If you were to create your ultimate city (from scratch), what would be your main priority to make it successful?

[fieldsofdreams]

I've asked this question on LinkedIn (yes, I also have a LinkedIn account too), in which I have received wonderful responses from fellow city and regional planners. And now, I would like to ask this same question, but this time, I want to hear from you who may or may not be city planners.

Here's my idea: understanding the concept of city-building requires skill, patience, and determination to build a successful city or community. But, in order for that to happen, one must have his or her own priorities set up to make the dream city a reality. I am currently an Urban Studies and Planning major student at a university in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I am compelled to ask this question because it seems like building suburbia has been the priority, and that the inner cities have been sacrificed a lot by underdevelopment, increased criminal activity, and empty buildings and lots. I would like to bring back proper city development, but this time, adding sustainability and connectivity to the picture.

So, this is an open discussion, subject to SSC rules. And I will do my best to comment on each of your thoughts as soon as possible.

[babybackribs2314]

If I were to create my ultimate city, the number one priority would be a beneficial geographic location. If the world were a blank slate, I'd probably choose a location close to the equator, perhaps Panama or Singapore would be best.

Step two would be guaranteeing a sufficient infrastructure. The city would basically be built on top of a 3-story platform, with each level dedicated to automobiles/pedestrians, subway service, and freight traffic. The level resting on top (I guess that would make it #4, but it would be open-air) would be dedicated to pedestrian use only.

The city would be geographically compact, perhaps 100 square KM, and would be extremely dense, on the order of 250,000+ per square KM. It would basically be a fortress, with extremely tall buildings (up to a mile) in the middle. The city would be entirely surrounded by green space, though.

[zaphod]

That's a really hard question.

Maybe "other" or a broad interpretation of "well managed utilities".

In my ideal city there wouldn't be conventional land use planning except maybe a few special reservations for industry and bars/clubs. There would be only two types of zoning, a growth classification and a preservation classification, determining which set anti-nuisance and good neighbor ordinances and building codes would apply. There would be strict legal adherance to the comp plan so NIMBY's couldn't block things too easily and developers would have to follow the rules too.

The city would start out with infrastructure and quality public services, and as time went on it would naturally develop with stuff clustering, etc. The things urbanists love most often got established before modern city planning began and emerged organically. Recreating some of those conditions(not total lasseiz faire mind you, old cities were also disgusting and dangerous), would be the best way to see a real downtown/city center or specialized districts grow up in a completely-from-scratch city.

I have more thoughts about this but I don't have time to post them.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

If I were to create my ultimate city, the number one priority would be a beneficial geographic location. If the world were a blank slate, I'd probably choose a location close to the equator, perhaps Panama or Singapore would be best.

Step two would be guaranteeing a sufficient infrastructure. The city would basically be built on top of a 3-story platform, with each level dedicated to automobiles/pedestrians, subway service, and freight traffic. The level resting on top (I guess that would make it #4, but it would be open-air) would be dedicated to pedestrian use only.

The city would be geographically compact, perhaps 100 square KM, and would be extremely dense, on the order of 250,000+ per square KM. It would basically be a fortress, with extremely tall buildings (up to a mile) in the middle. The city would be entirely surrounded by green space, though.

This is similar to my thought for an extremely dense city. However:
--Subways would need two levels so they could cross.
--Cars wouldn't be possible. At your density, if even 5% used them (basically Manhattan with 50% auto use), the traffic on that autos/peds level would be unworkable, you'd have to devote massive space to parking, and air pollution would be severe.

At that density, starting from the top, I'd do a couple skywalk levels (say 500' and 100', and maybe even rail at one of those, plus pedestrians at grade, pedestrains at -1, trains and -2 and -3, electric trucks at -4, and utilities at -5.

[mhays]

A good location would be a start. Something with decent air flow, non-extreme weather, stable geology, etc. Actually screw that, the best cities are often in earthquake zones. Good aesthetics or even iconic features would help, as happiness and image can go a long way.

Then you'd build it to be efficient, in terms of resources and cost. This would be a big driver to success.

Don't be too rigid. Whatever you build, make it flexible enough to be appealing to a broad range of people and companies, and to handle new trends and industries that come along. Efficiency will require density, but within that much can vary.

