17d67117   
   XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com   
      
   On 2011-02-14, Phlip  wrote:   
   > On Feb 14, 7:44 am, Brent  wrote:   
   >> On 2011-02-14, Phlip  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > On Feb 14, 7:18 am, Ashton Crusher  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> But again, that kind of model isn't what the   
   >> >> big money boys want nor is it much fun for the "planning   
   >> >> professionals" we see their job as cramming as many people as possible   
   >> >> into as little space as possible.   
   >>   
   >> > Curitiba has 50 square meters of park for every inhabitant.   
   >>   
   >> Which means cramming people into even smaller spaces because of   
   >> the land set aside for parks if the city cannot expand it's footprint.   
   >> If the city expands its footprint then that has other consequences.   
   >   
   > You are making things up off the top of your head now.   
      
   It's called logic and math. I'm sorry it escapes you. I will attempt to   
   explain to you. You have X meters of land and Y people. When you have no   
   parks, you have a population density of Y/X. When you make 50m^2 per   
   person parks, then you have a density of Y/(X-50Y). Same population,   
   less area in which they are actually living. You as central planner have   
   made a choice to turn living space into park space. That has   
   consequences.   
      
   If the city expands its footprint, then there are losses to the natural   
   environment, distance to farms, etc and so forth.   
      
   >> The central planner never has all the possibilities thought out because   
   >> it is impossible to do so.   
      
   > Cue the "emergent design" discussion. Start with a stellar example of   
   > bad central design - the Denver Airport.   
      
   That's how the political system rolls.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)