Joy Shattering Plank Cities in Venice
Throughout your speech on the isolation of inhabitants in tall
buildings I couldn't help, but wonder why you were still stuck in the
archaic mode of one locomotive level cities. Later you say:
"Good point. An elegant variation of this, which is mentioned (and
pictured) in 'Carfree Cities' (p. 159), is a ground floor passageway
which leads through a building, called a 'sottoportego'.
Open catwalks, like those seen in Mediteranean vernacular architecture
(atop archways that span the narrow gaps between buildings), would
be a nice feature, which would offer delightful pedestrian travel
between the upper floors of opposing buildings."
You should have considered this beforehand, but to a progressive
extreme. The bustling crowds, street vendors, and insane orators
need never be more than four stories away even in the tallest of
cities. Not only walk ways, but cafes, large town squares, and other
gathering centers should be located on these multiple levels in a
city. Now you may be thinking that sunlight wouldn't reach the
levels so easily in this scenario. But this wouldn't be a problem if
the level's activity centers and paths were designed in non-
overlapping sparse grids. Remember you need far less surface area
for people than cars. Granted the deepest levels may be a smidgeon
dimmer eventually, but those bits would be reserved for the least
residential aspects of the city.
I was twelve eight years ago. Of course I hope my youth doesn't hurt
my credibility, if even there is such a thing online. I live in
california, no one here is just going to 'come to the realization
based on the evidence,' this is the most autocentric place on earth.
When I speak up here I might as well be cursing jesus.
Mike said something about needing more power in a 3Dimensional city.
Well I can't say that's false, but I can say with human feet doing
most the work and the energy collected from objects being lowered
(for instance any time a group of people/freight takes an elevator
down some energy can be made from that force) the energy will be much
less than you think.
I'm not going to give up just yet
- It seems my lengthy reply to your previous posting has been lost
through the ether, but anyway, the gist of my reply then was that we
mustn't lose our sense of scale.
A city of boxes, towers and expansive empty public squares was okay
for the 50s and 60s, but it's abit inorganic, tired and monstrous.
Cities of the mind can be perfect, efficient and manageable in every
sense, but the real construct needs to be useable and liveable.
I would hate to live in a high-density legoland.
I just don't think you should throw the proverbial baby out with the
I'm only 5 years older than you in your age description.
What a difference you will find a year makes in dealing with town
planning and urban design issues!
Wouldn't it make more sense to tackle the issues at ground level?
(excuse my punning)
Come to Sydney to witness the development paradigm here. Perhaps you
won't feel California's urban areas are the most autocentric and
shockingly planned places in the world after all.
Keep the discussion going!