[Erthel]

Make it free. Cities develop on their own, you can't really control the minds and lives of millions of people concentrated in a few square quilometers. Let them and they will organize, build and make for better livings

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

If I were to create my ultimate city, the number one priority would be a beneficial geographic location. If the world were a blank slate, I'd probably choose a location close to the equator, perhaps Panama or Singapore would be best.

Step two would be guaranteeing a sufficient infrastructure. The city would basically be built on top of a 3-story platform, with each level dedicated to automobiles/pedestrians, subway service, and freight traffic. The level resting on top (I guess that would make it #4, but it would be open-air) would be dedicated to pedestrian use only.

The city would be geographically compact, perhaps 100 square KM, and would be extremely dense, on the order of 250,000+ per square KM. It would basically be a fortress, with extremely tall buildings (up to a mile) in the middle. The city would be entirely surrounded by green space, though.

Aha interesting. Why choose somewhere close to the Equator? Because its warmer and the sun shines nearly consistently all-year round (at the same time)? And how would you design a 3-story platform... What's your prototype like? And oh yeah, a compact city would be great, it's just that how would you provide all your needs with such a tight space while giving open space for them to relax?

[poshbakerloo]

People don't like to be crammed into to tiny apartment towers. They want big homes with several bath rooms and a large garden. Dense residential areas just make public transport more effective, but even then public transport is only of any use if traffic congestion is bad and petrol expensive, if thats not the case then driving is fine.

[DanielFigFoz]

I would create a city with a lot of open spaces, huge park systems and the such, and not too dense a city either, something a long the lines of the density of a Düsseldorf sized city, although perhaps with a denser core, but not necessarily (not overly dense though-or at least not overly dense for a wide enough area). I wouldn't zone different areas for different aspects of life, I would let things mix naturally. I would certainly wish the create an efficient public transport and road system.

There would be tax incentives for environmentally-freindly cars and a lot of solar panels throughout the city.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by poshbakerloo

People don't like to be crammed into to tiny apartment towers. They want big homes with several bath rooms and a large garden. Dense residential areas just make public transport more effective, but even then public transport is only of any use if traffic congestion is bad and petrol expensive, if thats not the case then driving is fine.

Sure, I understand what you're thinking. But, would you rather see a compact apartment that has everything in it like in Tokyo (efficient use of space) or a large home with lots of open space for you and your family only?

Plus, what makes driving more effective than taking transit if you've got thousands of people living in a block of flats? That would shave thousands of cars off the roadways.

[Suburbanist]

I'd like a city with segregated clusters interconnected with some futuristic individual transportation system suck as PRTs that would be the backbone of networks connecting them. Each cluster could have its own density patterns, most clusters would be low-density housing, housing clusters would never ever have any other activity. The city wouldn't have any "downtown" or "center", but rather a geodesic projection form.

There would be specific clusters for entertainment (no nighttime special noise limits), government (all gov't buildings in the same place), education (school/university clusters built only for that without bars, clubs or other estalblishments etC). All of them linked with a fast, silent and efficient networks of automated pods hustling people from one cluster to another.

Vast spaces would physically separate each cluster in the city, there would be no "fluidity" between them but a rather hierarchial transportation network that people would take to move between them, creating the ultimate specialization use-plan.

At least 50% of the total area would be open space (creeks/artificial lakes/parks etc).

Most and foremost, I want a city where the concept of "street" is obsolete. People wouldn't need to corrupt the use of "streets" as transportation structures for any other purpose, and wouldn't also need to use non-transportation places like parks for transportation purposes.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

I'd like a city with segregated clusters interconnected with some futuristic individual transportation system suck as PRTs that would be the backbone of networks connecting them. Each cluster could have its own density patterns, most clusters would be low-density housing, housing clusters would never ever have any other activity. The city wouldn't have any "downtown" or "center", but rather a geodesic projection form.

There would be specific clusters for entertainment (no nighttime special noise limits), government (all gov't buildings in the same place), education (school/university clusters built only for that without bars, clubs or other estalblishments etC). All of them linked with a fast, silent and efficient networks of automated pods hustling people from one cluster to another.

