Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Car-free cities and jobs

Expand Messages
  • J.H. Crawford
    ... Not necessarily so. I found two locations in the Netherlands, one of the most densely populated nations in the world, where the Reference Design could be
    Message 1 of 23 , Nov 7, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      mauk_mcamuk said:

      >I concur, and think a purpose-built city designed from the
      >foundations up with the newest advances combined with the wisdom of
      >the centuries would be a fabulous place to live.
      >
      >There are two large entry barriers to this, unfortunately.
      >
      >1) Most of the best places to live already have cities on them.

      Not necessarily so. I found two locations in the Netherlands, one
      of the most densely populated nations in the world, where the
      Reference Design could be built without significant alteration.
      It's true that in mountainous regions the good spaces may be
      mostly taken, but anywhere we're building suburbs today is a
      potential spot for a carfree city. The spaces don't need to be huge
      in order to support a large population.

      >2) Building a city from scratch requires a formidable pile of capital.

      So does any other development project; billion-dollar projects are
      now routine. The banks have the money; what's required is a developer
      who believes in the idea and can convince a bank to fund it. This is
      well within the realm of possibility.

      >While the carfree city website is beautiful, and is simply chockful
      >of excellent ideas, I didn't see much there that addresses either of
      >those two entry barriers, except for that plan to "carfree" the city
      >of Lyon (i think it was Lyon....).

      As with many questions, this matter is taken up in much more detail
      in the book.

      As to the question of "what to do with 3 billiion more people,"
      the obvious answer is to build carfree cities for them. No other
      approach is likely to give them a reasonable quality of life while
      preserving the global environment.

      Regards,



      -- ### --

      J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
      mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
    • Mike Neuman
      15,000 Parishaners died in August from the record setting heat-wave that reportedly took the lives of over 35,000 Europeans last summer. Unless Paris invests
      Message 2 of 23 , Nov 7, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        15,000 Parishaners died in August from the record setting heat-wave
        that reportedly took the lives of over 35,000 Europeans last summer.
        Unless Paris invests heavily in air conditioning (and supplying the
        electricity for it), I wouldn't advise anyone over 60 moving there
        any time soon. Thanks to the U.S. and other heavy fossil fuel
        burning countries of the world, the possibility of more of these
        tragedies happening in the world will grow with each passing year,
        especially in cities vulnerable to "heat island" effects.


        --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "mauk_mcamuk" <mauk2@h...>
        wrote:
        > You are absolutely right!
        >
        > Now, what are we supposed to do with the three billion additional
        > people expected to share the world with us by 2050?
        >
        > I think Paris might be full...... :)
        >
        >
        > >
        > > It's important to remember that millions of people all over the
        > world
        > > already live in centuries-old carfree cities.
      • prometeus57
        ... What s the effect of Paris thousands of trees? Can more be planted / the buildings be greened somehow?
        Message 3 of 23 , Nov 7, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@j...>
          wrote:
          > 15,000 Parishaners died in August from the record setting heat-wave
          > that reportedly took the lives of over 35,000 Europeans last summer.
          > Unless Paris invests heavily in air conditioning (and supplying the
          > electricity for it), I wouldn't advise anyone over 60 moving there

          What's the effect of Paris' thousands of trees? Can more be planted /
          the buildings be greened somehow?
        • mauk_mcamuk
          ... Hrrrrrm... Would it be possible to pitch a carfree city as a planned urban development, or essentially a large suburb? In other words, have the large
          Message 4 of 23 , Nov 7, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > Not necessarily so. I found two locations in the Netherlands, one
            > of the most densely populated nations in the world, where the
            > Reference Design could be built without significant alteration.
            > It's true that in mountainous regions the good spaces may be
            > mostly taken, but anywhere we're building suburbs today is a
            > potential spot for a carfree city. The spaces don't need to be huge
            > in order to support a large population.
            >

            Hrrrrrm... Would it be possible to pitch a "carfree city" as a
            planned urban development, or essentially a large suburb? In other
            words, have the large industrial areas contain MAJOR parking areas at
            first, and essentially let the first few developments grow using a
            nearby city as the economic base. After you get a few neighborhoods
            established, with a little luck, it would become self-sustaining.



