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

My incredible joy-reponse

Expand Messages
  • Huston, Mike
    worldnick wrote: How could any mins advocate something as radically necessary as carless cities and at the same time be as backwords as building 2
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      worldnick wrote:

      "How could any mins advocate something as radically necessary as carless
      cities and at the same time be as backwords as building 2 dimensionally???
      ...The most logical way to build a car free city is cubical, with travel
      taking place on MULTIPLE levels, allowing for much less congestion and the
      quickest path between point a and point b." -
      I write:

      I would take some exception to the notion that a four-story city is
      2-dimensoinal. Venice, for example, has more spatial complexity than
      virtually any other city I have visited. The four story limit is a natural
      response to the condition of gravity. Moving up and down takes more energy
      than moving on a horizontal plane. Beyond four stories, one must rely more
      on non-human energy for vertical movement (i.e., elevators, escalators,
      etc., keeping in mind that most electrical power is generated from fossil
      fuels). Since one of the goals of a car-free city is to reduce the amount
      of energy consumed, it would seem reasonable to limit the height so as to
      encourage human power over machine power; that is until we figure out how to
      do something about that annoying thing called gravity (or learn to harness
      fusion power).

      A few more thoughts:
      Perhaps the city you envision would be more appropriate in space (that's not
      a joke).
      Congestion is not necessarily a bad thing (if it's composed of people
      instead of cars).
      I think people want to be grounded (literally). Does anyone really want to
      live in the center of a three-dimensional labyrinth? I like to walk on the
      earth.
    • Louis-Luc Le Guerrier
      ... Yes. I ve nothing against congestion. I don t feel stressed if I hit the thigh of the person in front of me with my knee, or if I get hit in a similar way
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 3, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        > Congestion is not necessarily a bad thing (if it's composed of people
        > instead of cars).
        Yes. I've nothing against congestion. I don't feel stressed if I hit the
        thigh of the person in front of me with my knee, or if I get hit in a
        similar way on a crowded street. Those incidents are just one more way to
        open social contacts with people, assuming of course they are not done on
        purpose. As long as inhuman cars are out, that's Okay.

        > I think people want to be grounded (literally). Does anyone
        > really want to
        > live in the center of a three-dimensional labyrinth? I like
        > to walk on the
        > earth.
        I don't mind living in a 3-D setup, as long as I can walk freely on the
        Earth ground level (outdoors). I'm accustomed to high buildings and
        underground setup in Montreal, but the outdoor space is somewhat monopolised
        by cars, and we must correct that, even in cities where people can avoid
        cars by going in a 3-D setup. Let's expand people choice range and restrict
        car choice range.

        I agree with you that nothing replaces totally the natural outdoor space
        even under the rain or in cold weather. In fact I much prefer walking in a
        rainy carfree city than in a sunny car-centric city.

        Louis-Luc
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.