Re: Car-free cities and jobs
> Not necessarily so. I found two locations in the Netherlands, oneHrrrrrm... Would it be possible to pitch a "carfree city" as a
> 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.
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 ofcapital.
> So does any other development project; billion-dollar projects are
> now routine. The banks have the money; what's required is a
> who believes in the idea and can convince a bank to fund it. This isHave you done any work on how much capital it would take? more
> well within the realm of possibility.
importantly, how would you pay that capital back? Taxes on
- 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
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 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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "prometeus57"
> --- In email@example.com, "Mike Neuman"<mtneuman@j...>
> > 15,000 Parishaners died in August from the record setting heat-
> > that reportedly took the lives of over 35,000 Europeans lastsummer.
> > Unless Paris invests heavily in air conditioning (and supplyingthe
> > electricity for it), I wouldn't advise anyone over 60 movingthere
> What's the effect of Paris' thousands of trees? Can more be
> the buildings be greened somehow?
> What's the effect of Paris' thousands of trees? Can more=v= Deciduous trees shade nearby buildings in the summer and let
> be planted / the buildings be greened somehow?
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.
- "Mike Neuman" <mtneuman@...> writes:
> 15,000 Parishaners died in August from the record setting heat-waveI realize that the world is probably getting warmer, but I've been to
> 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.
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 Soleymani <bijan@...>
- "mauk_mcamuk" <mauk2@...> writes:
>> >2) Building a city from scratch requires a formidable pile ofThey could charge the residents for the convenience of living on their
>> So does any other development project; billion-dollar projects are
>> now routine. The banks have the money; what's required is a
>> 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
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 Soleymani <bijan@...>