XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: demi@moore.net   
      
   On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 18:21:25 -0500, Gary L. Burnore   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 07:48:04 -0800 (PST), 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.   
   >   
   >That's the "the space they're making us leave is taking up more space   
   >and will crowd out the people" line and it's been around for ages.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >The ONLY good thing about the Denver Airport (other than leaving it)   
   >was that it was better than the old airport.  But only because the old   
   >airport was old.   
      
      
   Wasn't the Denver AP heavily subsidized by the feds?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)