Ask HN: What if we built new cities with a strictly limited footprint? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: What if we built new cities with a strictly limited footprint?

9 pointsbaron8166 comments

What if a cities were built up instead of out? What if were so small you could walk from one end to the other in 25 minutes, but it still occupied +100,000 people?

I've been thinking about this "micropolous" a lot lately, and I think it would have a lot of advantages.

1) No cars. Enough said there. 2) The micropolous would be surrounded by a large green loop, so even if the city itself were packed closely with tall buildings, everyone would have access to plenty of outdoor space. 3) If streets are only used for walking, they can be taken over on weekends tables and chairs for cafes, bars and restaurants, or for kids to play in, thus making the city really fun to live in. 4) A lot of the things governments have to do don't really scale well because of distance. Maintaining roads, sewers, water mains, mail delivery, trash pickup, police patrolling, school bussing, etc. are all made incredibly complicated and expensive because they have to serve each and every building over a wide area. Limiting the distance limits what city governments must do (ie less government and less taxes without less service). 5) Since the micropolous have such a small footprint, they can been squeezed into some pretty nice areas, like in a lush valley, or between a mountain and lake so denizens can easily ski in the winter and relax on the beach in the summer.

Who wants to move to my new city?

As a life long science fiction reader, I feel the "arcology" concept has been imagined for a long time in many different ways. I think the idea is inevitable, although probably more Caves of Steel than Trantor. And hopefully not Judge Dredd.

I do!

See also:

https://vimeo.com/131396094

https://twitter.com/stevedombek?lang=en

Also, https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Economies-Jane-Jacobs/dp/03757...

Sure, I'd live there. Certainly a city like you describe beats most of what we currently have.

One problem. We don't generally build "new" cities. Towns and cities evolve when people have a reason to live somewhere. Which reasons usually come down to job opportunities. (Or for retirees, nice weather, and stuff to do.)

Once you have critical mass of population (we're talking hundreds of thousands), a city often generates its own opportunity, but getting to critical mass is very difficult to do deliberately. How do you propose overcoming that obstacle?

A lot of issues would be solved if multiple such cities covered a state,however if there will be only a few such beautiful cities then expect the crowd coming in all the time and once the momemtum picks up the city will expand. And controlling the crowd can be a nightmare. But it can be achieved. Adding a low carbon footprint methods like solar cookers,urban forests(dont mind the insects) may help also. The concern with such an idea has been scaling up in a sustainable manner,almost every ideal city has ruined because of the population boom

You might like checking this out, similar to what you've outlined. (doesn't hit all your points, and more of a vacation destination, but some people live there year round)

http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/urbanism-planning/ho...

We used to go there every summer. Now it's getting more crowded and losing some of it's charm.

How do I get a ride to the hospital with no cars and streets covered with tables? I would invest in real estate in a city with high demand and finite footprint but I would probably not live there. I think you may also find that government service costs per capita may be the same or higher than a regular city.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com