patrick.net

A perfect world doesn't really exist. Different people want different things.

I would like to see a move towards more earth covered construction in the suburbs, to improve green space and save energy. In cities I'd like to see more high quality high density housing with smaller footprints and walk to work options. Maybe move towards underground cities.

I would like people to seriously evaluate how much space they need. Do 2 adults and 1-3 kids really need 2000+ sqft? Is .1 acre SFH really better than townhouse with good sound insulation and decently planned parking space? Can you really afford to live in an exurb if your job is downtown?

Higher energy prices will spur new energy efficient construction and demand for less congested (more) freeways and erode support for the cenurbs as jobs move to where the people live not vice versa.

I would like to see privatized roadways. This will encourage better utilization of resources.

what stupid subjects?

Huh?

A perfect world doesn’t really exist. Different people want different things.

Are you saying that a perfect world has only one person in it? ;)

Do 2 adults and 1-3 kids really need 2000+ sqft?

It would be nice. Large his-and-her baths take a lot of space. :)

"Are you saying that a perfect world has only one person in it? "

Most people prefer company, maybe even the company of people who disagrees with them, hence the dilemma.

M. Cote,

I'm not condemning your utopia. I'm merely describing my own. I think people would be happier living close to work and see more greenspace than living suburban sprawl.

I don't like much of public transportation - it's quite inefficient economically and other than certain rapid transit trains, they're also very time inefficient. But in high density cities like London or Tokyo or NYC, they're the only way to get around. You'll save time taking taxis or subway v. driving & looking for parking.

How about a vertical city in which elevators are all you need to get around?

In a perfect world, there are no full-cloverleaf interchanges.

RE: transit

I still do not understand how the Japanese could have built all the amazing infrastructures. How were they financed?

M. Cote,

You're not even reading my comments anymore, you're just reading anything that doesn't directly support your position as a generic opponent. Fine, I surrender. There's no point in describing MY UTOPIA if you're gonna barge in and say I'm wrong without bothering to read I actually typed.

No my friend. You mistake poor land use decisions for poor technical tools to respond to those decisions.

It is just too accident prone.

That said, clovers are wasteful. We can use the land better but that isn;’t a design defect.

How about cloverleaf condos? :)

Cloverleafs are just not too suitable for freeway-freeway interchanges, unless collector-distributor roads are added.

In urban areas, parclos still make more sense. I hate cloverleafs with tiny circles.

@ Astrid Re:oplas, from a couple of threads ago...

I dunno....I go out to get groceries and before I know it there's another thread...;-)

Opals are traditionally considered unucky for marriage jewellery - at least in the UK.
The reasons being, as far as I can tell, are:

a) being a wierd combination of sillica and water, every once in a while a few of them will collapse/implode if banged, or it some kind of very unfriendly cleaning solution is poured on them. It would be kind of creepy if your engagement ring just fell apart like that.

b) due to the South African diamond cartel over the last 50 years, diamonds have been pushed mercilessly as the 'stone of romance'. I seem to remember that someone fairly high up ,,,,De Beers??...did a bit of a slur campaign on opals (along with other gems) to help promote diamonds.

Wierdly enough, in Vicorian and Edwardian times in the UK, opals were more popular and actually more expensive than diamonds...how times have changed.

All I know that they're lovely, so sod the 'reputation'!

Jon,

Surfer-X sends you hugs & kisses.

I would like people to seriously evaluate how much space they need. Do 2 adults and 1-3 kids really need 2000+ sqft?

No. They need at least 1000sqft more than that.

Although I disagree with Cote' in his disdain for "subsidizing urbanization", I do agree overall that the market will most efficiently allocate resources. If people demand 3500sqft garage snout outburban estates, then in the very long run these will either (a) be abandoned, devalued and replaced with something more productive, which could even been forest preserves or farmland; or (b) they will provide valuable standard of living to those dwelling therein, consequently making those people, who are also workers, more productive and valuable resources themselves.