            > >2) Building a city from scratch requires a formidable pile of
            capital.
            >
            > So does any other development project; billion-dollar projects are
            > now routine. The banks have the money; what's required is a
            developer
            > who believes in the idea and can convince a bank to fund it. This is
            > well within the realm of possibility.
            >

            Have you done any work on how much capital it would take? more
            importantly, how would you pay that capital back? Taxes on
            residents?
          • Mike Neuman
            I suppose more trees in the cities would help, if nothing else but to not make things worse with more and more pavement. Spraying with cool water also keeps
            Message 5 of 23 , Nov 7, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I suppose more trees in the cities would help, if nothing else but to
              not make things worse with more and more pavement.

              Spraying with cool water also keeps people's internal temperatures
              down. Other ways to stay cool include spending more time in the
              basement (if you have one), staying out of the sun, avoiding
              strenuous physical activities and drinking fluids. But air
              conditioning will become key for many areas, as it has already for
              many metropolitan areas located in the warmer climates.

              There doesn't appear to be much else one can do, other than to hope
              such a heat wave doesn't occur again, in Europe or elsewhere, at
              least in the near future.

              Chances are increasing that it will, of course, as global warming
              continues to worsen. Cities all over the Northern Hemisphere should
              be preparing right now for the potential for more unusually hot
              weather to possibly occur again next summer. If we don't get it,
              that would be great. But if we do get it, we had best be prepared
              for it. Otherwise, what happened in Paris this past August could be
              repeated, many times over, in many other cities. That
              would be catastrophic.

              Unfortunately, this problem is going to get much worse in time. That
              is what 999 scientist out of 1,000 will tell you if they are informed
              at all in this area. (The one remaining will have been paid by the
              fossil fuel/transportation/media industries to tell you otherwise.)

              Every year, global warming will get worse and worse. It has been
              already, and there is no reason to believe things will not continue
              to deteriorate in time.

              Yet most of the people in government, especially at the federal
              agency level in the U.S., will still say they fail to see the problem
              coming, or becoming that serious at any time soon. They are wrong.

              Some might think that, but they won't volunteer to talk about it,
              much less listen to someone else who tries to press on them the need
              to become concerned about it. Bob Dylan called it "killing the
              prophets".

              I know a man who has been working for the National Weather Service
              in this country for 25 years. He and I talked about this problem
              back in January 2000. It was clear to us then, after having read many
              of the studies and having specialized in climate related fields at
              the university, that this was going to be a huge, huge problem if
              society didn't start to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
              levels, almost right away. We could tell that then. At this same
              time, Dan Rather from CBS news did a program on his nightly news show
              that raised the issue of the growing problem with the warming
              climate. You could tell he was concerned. Even later outgoing
              president Clinton said it was going to be the most important issue of
              the century.

              The man I know started to raise this issue to his superiors at the
              National Weather Service about four years ago. They would have
              nothing to do with it. Global warming was not in their job
              description.

              So the guy send an email to people in Washington about it, about the
              end of January 2000 as I recall. That's when the sh-- hit the fan -
              but just for him, of course. The people in Washington who run the
              National Weather Service - a guy named Jack Kelly, (now deputy
              director of NOAA) & others - they wouldn't stand for it. Who does
              one of our employees think he is telling us in Washington we had
              better stop ignoring a big problem like global warming in our
              weather and flooding prediction policies? (they said.)

              Over time, they awarded the guy 3 separate disciplinary suspensions
              (without pay of course).

              With NOAA and the National Weather Service now under the "new"
              administration (Global Warmer Bush, etc.), things haven't gotten any
              better. In fact, they are worse now than ever. He is preparing now
              for reactionary measures again -- probably dismissal --
              because he went ahead and issued his own public news release, on a
              study he recently completed that provides increasing evidence of more
              rapid global warming now than ever before. He put out $500 of his own
              money to do it even. And now he's probably going to loose his job as
              well, only a couple of years away from retirement.

