61–63 of 63 posts
> For a rich white dude up in a 50th floor penthouse, “the future of cities” might mean zipping around in a flying car while a robot jerks you off and a drone delivers your pizza. The guy must think people of color are incapable of attaining that level of wealth. Unintentional racism, but racism all the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in Sydney Australia where we are over this hurdle. Key i think is making it a city wide conversation (where is the best place for new housing and how fast is the city growing. Its not just about the existing local residents but the wider community too), showing good examples where towers are part of a nice environment (not just 1960s public housing estates. Vancouver is a good city example who has adopted towe…
If you are referring to Barangaroo, I beg to differ. Throwing hotel, casino and residential towers on public land isn't about serving the wider community. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/barangaroo-is-more-insult-than...
Im also not saying density is always done well here, just that it is done and fundamentally thats the right thing to do
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in Toronto and this is pretty much how it goes. (The city works in spite of planning, not because of it, generally.) Planners come up with some grand region- or city-wide objectives, with lots of criteria and performance metrics, and then when it gets down to the gritty job of building new stuff, it's all "we don't like it, because it's not what currently exists!" No surprise that the really big development te…
I've had this idle thought of what a game-theoretic solution to the NIMBY dynamic would involve: Some kind of investment vehicle offered to a community as part of a development plan, perhaps? Surely someone has thought of this before. The incentives for residents to cooperate need to be really good, else they'll fall back on a conservative outlook. Especially so as you start looking towards residents towards the old/…