this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
104 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22270 readers
371 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to !labour@www.hexbear.net.
Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net.
!chapotraphouse@www.hexbear.net is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Erecting an entire city in the middle of nowhere is not a good way to make a city. Cities are like living things in that they have to grow and develop overtime. People won’t choose to move to a city with no one else there on the promise that there will be other people there in the future, you’d have to pay people to live there, either directly or through subsidised living costs. It’s much better to let a city grow naturally over time. It doesn’t need to be much time, a couple decades would probably work, but you have to let it expand naturally.
You really don't, as evidenced by what China has successfully done many times over. Making up rules that keep you from solving problems just signals that no problems will get solved under the ideology you espouse.
That's ideal but not necessary, particularly when you're designing around a massive rural-to-urban migration. It's the principle behind Soviet city design as well: you know that you're going to get a massive migration, so you're not tied down by silly things like "organic growth" because that will never keep up.
The country with 1.4 Billions people does not need to wait for city to grow naturally. And as evidence, their ghost cities got filled up, you can can just search on Youtube for ghost city from article years ago and check.
Vibes based take
Why? I get you are saying those words but I am pretty sure you have no evidence or reason behind them.