5 jokes in the world. Rest is only biproducts.
The fact is also planes can be kind of industrilized.

And what are those 2 plans? Could you please describe.

resu eman

June 15th, 2008, 06:26 PM

And what are those 2 plans? Could you please describe.
===============
That is a multi-million dollar question.
Of course. But only in the project i am working with. Until that time why not you people come with some alternatives? After all you do NOW realise that there is a big and pressing problem out there, do not you?

Rahmani

June 15th, 2008, 11:40 PM

resu eman

June 16th, 2008, 12:31 AM

I have lived in a city (on an island) that had 50.000 inhabitants. The city grew organically from the early 1900s to 1975 up to 8.000. Then the whole city was planned to grow to 45.000 from 1980 to 1985 and it did, due to high demand, as it was a coastal area.
A few major problems. When the planned the city around 1980, for every 1.000 people, there were 180 cars. Due to the oil crisis in the late 70s, they expected this to no longer grow rapidly and to reach 300 cars per 1.000 people in 2000. They also expected a train connection by 1995.

The reality was that by 2000, there were 450 cars per 1.000 people and that the new elected government decided to build more schools instead of a railroad. The result was that by 2000, there were 22.500 cars driving on roads and a bridge that can handle a maximum of 15.000 cars. Additional bridge or tunnel could not be build due to environmental damages and other political reasons. The result was heavy traffic and the city slowly went empty. It is not a ghost town, but property value went down by 20% in 3 years and currently the city has 35.000 people, most of the elderly.

The problem with planned cities, that they are build based on current events, current technology and future expectations.
==================
Very good observation indeed. Again the so-called planned cities get often in to trouble because they are badly planned. They are partly planned. The planers never think of population going down. Or stablizing on one point. They the biggest problems is build\plan extending cities along exictibg roads\railroads. This way the roads and bridges get to small. One thing is that it is too costly to widen them. But even if the money is there,it is often techcally difficult. Either beacuse no place is avialabe or relatively new and big buildings stands in front.
Coastl cities are always better because they provide more jobs than inland cities. Beacuse of all the sea related commerce\leisure. One most also be aware of the fact that some cities in future, though this have not happened lately, will not grow. But totally ghost town\city fenomen is less likely to happen. Simply because the aerth is getting more and more people. But 100% sure about futre is difficult be. Disasters can happen.

resu eman

July 1st, 2008, 10:43 PM

if you want more info about this UAE project, resu eman
go to: http://www.oma.eu/index.php?option=com_projects&view=portal&id=443&Itemid=10
_____________--
I have tried to contact them, but did not get any response. I think they only work for big money.
Has anybody any idea how i can get any good illustrator FREELANSER?

BTW: it would be interesting to know why the planned cities are NOT planned anymore. Why did they derail?
I think the most logic explanation is that there was no STRONG backbone to their being planned. No infrastructure that the city could not be without. Just saying houses shall be there andnot there is not enough.

Wuppeltje

July 2nd, 2008, 02:30 AM

The old city centre of Amsterdam and all newer parts are made according to certain perfect models. It virtualy always had certain city walls, even very late, 135 km Defense line of Amsterdam (which militairy status was abandoned in 1963!). This always forced certain restrictions (even now because of the UNESCO status).

http://www.onderdekeizerskroon.nl/akc/pics/ruimte/luchtfoto.jpg

http://www.onderdekeizerskroon.nl/akc/pics/speckle.gif

+

http://www.onderdekeizerskroon.nl/akc/pics/stevin.gif

=

http://www.onderdekeizerskroon.nl/akc/pics/topoadam.gif

There has hardly been redevelopment, except for the last 20 years in the Docklands and mostly in the "Bijlmer" which heavily inspired on the ideas of Le Corbusier (the neighbourhood was considered as the worst in the Netherlands for a long time until redevelopment took place).

worldwide

July 4th, 2008, 08:38 PM

wow. i started this thread over 3 years ago. who woulda thunk it?

storms991

July 6th, 2008, 03:13 AM

centralcali19

July 10th, 2008, 07:08 AM

Quay Valley Ranch, California is a planned city....

