It's difficult to build a city that's integrated like this, since cities tend to be built piecemeal. There simply isn't enough foresight and coordination to make this possible. The entire city would have to be designed by one single team of architects, engineers, and city planners. The buildings, utilities, and transportation system would all have to be funded by one conglomerate. If there were independent property owners, how could you get everyone to agree to build in this specific style that you've chosen for your integrated city plan?
To this utopian transportation infrastructure, I'd add high-speed mag-lev trains for intra-continental travel. Electric trains are still viable for mass transit. Motor-vehicles should be computer-driven, rather than driven manually. They should also be electric and a charging station should be present in each parking spot in the city. Hydrogen-powered vehicles would be ideal for travel outside of the city. Air travel may still be necessary for rapid inter-continental travel, but high-speed maglev trains may be an alternative option.
I was thinking some sort of above-ground train system as well, so I suppose we're thinking along the same lines. It would certainly be interesting.
Now what they didn't address is how traffic flows when it is not in the city. Do all those pedestrians live in the city? If they're walking, I suppose it's possible, but there's also extensive mass transit, so chances are those pedestrians got there from the suburbs. Considering the time period (20s to 50s) everyone loved the idea of living in ridiculously unsustainable suburbs and then commuting every day to the perfect utopian city that doesn't exist. In one short story about this kind of stuff I read, it suggested that people would live in the suburbs and commute via self-driven cars or high-speed trains. I only pray that fantasies like that weren't the justification for our sprawling suburbs of the modern day, though frankly it's all too possible. Now whether it's sustainable, even with pollutant-free vehicles, that's a whole other question.
However in current conditions fossil fuel cars remain cheaper.
This is a disappointing answer, blaster, especially from you. Do you really think the cost of the fuel is going to matter one ****ing bit in this plan? Do you think they'd rely on fossil fuel cars when the problems you suggested come up? Do you take urban planners for idiots?
Come on, blaster. This is like going spelunking in the best cave ever, but at the last minute saying, "Wait guys, we can't do it! I'm way too inclined to buy bad rope!"
Holy crap, massive Deja Vu.
I'm sure I've seen this before, but I don't know where...
Maybe I've been sent into the future, where I saw this.
But they made me forget it again, but now my mind is slowly starting to remember it by seeing pictures.
Probably. Seems like a good explanation.
It was in the latest version of H.G. Well's "The Time Machine" when the protagonist's friend asks him "where we're heading." That movie was on the TV a few days ago. I'm not sure if that's where you saw it, though.
We're already past the reasonable population cap, and we're moving into the "Our earth doesn't really have enough soil to feed us all, so we're gonna keep cutting down rainforests" zone. Given this fact, it doesn't make sense to plan for cities more heavily populated than those in, say, India right now.
We're already past the reasonable population cap, and we're moving into the "Our earth doesn't really have enough soil to feed us all, so we're gonna keep cutting down rainforests" zone. Given this fact, it doesn't make sense to plan for cities more heavily populated than those in, say, India right now.
I doubt our population is too high to sustain. With better living practices (kind of like what you'd expect from a society able to build the cities in that picture) 7 billion isn't too bad. Besides, we're approaching our climax anyway.
I doubt our population is too high to sustain. With better living practices (kind of like what you'd expect from a society able to build the cities in that picture) 7 billion isn't too bad. Besides, we're approaching our climax anyway.
And yet our food consists of a higher percentage of high-yield grains with every passing year, our fruits are selectively bred to be larger and more pest resistant at the expense of nutritional value, and our cattle are pumped with growth hormones and antibiotics to keep them from dying of infections after we castrate them. Even still our soil continues to erode, and citizens in high-density countries can't afford anything other than rice and beans.
There's a difference between surviving and thriving. Living off of rice and beans might be considered "better living practices" to some, but it's hardly ideal nutrition.
And yet our food consists of a higher percentage of high-yield grains with every passing year, our fruits are selectively bred to be larger and more pest resistant at the expense of nutritional value, and our cattle are pumped with growth hormones and antibiotics to keep them from dying of infections after we castrate them. Even still our soil continues to erode, and citizens in high-density countries can't afford anything other than rice and beans.
There's a difference between surviving and thriving. Living off of rice and beans might be considered "better living practices" to some, but it's hardly ideal nutrition.
I suppose you have a point. Having less people would be more ideal, of course. I will not contest that.
The spiral staircases in the center would make pedestrians less likely to take the trains.
They have freight tubes and electric trains; but are too cheap to put in elevators! Come on 1925; account for the laziness of 21st century citizens!
Whoa. This looks awesome. Man, I wish a new Sim-City would finally come out so I could build something close to this. But eventually, I believe future cities (eg massive growth of Dubai and other planned cities in the UAE and Saudi Arabia) may be built like this. Like I said, in some countries new cities are planned and then just spring up, so it is plausible.
Electrical cars or even hydrogen fueled. Problem solved.
My DeviantArt, so sexy
I love that image. I've seen it before and it's awesome.
I was thinking some sort of above-ground train system as well, so I suppose we're thinking along the same lines. It would certainly be interesting.
Now what they didn't address is how traffic flows when it is not in the city. Do all those pedestrians live in the city? If they're walking, I suppose it's possible, but there's also extensive mass transit, so chances are those pedestrians got there from the suburbs. Considering the time period (20s to 50s) everyone loved the idea of living in ridiculously unsustainable suburbs and then commuting every day to the perfect utopian city that doesn't exist. In one short story about this kind of stuff I read, it suggested that people would live in the suburbs and commute via self-driven cars or high-speed trains. I only pray that fantasies like that weren't the justification for our sprawling suburbs of the modern day, though frankly it's all too possible. Now whether it's sustainable, even with pollutant-free vehicles, that's a whole other question.
See James Howard Kunstler's TED talk for more on suburban and urban sustainability.
This is a disappointing answer, blaster, especially from you. Do you really think the cost of the fuel is going to matter one ****ing bit in this plan? Do you think they'd rely on fossil fuel cars when the problems you suggested come up? Do you take urban planners for idiots?
Come on, blaster. This is like going spelunking in the best cave ever, but at the last minute saying, "Wait guys, we can't do it! I'm way too inclined to buy bad rope!"
It was in the latest version of H.G. Well's "The Time Machine" when the protagonist's friend asks him "where we're heading." That movie was on the TV a few days ago. I'm not sure if that's where you saw it, though.
I tried that once, actually, though not based on this picture. It didn't go so well, unfortunately.
You heard that, green and red.
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.
I doubt our population is too high to sustain. With better living practices (kind of like what you'd expect from a society able to build the cities in that picture) 7 billion isn't too bad. Besides, we're approaching our climax anyway.
You heard that, green and red.
And yet our food consists of a higher percentage of high-yield grains with every passing year, our fruits are selectively bred to be larger and more pest resistant at the expense of nutritional value, and our cattle are pumped with growth hormones and antibiotics to keep them from dying of infections after we castrate them. Even still our soil continues to erode, and citizens in high-density countries can't afford anything other than rice and beans.
There's a difference between surviving and thriving. Living off of rice and beans might be considered "better living practices" to some, but it's hardly ideal nutrition.
Like anime? Try Visual Novels.
I suppose you have a point. Having less people would be more ideal, of course. I will not contest that.
Yeah. Certainly people would've put it up in lots of other places. I haven't seen it very often, though.
You heard that, green and red.
They have freight tubes and electric trains; but are too cheap to put in elevators! Come on 1925; account for the laziness of 21st century citizens!