Vast spaces would physically separate each cluster in the city, there would be no "fluidity" between them but a rather hierarchial transportation network that people would take to move between them, creating the ultimate specialization use-plan.

At least 50% of the total area would be open space (creeks/artificial lakes/parks etc).

Most and foremost, I want a city where the concept of "street" is obsolete. People wouldn't need to corrupt the use of "streets" as transportation structures for any other purpose, and wouldn't also need to use non-transportation places like parks for transportation purposes.

Yes, let's put all the failed experiments of the past into one place.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by DanielFigFoz

I would create a city with a lot of open spaces, huge park systems and the such, and not too dense a city either, something a long the lines of the density of a Düsseldorf sized city, although perhaps with a denser core, but not necessarily (not overly dense though-or at least not overly dense for a wide enough area). I wouldn't zone different areas for different aspects of life, I would let things mix naturally. I would certainly wish the create an efficient public transport and road system.

There would be tax incentives for environmentally-freindly cars and a lot of solar panels throughout the city.

Aha, so your idea is pretty similar to mine then. I like a combination of ultra-dense downtown cores, but also provide ample open space as well. I like putting apartments close to the urban core, as well as along the city's main corridors as well. And I really advocate for mixed-use planning. Good thoughts!

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes, let's put all the failed experiments of the past into one place.

What do you mean by "failed" experiments? Provide examples.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Why choose somewhere close to the Equator?

That's what I was thinking.

Latitudes that have a freeze and thaw have a natural advantage over others in that the freeze acts as a buffer against disease. It's warmer latitudes that are prone to devastating epidemics in humans, animals, and plants.

The ideal latitude is one where an annual prolonged frost occurs.


http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...86&method=full

[Rascar]

There is a balance to be struck between what one considers aesthetically pleasing and the sort of homes people want to live in. i.e. I would like a city with 5-6 storey 19th century style avenues, but if some/many people wanted to live in low rise detached houses this should be respected, as long as new builds are constructed to modern standards of insulation and energy efficiency.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by isaidso

That's what I was thinking.

Latitudes that have a freeze and thaw have a natural advantage over others in that the freeze acts as a buffer against disease. It's warmer latitudes that are prone to devastating epidemics in humans, animals, and plants.

The ideal latitude is one where an annual prolonged frost occurs.

http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...86&method=full

All right. The challenges of a city located in a latitude with prolonged frost would be:

- that city would suffer from a sense of isolation because the community may not be accessible when snowfall comes in
- snow can be tricky to work with, requiring specialized trucks (snowmobiles included!) to plow through the heavy snow (and don't forget to add salt to melt it all down and become passable again for cars and trucks)
- the compromise for a prolonged frost would be a short summer... And the city's short summer could bring in another set of challenges (e.g. Will the city hold its own summer festivities, will there be enough open space for the kids to enjoy the water and adults to play on the greenery?) and that you need to account its distance from a big city
- infrastructure-wise, you would need to either power it through tall wooden poles or dig them completely underground. The issue of digging utilities underground would be how to prevent the pipes and wires from freezing when the temperature above them falls below freezing, as well as how will you ensure that blackouts will rarely happen. On top of that, you might also consider building an airport to make the city more accessible
- creating a park that could serve as a relaxing place can be fine in the summer; in the winter, however, people might just stay at home. So think of a park wherein people can go to that park in the summer and winter (I.e. does the lake freeze? Will it have a concert space for performers to play during the cold winter nights? Will there be ample space for families to hold snow building contests?) this pretty much reminds me of Sapporo.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by Rascar

There is a balance to be struck between what one considers aesthetically pleasing and the sort of homes people want to live in. i.e. I would like a city with 5-6 storey 19th century style avenues, but if some/many people wanted to live in low rise detached houses this should be respected, as long as new builds are constructed to modern standards of insulation and energy efficiency.

Ah, so you're looking into a city that respects the area's architecture. Smart thinking indeed!

[mhays]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

What do you mean by "failed" experiments? Provide examples.

Separation of uses, low densities, personal transportation vs. shared, etc.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by mhays

Separation of uses, low densities, personal transportation vs. shared, etc.

I thought suburbia provides those features already... maybe why not? I thought also about ZipCars too, but I think we need some sort of combinations to bring suburbia to the dense city.