My perfect world is one in which people realize that other people disagree with their notion of a "perfect world". And, that that's ok.

M. Cote,

"I thought we were in general agreement and merely working out the details."

Okay, that'll all cool then. ;) I'm sorry about the last comment. I thought you were objecting to my points when I've largely agreed your points.

I'm not a big fan of public transportation in the US. But in many situations(currently, mostly outside of the US), they can become efficient once sufficient population density is achieved. Public transportation can also work by relieving road congestion and making everybody else's commute a bit more bearable. Using public transportation is generally more reliable timewise than dealing with congested traffic and result in better time usage (napping or reading blackberries rather than driving) and fewer accidental deaths.

As for living in suburbs. Yes, it's the length and quality of the commute that matters, rather than driving distance. I find BART travel to be quite tolerable for going from Pleasanton into SF (direct line), but much less pleasant for getting into Berkeley (which require a changeover that adds 20 minutes to the commute).

My utopian ideal is that we don't have to sacrifice commute time or privacy or anything else. Going underground is one solution, telecommunication would be another. I would like for there to be greenspace and for people to live in comfortable houses and for people to minimize their commute time.

(One type of public transportation that I'm strongly against are regular service public buses. Commute time buses make some sense, but regular service buses are an extremely inefficient economic transfer to people who don't drive. Anyone who can drive tends to avoid them like crazy.)

Most denizens of industrialized and developing economies make do with much less than 2000 sq ft per family, without resorting to psychologists or medication. Furthermore, I'd maintain that a 1500 sqft but well designed home with lots of multi-use spaces can be much more useful and more private than a McMansion twice its size. The sheer size of the home is quite meaningless. We could all live in airplane hangers but still lack privacy and meaningful storage space.

I think in large part my view of "utopia" is hopelessly skewed.

Have any of you spent any time at all on a "military installation"?

Because penalties are swift and severe there is virtually no crime. When I say no crime I'm not talking about murders and armed robberies I'm talking about parking in the commanding officer's parking spot. It just isn't done!

Things "work" on a military base. One line for officers, one for enlisted's.

Things are orderly. When children are done using the playground they are picked up after. Buildings are well maintained. Lawns are kept tidy. People respect one another's property by not dinging your car doors in the parking lot.

I realize the military isn't for everybody but what a great way to run a "city". Just about every base I've ever been on looks like it's frozen in the 1950's.

Granted (the taxpayers) foot the bill for much of this "attention" but why is it so damn impossible to replicate in civilian society? Why are we running such a free for all?

DinOR,

With a strict enough set of bylaws, condos and gated communities can do just that.

Most denizens of industrialized and developing economies make do with much less than 2000 sq ft per family, without resorting to psychologists or medication.

Space is good. Overpopulation is bad.

astrid,

We attempt to replicate that in our complex with a sense of community and taking pains to make sure every one stays involved wether it's fall clean-up or making sure the recycling finds it's way to the curb.

It's not that damn difficult. What's amazing on mil. bases is that the avg. age is like 23 years old. So I believe young people can embrace these values as well.

In my Utopia overpopulation will be dealt with.

"In my Utopia overpopulation will be dealt with."

Do you want to build a ringworld, or go ahead and tackle a Dyson sphere?

With a strict enough set of bylaws, condos and gated communities can do just that.

We also need a way to keep away the undesirables. A society cannot be great if it tolerates bad elements.

Other solutions include creating a highly successful cult that prohibits procreation.

Do you want to build a ringworld, or go ahead and tackle a Dyson sphere?

Maximum solar energy?

Other solutions include creating a highly successful cult that prohibits procreation.

Procreation is necessarily. But the current system appears to be upside down. Ideally, we want the right people - and the right people only - to have children. The reverse is happening.

Utopias? I might prefer a townhome layout to a SFH, with two exceptions. First, moving "real" furniture up stairs is not fun; and second, the SFH usually includes some sort of private outdoor space where you can put a hot tub, victory garden, or even just grass.

