How to design a city?

20 mph please.

see the 3rd post in this thread. traffic already is well below 20mph.

Could I get that in a three word summary please, ta.

i'll give it in two words:

cars suck

So do hookers, still plenty of them around though.

In conclusion: people who are interested in urban planning write the longest posts.

^+1

these benefits are quantified when building a road see NATA. what is not quantified well is the dis benefits of road building e.g they screw a city up through noise, generally not being pleasant..etc. and not really moving that many people that efficiently.

OK, so our city will have no roads.
Where will the buildings be?
How will the materials to build them be delivered?
How will the people who build them get there?
How will the people that live, work or shop in them get there?
How will the goods that are sold in shops get there?
How will people get those goods home?

Can't be by bike, because there are no roads. Can't be by train because trains are noisy, inefficient and unpleasant and those are your reasons for eliminating roads. Can't be by canal or helicopter for the same reasons. Which brings me to my last question,

Who the fuck would want to live there?

glad you are so assertive on the matter. enjoy yelling at people in your car becuase they are ALWAYS FULL in urban areas.

Inference fail. That was my appraisal of Greenpeace's attitude, not a precis of my own.
Oh and by the way, I don't drive. I suggest you use something other than your blind prejudices to inform your opinions.

I don't drive. I suggest you use something other than your blind prejudices to inform your opinions.

you bored me with a blind prejudice statement. as i am. i 'm the first to admit it.

but they don't form my opinion. please refer to my points on value of time, valuation of schemes, NATA and SACTRA. when maybe you should become less clueless. nothing personal (ever)

i will keep posting in this thread i like a city without cars because THEY SUCK

As a city without cars does not exist, how do you know that you will like it?

As a city without cars does not exist, how do you know that you will like it?

http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-1021.html

I stand corrected.

Venice, Italy :)

Not true.
http://veniceblog.typepad.com/veniceblog/2004/03/index.html

Not true.
http://veniceblog.typepad.com/veniceblog/2004/03/index.html

If you read that link you would have seen..
"While, of course, there are no cars in Venice"

No idea what this commune thing is. Is it like Greater London or something?

Pretty much.

I do like the petrol station though.

irony that esso features....

i will keep posting in this thread i like a city without cars because THEY SUCK

You specifically argued against roads. Not just cars.
LOVE THE SHOUTING by the way. It makes your opinion look so much more valid.

Been reading this thread for a while, but got kinda bored by the really really really really really long, rebuttal posts that have been cropping up, not sure how much information is being spread by those who participate, and a lot of it is going over my head as the original posts that are being rebutted are damn long as well. Though the length of the posts (for clarity of argument I suppose) don't seem to be swaying anyone one or t'other, and just seem to add fuel to the discussion rather than clarifying anything, but...
anyway I'm a city boy, london born and raised, I love cities, I love urban environments, no flight to the suburbs/commuter towns/country for me once my kids are born. I know cities are planned, but my personal joy is the fact that london is rather ramshackle and not planned, well not initially, the village aspect of it. I read or heard somewhere the theory of rather than laying paths out over a piece of ground, you let people make their own way over it and then path the trails that they have already made, which from my point of view seems as good a way of laying out a city.
It seems that whenever we try to plan a city from the ground up, it generally fails in major aspects, through various theories on what is the best requirement for the city, the people that will live/live there, the distinct and seperate personalities/theories of those who are tasked with overseeing the project.
Personally I don't think we should be trying to create cities without cars, we should be creating cities which are more navigable, less zoned, greater green spaces, cities which are comfortable to live in, to raise families in, which have enough housing at affordable prices (either renting or buying), I don't think whole cities should be anti-car, large pedestrian areas are good/essential, but we don't have the climate for the alfresco living which seems to drive the development and planning of our european brethren, so how do we integrate all forms of transportation in a city to make it work?
also could someone explain to me the reasoning behind london having so much office space/blocks, which can't be turned into housing, flats/apartments etc. Seems to me like this would be an easy way to create some much needed housing in the center of london.

Been reading this thread for a while, but got kinda bored by the really really really really really long, rebuttal posts that have been cropping up, not sure how much information is being spread by those who participate, and a lot of it is going over my head as the original posts that are being rebutted are damn long as well. Though the length of the posts (for clarity of argument I suppose) don't seem to be swaying anyone one or t'other, and just seem to add fuel to the discussion rather than clarifying anything.

I'll give that a big +1.

If you really want to have no cars / roads you can't have a city - you'll be needing a self-sufficient village where everyone works to provide the goods / food that the village needs. Not neccessarily a huge step forward for mankind through.

the fact that london is rather ramshackle and not planned, well not initially, the village aspect of it. I

[FONT=Calibri]London has felt the impact of all the ‘new cities’ ideology that we are discussing (in [/FONT][FONT=Calibri]i[/FONT][FONT=Calibri] agree rather long post). This is mass generalisation but we have tall housing commission flats due to city thinking from the modernists, we have garden towns due to the Mr Howard and mixed use from people like Ms Jacobs ...etc. [/FONT]

I'll give that a big +1.

If you really want to have no cars / roads you can't have a city - you'll be needing a self-sufficient village where everyone works to provide the goods / food that the village needs. Not neccessarily a huge step forward for mankind through.

Yep I was trying to make that point above, part of what makes a city a city is the whole "hustle and bustle" idea, without traffic, it's not really the same, even the ideal thought of a city still has problems, it's gonna be a very busy place, that's part of what makes it a city.

Still, i'm sure we can build a nice quiet village on the infield of Brands Hatch.

ETA - Actually, about that sarcastic last point, I just remembered something, is anyone else confused by those people who bought houses that were built next to Brands Hatch, and have started a campaign to reduce the noise comng from it?

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large munbers.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large munbers.

That's a little harsh picking on the aussies like that.

That's a little harsh picking on the aussies like that.

i've got nothing against convicts.

Now we're even.

I guess that's because all the smart people take their cars to somewhere like this

=P