http://www.moote.com/images/QuayValley.jpg
Size of Property: 13,172 acres
Population within 3-Hour Drive: 26 million people
Current number of vehicle trips past site: Over 12 million per year
New Homes: 50,000
Residents: 150,000
New Schools: More than 30
Race Track: 42,000 seats
New Jobs: 35,000 - 45,000
Imported Trees: Over 100,000
Rivers and Lakes being created: Over 500 acres
Fiber-optic Homes: 100 %
Solar-powered Homes: 100%
Solar-Powered Businesses: 100%
Energy Produced at Full Build-Out: Equal to a 600 megawatt power plant
Fresh Water Reduced by Re-use: Over 50%
Current Planning Team Members: Over 250

1.8-million-square-foot lifestyle center, 700,000 square feet of additional shops throughout the entertainment district and 10 to 12 neighborhood centers.

An international motor speedway complex will feature four separate facilities: a one-mile oval with seating for up to 42,000, a 2.4-mile road course, a drag racing venue and a boat drag racing venue.

Entertainment Destination
http://www.quayvalley.com/entertainmentmapbig.jpg

Project Cost- between $15-$40 billion :nuts: :lol:
Project Groundbreaking- earliest (2009)

Koen Acacia

July 10th, 2008, 09:32 AM

http://www.quayvalley.com/entertainmentmapbig.jpg

Will we never learn? :(

Slartibartfas

July 11th, 2008, 10:13 PM

^^

Seems the term "mixed use" seems to be still a term not known by some city planners.
Its quite some sartire to call it "the model town for the 21st century". When it actually looks like built according to outdated concepts of modernism.

It also looks pretty unneccassary spread out. Apart from that I can imagine more exciting things than a highway nod directly next to the very center of the city.

ChrisZwolle

July 11th, 2008, 10:27 PM

I see it's along I-5, I suppose it's somewhere between LA and San Diego?

cees

July 11th, 2008, 11:11 PM

The Dutch really are the masters of urban/ defensive planning. Sorry that I can't contribute more to this thread, although I'll look for some good pictures of dutch suburbs; they really do boggle the mind when one things of the amount of planning put into them.

i can show u almere, , and my whole province, plans started back in the days with the great, waterdefense project of Cornelis Lely.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Zuiderzeewerken-NL.png/250px-Zuiderzeewerken-NL.png

we made a lake out of a sea, and a lot of land. All of it is well planned before, highways, city's etc. but some things did change a bit. They didn't made land of the markermeer. (right now they are planning to redevelop the lake, because of bad waterhouseholding.

the biggest city in it, founded 30 years ago, has now 180K citicens, and is growing up to 350K in the next 15 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Provincie_Flevoland.gif/500px-
the part between almere and lelystad supposed to be an huge industrial area, with heavy industries. but it became a great place for gooses, and lots of other birds, right know it's western europe biggest wetland area, and it's becoming bigger.

the city of almere is build with different grow core's. each with their own centre, but the reall centre is in almere stad. you can go everywhere with bus, seperated bus lanes, drive lanes, cycling lanes, parks, etc. if you look at the map, you see a web of greenery, all parks are connected to each other so nature is sort of mixed with the housing.
i'll post you guys a link, with a map of Almere, take a good look on it, and see how it's planned.
http://www.reisplattegrond.nl/bestemmingen/almere/

if you guys think this is interesting, i can explain, and post more info later on, hope you guys like it!

socrates#1fan

July 11th, 2008, 11:25 PM

Indianapolis was planned out by Alexander Ralston, an assistant to Pierre L'Enfant(the man who layed out Washington DC.). Alexander Ralston was hired about 1821 to lay out the new Indiana capitol of Indianapolis.
It called for a circle in the center of the planned milesquare(famous today as monument circle) and four avenues(1 no longer exsists.). They wanted Indianapolis to mimick the look of DC and European capitols(to some extant.) and for awhile the city mimicked the styles of Europe until the early 20th century.
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/11/11.001j/f01/lectureimages/3/03062.JPG
http://www.discoveringwt.com/images/map_downtown.GIF

centralcali19

July 11th, 2008, 11:32 PM

I see it's along I-5, I suppose it's somewhere between LA and San Diego?

