I agree with your ideals, but the thing that makes it not work is ...where do people work, and what do they do? 30,000 population wouldn't support any kind of ...employment, would it?
Baron Max
Optimum Size City?
- Thread starter Baron Max
- Start date
- Status
I agree with your ideals, but the thing that makes it not work is ...where do people work, and what do they do? 30,000 population wouldn't support any kind of ...employment, would it?
Baron Max
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
Certainly, 30 thousand city cannot offer abundance of the low end service jobs. That's exactly the point of the modern city - holding tank of the displaced folks and killing ground (meaning that in big cities, there is always more people are dying than being born). It has lost all its purposes but "holding tank" mission remains. Business likes big cities because of the abundance of the easily dispensible slobs. A slob in a small town, having family and friends to rely on, is way less docile and dispensible.
Well, yeah, Dixon, I agree in principle, but there must be some optimum size and population that can deal with both of those problems. Perhaps not 30,000 but, say, 50,000? 80,000?
See what I mean? You're right, I think, in what you say about the large cities as "dumping grounds" for the "disposable" people, but there must be a point where a small, intimate, cozy little town turns into a large city. So ...what is that point?
Baron Max
See what I mean? You're right, I think, in what you say about the large cities as "dumping grounds" for the "disposable" people, but there must be a point where a small, intimate, cozy little town turns into a large city. So ...what is that point?
Baron Max
dixonmassey
Valued Senior Member
That depends on the city "sprawl", it depend on whether city center is gutted or not, it depend on whether there are damn sidewalks and "walk in" parks. I live in Knoxville, TN, it's relatively small, 100,000, but it's spread over the large area. It definitely doesn't feel like a small, intimate, cozy. The "inner city" is not exactly gutted, but it delivers clear smell of decline. Yeah, there are almost no sidewalks anywhere except the center.
There are some small, compact "classic" towns in the New England. London, NH comes to my mind.
I realize all of that, Dixon, but what we should be trying to do is DESIGN the optimum city, not complain about what's wrong with existing cities.
Let's start with what we know, then build a brand new city exactly the way we want that works. That's what we need to focus on, not so much what's wrong with various cities.
Ahh, but almost all of them depend on outside sources of income ...mostly like tourism from Boston and NYC. So ...they don't count. However, like you, I love those little towns ...it's just too bad they don't work.
Baron Max
I like the way you post. Just the straight poop. Fuck these businesses, we are supposed to be so fuckin grateful for getting treated like a fucking reusable part. I used to think it was just corporations that acted this way, but even small businesses(in the big city) act the same way. The fuckyerneighbor attitude spreads far and wide in a big city, indeed all the way to your actual neighbors calling the fucking city on you for parking backwards a few hours.
You don't look a day over 50.
...LOL! Actually I don't, but it's all because I didn't have a woman around all the time to "ruin" me! ...LOL!
Baron Max
So what are you doing about it? Moving? Going out into the countryside? Living in a cave?
Or are you just complaining and whining because you can't have everything the way you want it?
If you don't like something, change it, or get away from it. Complaining and acting like a little child in a temper tantrum does no one any good, including yourself.
Baron Max
Actually I do feel a little better.
Me and Shorty are probably moving next year(I hope) and someday we will start a business. Together I hope, because I have no clue about it, she has operated one before.
Me and Shorty are probably moving next year(I hope) and someday we will start a business. Together I hope, because I have no clue about it, she has operated one before.
Facial
Valued Senior Member
I sense a trend in people's opinions. It seems that a certain size cap on cities would do more good than harm, not limited to just tourism value. However on the other hand if most of the population of a country was concentrated in an enormous city, then the rest of the country can be a huge tract of farmland and national parks. Japan has one-fourth of its citizens living within the Tokyo-Yokohama (mega)metropolis - so Japan also happens to be one of the most forested countries on earth.
I think most people are well aware that most of the problems in cities comes through sheer size and vast, disconnected populations. I.e., people don't know each other, thus can easily rationalize such things as theft, burglary, assault, rape, ..., and any number of "Don't-Give-A-Fuck" type crimes.
I think one would be more concerned about that ONLY in very small nations. And there aren't very many of those in the world. And besides, cities can build upwards rather that spread out, thus concentrating the population and lessening the land-area impact.
You mentioned Japan, so you must be aware of the growing crime problems in that city ...in a nation that is probably the most polite, courteous nation of people on Earth. I.e., they're already feeling the impact of vast, disconnected populations.
Baron Max
That's probably because you didn't incorporate factors such as an active nightlife and other cultural infrastructure that just isn't possible with 50,000 people.
For raising children and work 50,000 is probably ok.
No, I disagree, Spurious. But I won't joke with you, in a city of 50,000 there just might not be enough interest to support such things ...ie., the people don't care about them or want them or want to spend their money on it.
But, isn't that what a society, or community, means? If a opera enthusiast is interested in moving into that city, then he'd have second thoughts and not go there. But by the same token, the 50,000 city might be close enough to a 500,000 city that he could have the best of both worlds with just a little travel time.
One of the things that I've always found difficult is to attempt to include everything into a city design. It just can't be done. But that's not to say that it's all that important, either. If the people don't want it, or don't want to pay for it, is it important? I don't think so.
Baron Max
are you trying to gather and rouse enough troops to go and make your own haven baron? away from the cruel humans.
peace.
peace.
Read the first post, Empty, it'll make sense to you ....maybe!
The larger the city, the more crime, and the more criminals live there per capita. At some point, crime and criminals stay away from small towns and cities ...what's that breaking point? Wouldn't it be nice to know?
Baron Max
i did read the post
. i just wanted to be a dick.i think that congestion plays a key role, not just the amount of people, the closer buildings are together the more crime. if everything was spaced out and visible (no blind spots) it would be easyer to police.
im not against certain type of crime though, if you can make a tax free cut without harming people that dont want to be involved then more pwer to you.
if you harm people and they dont want to be a part of the crime then i dont agree with it,
but if you deal drugs to people thatw ant drugs then i dont actualy care, we are only made to care because the government hate people making tax free money, if the government dont get a cut of the profit then its illegal ofcourse,
but yes your post is very logical for crime progress i agree its a good idea, the smaller the city the easyer it is to control and look after, i would say around 1-2 million is a good marker?
peace.
- Status