Transportation is the key; there is such much beautiful country out there, but it's just not feasible to commute. (Define "God's country": any place where it's hell to make a living.) There's a nice essay on the economics of public transit here that I think is worth a read. Other than that, proper enforcement of lane discipline and setting speed limits in accordance with established traffic engineering principles would also save a number of lives as well as improving road courtesy, seatbelt use, etc.

I think going police state is actually the wrong way to help clean up a community; it may get immediate results, but inevitable spins out of control to end up either an East Palo Alto or a "Pleasantville". My opinion is that focusing on community involvement is better, with a firm application of force when needed and /only/ when needed.

Oh, ringworlds and orbitals rock! If you have the tech to build them, you likely have transportation problems well in hand, plus everyone can have all the space they want. Scarcity is for primitives.

Transportation is the key; there is such much beautiful country out there, but it’s just not feasible to commute.

Telecommuting should be encouraged.

All roads should become toll roads so that the costs of transportation can be passed on to the users. This WILL lead to better resource allocation.

East Palo Alto

I thought EPA screwed up because of rent control. I have yet to see a nice city that is rent-controlled.

Any attempt to "protect" the people with price control will only hurt them more.

requiem,

I'm certainly not advocating any kind of a police state. Any time someone is transferred to a new mil. base they will rec. an "indoctrination" about local places in town where there have been problems, how to find your way to the hospital and sometimes you'll be assigned a "sponsor".

So it's more about "upholding" tradition as one of the cleanest and safest bases than brow beating anyone. In some cases there really doesn't have to be a threat of conformity. When I was stationed at Long Beach, CA (right off of Santa Fe Ave.) the sirens NEVER stopped! 24/7 emergency goin' down somewhere! Who wanted to get kicked out and have to deal with some apt. complex's "stabbing of the week"?

"I thought EPA screwed up because of rent control. I have yet to see a nice city that is rent-controlled."

Allegedly, there are some really nice rent control apartments in NYC and Santa Monica, and some pretty good ones in SF...though they're probably nice inspite of the rent control, rather than because of it.

requiem,

I thought Peter P was talking about the overpopulation problem. The most obvious solution to the problem is to create more land surface (by building up, building down, orbital colonies or whatever).

As for the commuting problem. A transfer booth or transfer beam or dial-a-travel will do just fine.

I thought Peter P was talking about the overpopulation problem. The most obvious solution to the problem is to create more land surface (by building up, building down, orbital colonies or whatever).

Reducing total population growth to zero is also effective. This is the only thing I have in common with environmentalists.

The best solution to commuting is to end work. Make computers and robots do all the menial/not fun/drudge work. People can work for fun or lifestyle upgrade, but make work optional.

The best solution to commuting is to end work. Make computers and robots do all the menial/not fun/drudge work. People can work for fun or lifestyle upgrade, but make work optional.

Possible. The only "perfect" economic system is to have seemingly unlimited resource.

"Possible. The only “perfect” economic system is to have seemingly unlimited resource."

Yes! Now would you please get on with creating fusion power, making an army of skillful yet completely loyal robot servants and building that Dyson sphere. I'd like to see it soon so I can retire early.

I'm not sure overpopulation is a problem; it's just that so many people are clustered because of poor transportation options. (Though, cutting down on kids would help a great deal.)

DinOR: if the motivation is not to be kicked out, isn't that a sort of passive-aggressive browbeating? Just tossing out ideas; from my own experience, I think the "upholding tradition" aspect or similar is more than enough for most of the inhabitants.

I’m not sure overpopulation is a problem; it’s just that so many people are clustered because of poor transportation options. (Though, cutting down on kids would help a great deal.)

If people is the problem that having too many people will be a big problem.

Upholding tradition aspect only works if you have a relatively homogenous group of individuals sharing similar views and objectives. It's no good if you live next door to a flipper owned house rented out to four illegal migrant families or a meth brewer.

Even well intentioned new immigrant families tend to neglect outside upkeep.