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

[zaphod]

I'm mixed on urban farming. You're right that it's not going to be a significant source of basic foodstuffs for the population.

On the other hand it's a recreational activity that gives people something to do(like sports) and what food is does generate can go to charity or be sold to support the organization.

But of course there are gonna be sissies who will find it "unhygienic and unhealthy", which is far from truth.

To be fair unregulated livestock raising in urban environments is tied to disease outbreaks like bird flu in developing countries. But on the other hand there's been some research showing that young children are more susceptible to developing allergies if they are not exposed to natural dirt and grit in the environment, so having more unkempt nature mixed in urban neighborhoods might have a positive health impact.

Ideally yeah, people should be able to have that stuff in adequately sized gardens. No veritable farms inside high rise tenement storefronts like Hong Kong 50 years ago though.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by zaphod

I'm mixed on urban farming. You're right that it's not going to be a significant source of basic foodstuffs for the population.

On the other hand it's a recreational activity that gives people something to do(like sports) and what food is does generate can go to charity or be sold to support the organization.

[...]

Ideally yeah, people should be able to have that stuff in adequately sized gardens. No veritable farms inside high rise tenement storefronts like Hong Kong 50 years ago though.

I agree with you on that one. Imagine if you grow your own fruits and vegetables in your own backyard and you eat what you grow... and it's in the city. How would you feel? Will it translate to savings for you from paying a lot at a grocery store? Will it translate to a more pleasurable eating experience?

[The Cake On BBQ]

Originally Posted by zaphod

To be fair unregulated livestock raising in urban environments is tied to disease outbreaks like bird flu in developing countries. But on the other hand there's been some research showing that young children are more susceptible to developing allergies if they are not exposed to natural dirt and grit in the environment, so having more unkempt nature mixed in urban neighborhoods might have a positive health impact.

Ideally yeah, people should be able to have that stuff in adequately sized gardens. No veritable farms inside high rise tenement storefronts like Hong Kong 50 years ago though.

Then we should terminate all the pigeons and sparrows in the cities as well? People get sick. Besides, bird flu doesn't even kill as many people as common cold, for example.

Having a few chickens in the garden for fresh eggs won't do any harm.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by The Cake On BBQ

Then we should terminate all the pigeons and sparrows in the cities as well? People get sick. Besides, bird flu doesn't even kill as many people as common cold, for example.

Having a few chickens in the garden for fresh eggs won't do any harm.

Well, having a small poultry farm can help you save money from buying whole chickens or a crate of eggs. But, as usual, neighbors might call it a NIMBY for obvious reasons (health, noise, and the like).

Has anyone thought of the idea of resurrecting Victory Gardens in cities and communities?

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Structures that need ornaments to have "character" are like people with ugly faces relying on makeup to solve the problem.

Ornaments belong to an era when humanity didn't have other forms of visual expression, 2D and 3D, as we have today. They are obsolete.

You can call it what you want, its still beautiful. No matter how many BS anti beauty ideas you come up with, its still beautiful.

[fieldsofdreams]

I would like to give you a little heads-up: I will post another poll thread that will be related to this... but this time, it will focus on public transportation. Are you ready for it?

[zaphod]

Having a few chickens in the garden for fresh eggs won't do any harm.

No but having 300 of them in a tiny windowless room on the ground floor of a "handshake building" in some yet-to-be-cleared slum in Guangzhou will.

This is exactly how many nasty diseases made the jump from beast to man.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by zaphod

No but having 300 of them in a tiny windowless room on the ground floor of a "handshake building" in some yet-to-be-cleared slum in Guangzhou will.

This is exactly how many nasty diseases made the jump from beast to man.

Ah yes, that is indeed a different story. I remember the bird flu and the H1N1 virus that came from southern China, and that the Philippines was somehow spared from it due to intense quarantine measures. I think instead of having small farms instead of raising chickens... I believe that raising small urban farms can produce mixed results, but if you aim to be a locavore, then it is a good suggestion to have.

[The Cake On BBQ]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Well, having a small poultry farm can help you save money from buying whole chickens or a crate of eggs. But, as usual, neighbors might call it a NIMBY for obvious reasons (health, noise, and the like).

Has anyone thought of the idea of resurrecting Victory Gardens in cities and communities?