              I could go on with more details about this, but this forum doesn't
              seem to be the correct place to do that. It's just that it turns my
              stomach. Here's a guy who had no other motive than to speak up about
              an impending threat to all of us - to raise awareness of the problem
              so others would start to take the issue more seriously and work
              constructively to solve it. Yet the people he raises the problem to
              dump all over him for it. These are people in high places of our
              government, people who are paid generously with public money to
              protect the public's welfare in a matter as universally important to
              everyone as the climate and weather. Blame them -- not the
              scientists, messengers and profits for this problem. Those bums
              should have been thrown out before Bush took office. Just look what
              they have (not) done!

              --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "prometeus57"
              <prometeus57@y...> wrote:
              > --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Neuman"
              <mtneuman@j...>
              > wrote:
              > > 15,000 Parishaners died in August from the record setting heat-
              wave
              > > that reportedly took the lives of over 35,000 Europeans last
              summer.
              > > Unless Paris invests heavily in air conditioning (and supplying
              the
              > > electricity for it), I wouldn't advise anyone over 60 moving
              there
              >
              > What's the effect of Paris' thousands of trees? Can more be
              planted /
              > the buildings be greened somehow?
            • Jym Dyer
              ... =v= Deciduous trees shade nearby buildings in the summer and let sunlight shine through in the winter. It s a good idea to plant more. I like the green
              Message 6 of 23 , Nov 7, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > What's the effect of Paris' thousands of trees? Can more
                > be planted / the buildings be greened somehow?

                =v= Deciduous trees shade nearby buildings in the summer and let
                sunlight shine through in the winter. It's a good idea to plant
                more. I like the "green roofs" approach, as well.

                =v= And oh yeah, gotta stop all these cars from heating up the
                planet in the first place.
                <_Jym_>
              • Bijan Soleymani
                ... I realize that the world is probably getting warmer, but I ve been to Paris twice (both times in the summer) and have to say that the weather was much
                Message 7 of 23 , Nov 7, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@...> writes:

                  > 15,000 Parishaners died in August from the record setting heat-wave
                  > that reportedly took the lives of over 35,000 Europeans last summer.
                  > Unless Paris invests heavily in air conditioning (and supplying the
                  > electricity for it), I wouldn't advise anyone over 60 moving there
                  > any time soon. Thanks to the U.S. and other heavy fossil fuel
                  > burning countries of the world, the possibility of more of these
                  > tragedies happening in the world will grow with each passing year,
                  > especially in cities vulnerable to "heat island" effects.

                  I realize that the world is probably getting warmer, but I've been to
                  Paris twice (both times in the summer) and have to say that the
                  weather was much better (cooler) than the weather where I live. And
                  that happens to be Montreal, Canada :) Maybe it's less humid...

                  Bijan
                  --
                  Bijan Soleymani <bijan@...>
                  http://www.crasseux.com
                • Bijan Soleymani
                  ... They could charge the residents for the convenience of living on their development. This is called rent. Another option is selling the housing units to the
                  Message 8 of 23 , Nov 7, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "mauk_mcamuk" <mauk2@...> writes:

                    >> >2) Building a city from scratch requires a formidable pile of
                    > capital.
                    >>
                    >> So does any other development project; billion-dollar projects are
                    >> now routine. The banks have the money; what's required is a
                    > developer
                    >> who believes in the idea and can convince a bank to fund it. This is
                    >> well within the realm of possibility.
                    >>
                    >
                    > Have you done any work on how much capital it would take? more
                    > importantly, how would you pay that capital back? Taxes on
                    > residents?

                    They could charge the residents for the convenience of living on their
                    development. This is called rent. Another option is selling the
                    housing units to the residents and having the banks lend them the
                    money: mortgage. :)

                    The problem isn't that there is no money to be made in carfree cities,
                    but that it's easier for developpers to build suburban sprawl. It's
                    easy, it's standardized, doesn't require as much capital, etc.

                    Bijan
                    --
                    Bijan Soleymani <bijan@...>
                    http://www.crasseux.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.