L.A. and San Francisco....on I-5, i kinda agree with Slartibartfas, more high density would be better the city center more compacted..

ChrisZwolle

July 11th, 2008, 11:36 PM

I like the Spanish planned cities more. Nice landscaped, though a great mix of apartment blocks and suburban homes. Great infrastructure, both road and mass transit, though not ugly like those massive freeways in US suburbia (especially Houston, yikes!).

Pools at rowhouses, only in Vaciamadrid :D
http://i38.tinypic.com/2yljvgx.jpg

But also many apartments in suburban area's (Loranca)
http://static1.bareka.com/photos/medium/9787080.jpg

Slartibartfas

July 11th, 2008, 11:51 PM

L.A. and San Francisco....on I-5, i kinda agree with Slartibartfas, more high density would be better the city center more compacted..

While I see the necessity to plan in buffer space for future developments already the anitial starting development should unite all the functions of a small city in somewhat vicinity to each other. The large future center should be the subject of future stages anyway.

Ok here is a new town that I find highly fascinating. It might be a bit unique so not a role model for all the others, but lets present it:

The name of it is Louvain la Neuve. Its the first town newly created in Belgium since 300 years or so. It was actually already founded somewhat 35 years ago. The reason for its existance is that the Catholic unviersity a very traditional university in Belgium split up into a Flemish and a French speaking half. The French speaking half had to look for a new place... and got a large but cheap piece of land in an underdeveloped region in the French speaking half of Belgium to their disposal. The university opposed the idea of a student ghetto or "campus" how its called in Britain and the US. So they came up with the plan to not create a new campus but an entire town that hosts also people who have little or nothing to do with the university life, next to the many students and professors.

The reason why I find it so fascinating is that after they said they wanted to have a town rather than a campus, they also made clear that they oppose the ideas of modernism as expressed in the letter of Athens. (think of Brasilia which is a role model for that modernism) They wanted to create a town instead that should be very walkable, with a pedestrianized urban looking center. Well back then in the deep 60's the hightime of the car, they had to give some place for the dreams of the motorists as well. Thats why they planned that in the pedestrianized center the roads should be under the surface, as well as the parking area. The city should be high density with low rise buildings. (in the periphery there are conventional roads, but at least as many seperated walking paths, and while the latter are very direct and dense, the roads are everything else than direct).

The unversity pretty much controls the city up to this very day in so far as it still owns all the real estates which are however leased for very long times (private persons have contracts that give them security for over 90 years over their houses). This enables the university to have control over how the city develops. This tight control has slowed down development but risen its quality.

Today the city has 29.000 inhabitants, during the day there are 40.000 people in the town. More than the half of them are no students and many of that part works in industry and the service sector. It was back in the year 2001 when the students living in the town very finally outnumbered by other inhabitants. It is said that from no quarter of the city you need longer by feet to the center than about 15 minutes.

The city is not that far off from Brussels and connected to it by highway as well as a train line with train station in the very center (Louvain la Neuve - Brussels center:. 30 min by train).

The city center as of 2008. Large constructions have been finished in the last years including a shopping street and adjacent a central shopping mall (upper end of the picture next to the railway). While I am not a fan of malls I think it is as well integrated into the urban fabric as it can be, and parts of and a considerable part of it has been realized as shopping street anyway.
http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images_v2/002/558/553/20080521/dyn006_original_600_400_pjpeg_2558553_66a754cc463d12e843c9e7cecb863e68.jpg

http://lh6.ggpht.com/tereza.hl/R96tX8_s_-I/AAAAAAAABYI/ZMZl9nXAKps/DSCF0015.JPG?imgmax=512 http://lh3.ggpht.com/tereza.hl/R96tGM_s_7I/AAAAAAAABXw/AvMV3b30Ye4/DSCF0007.JPG?imgmax=512

One of the neighborhoods, as written above in walking distance around the city center.
http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images_v2/002/558/553/20060921/dyn002_original_600_400_pjpeg_2558553_116f4dafadb5d393b7db1d9357adeb07.jpg

And at the end a roof view towards the center:
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/3343304.jpg

Is there any from scratch planned town from the second half of the 20th century out there that is also such an idyllic heaven of pedestrians with an actually living town center?