Then you can always tell them not to eat fastfood ever again, if they really are so concerned about their health because it's certainly more unhealthy. Regarding the noise, how much noise can a chicken make lol? Then people should stop adopting dogs as well.

And honestly, NYMBYs are none of my concern.

[The Cake On BBQ]

Originally Posted by zaphod

No but having 300 of them in a tiny windowless room on the ground floor of a "handshake building" in some yet-to-be-cleared slum in Guangzhou will.

This is exactly how many nasty diseases made the jump from beast to man.

This is not what I suggested though

[lowenmeister]

If i were to create my ultimate city i would make it a extremely dense and tall city. Maybe housing the population in a enormous multi tiered arcology surrounded by massive skyscrapers. I would concentrate the population to save farmland and nature. Suburban sprawl is bad because it doesnt make a city look impressive and it consumes nature. The arcology would have several "street" levels to make people forget that they live in an enormous hive.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by The Cake On BBQ

Then you can always tell them not to eat fastfood ever again, if they really are so concerned about their health because it's certainly more unhealthy. Regarding the noise, how much noise can a chicken make lol? Then people should stop adopting dogs as well.

And honestly, NYMBYs are none of my concern.

NIMBYs are more prevalent in suburbia, and I'm not pretty much of a NIMBY person too (unless it's a landfill right next to a block of flats)

And sure, cutting down on fast-food chains may mean losing revenue for restaurants, but it also provides a significant health impact: people can actually lose weight by promoting healthy practices.

[Suburbanist]

I don't think NIMBYs are exclusive of any urban form.

In the United States, some of the most fierce NIMBYs are located in upscale inner-city neighborhoods of places like San Francisco, Washington, DC., New York and Boston.

The problem with contemporary NIMBY-ism is that is can be easily disguised as "protecting character", or "keeping aesthetic harmony" of a given place, even if, like the aforementioned case of San Francisco, the places are not even historical with barely a century on modern historical record.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

I don't think NIMBYs are exclusive of any urban form.

In the United States, some of the most fierce NIMBYs are located in upscale inner-city neighborhoods of places like San Francisco, Washington, DC., New York and Boston.

The problem with contemporary NIMBY-ism is that is can be easily disguised as "protecting character", or "keeping aesthetic harmony" of a given place, even if, like the aforementioned case of San Francisco, the places are not even historical with barely a century on modern historical record.

Sounds very true to me. I think that NIMBY for "historical reasons" may be fine to a certain extent, but when it becomes a hindrance for a community's overall growth, should both city residents and politicians consider to relocate such NIMBY attractions somewhere else and replace it with a historical marker to remind people of what it was? Or is it possible to put it in the future building and place in the lobby an artifact or two from the old building?

[poshbakerloo]

I think you get a lot of NIMPYs in suburbia, because people live there a long time. They move there in their early 30s with a young and often expanding family, the children grow up and move out, parents stay in the old family house, and remember the good old days, and damn anyone if they try to 'ruin' (Change) the neighbourhood. Where I live is exactly like this.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by poshbakerloo

I think you get a lot of NIMPYs in suburbia, because people live there a long time. They move there in their early 30s with a young and often expanding family, the children grow up and move out, parents stay in the old family house, and remember the good old days, and damn anyone if they try to 'ruin' (Change) the neighbourhood. Where I live is exactly like this.

Is that the story of gentrification?

[poshbakerloo]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Is that the story of gentrification?

I don't know what its the story of lol, its just what happens, at least around where I live.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by poshbakerloo

I don't know what its the story of lol, its just what happens, at least around where I live.

I meant, is gentrification the trend in your community? Thus my thought.

[fieldsofdreams]

I just had this idea: what if a future city was made similar to the Inca city of Machu Picchu, but to an extent as Tokyo or London? (no, I'm not referring to Mexico City, but something that can be bigger than Kathmandu)

[Northsider]

I dunno, maybe I'm alone...but I think Chicago is very close to perfection. It's gridded and logical. Great transit network. Super dense areas, medium dense areas, low dense areas, family home areas. Entertainment areas, industrial areas. Parks. Open space.

Sure, all of these could be improved on...but the basic idea is perfect. Honestly, I'd rather focus on intangible aspects of the city: crime, corruption, city inefficiencies, etc. But as far as layout, Chicago is where it's at.