Originally Posted by Microtom
People got cars, so you build roads to accommodate them. Then, the roads take so much places that walking, using public transport or just having a nice time in your city sucks. So, more people get cars, and to leave the cities to live a happy live away from cars crowded cities, to which they go in their little stupid cars.
So things that suck is that cars and the infrastructure they require takes and a lot of place, which increase distances between where people lives and where they have to go, which require even more cars and infrastructure to people can go from one place to another fast.
The illusion that people need cars to go from one place to another is just caused by the fact that cars and infrastructure takes a lot of space.
If you build something high population-density, people live close to where they have to go, and they don't need cars, nor roads. That's the arcology part. Then, between two arcology, you can have a very high speed thing.
Within the arcology, you can have a rapid transit type transportation system on rail, or even two, for goods and people. So, if you want to order something online, it can be sent to your place AUTOMATICALLY within MINUTES, and it's very inexpensive.
Also, everyone,s crying about internet costs and UBB these days. Well, guess what: in an arcology, internet connection is gonna be ******* inexpensive too.
That's like living in the future, and that's what you want. Outside my arcology, there are gonna be ******* wolves roaming around, because another benefit of these high population density structure is that they don't create urban sprawls like car oriented city. So you live close to nature. How much more quality of life can you have when you can watch wolves eating and killing stuff while you eat your breakfast.
And who is going to build this omnipresent public transportation system?
When I travel, I'm often visiting family out in the boonies. This past holiday season I was up in "cabin" (it's a four bedroom home) that is far enough away to get no cell reception, has well water, and relies on a geothermal generator for electricity.
I doubt anyone is going to build a high-speed rail to service a town of 500 people that is 100km from anything, and even if they did, I'm still going to need a car that can handle unpaved roads, or a snowmobile, or an ATV, to drive 10 miles through trails in the woods, ice, and snow to get to where I'm going.
This isn't even that niche of a situation either. There are 60 million
people in the US that live in communities of fewer than 2,500 people. It's not even remotely
economical to connect all of these by rail.
Yes, it would be great if all large cities had efficient and usable mass transportation, problem is not every one lives in or near a large city. Not everyone would chose to, and not everyone could afford to. Your argument is for an impossible utopia and you over generalize what quality of life is. Being able to do what I want, when I want, where I want, with what I want is a big part of my quality of life.
Personally, my ideal world would have about 6 billion fewer people in it, but at least I realize this is an unrealistic situation (at least until I get my hands on a significant fraction of the world's nuclear arsenal).Edited by Blameless - 1/14/11 at 2:00pm