Urban Design and Accessibility
Youkai
There is a great debate over the merits of so-called "walkable cities" and how cities should be centered around certain things as a means of transportation. From what I have seen, this discussion is mainly centered around the context of North America, although it does include other Anglosphere or European countries. Non-white countries are hardly ever included, unless it's something making a point of exemplariness such as "look at what Japan and China have been doing".

While there are many merits to having a cities accessible by foot or non-motor vehicle transport, and that some places are going to be more car-centric than others by nature of their geography and historical city planning, what seems absent from this discussion is that what is most important thing is closeness of community and cultural identity.

Larger cities tend to have less of a sense of community than smaller towns, but at the same time, it's not impossible that it has a distinct sense of community and culture (e.g. Ancient Rome compared to modern Rome). On some level, distance does loosen inherently loosen community and regional bonds, but to exactly what extent and level of distance is a bit rough and contextual. The historical distance and ruggedness of the frontiersmen in Canada and the US are much different from most of Europe. Even vast, more car-centric Russia and its other flat and open neighbours, have a much different sense of identity and purpose behind it than the US.

City planning inherently affects culture on a local level, while culture, both local and beyond, also affects city planning. It's a bilateral relationship, and it is not always clear in what direction. Although walkability and public transportation are often brought up "climate emergency" advocates and/or woke liberals/socialists nowadays, this goes beyond them. Urban (and non-urban) architecture, layouts and history have always been pertinent and affected the way we and those before us have lived their lives.

Anyways, this should serve as a point where people can discuss this topic with relatively less shitflinging that I see almost every time it's brought up, with more thoughtfulness and perhaps more knowledgeability as well.
Coyote
Some initial thoughts:

The very practical parameters of population and population density (and demographics for that matter) are often absent in these discussions. There is a functional limit as to how many people you can have in any area, and how much of that area can be "city" and what it means psychologically for a person to live in such a place, especially in a "multi racial" city like is found in much of the West now.

On that first point, of population/density, look at Manhattan versus the outerboros. There is a very clear distinction between how each are laid out, and the role of the car in each.

On the second point, on demographics, to be quite blunt, nigger fatigue is real, and I can't blame anyone for not wanting to be around them, and electing to move to the suburbs and commute into a city. I'm always amused whenever academics who study "sprawl" just don't fucking get it, despite how obvious it is. I've heard one literally say "But people like sprawl!" in exasperation and not understand why. Gee, I don't know, maybe only having to deal with drug addicts, homeless, wall-to-wall illegals, true mystery meat shit-stink brown people ooking in their own language, chinks blowing snot rockets on the sidewalk, and violent niggers for only part of the day rather than your entire day is preferable to most white people? Not to mention the constant reminder that it is their tax dollars, taken from them from absolutely murderously confiscatory tax rates, that pays for all this wonder? Until the demographic question is answered, cars are here to stay, for better or worse.

Additionally, most American cities are completely indistinguishable from each other in terms of layout. A good rule of thumb is if your city didn't exist before this country existed, it's no different than any other. Couple this with the fact most of them grew to their size well after the car was commonplace, and you end up with these very car-centric cities. A lot of critics of these cities will make it seem like it was "their fault" or act like the cities were designed in a "stupid" way but never do these people have an alternative for what "should" have been done, other than the occasional Marxian "people should have been beaten into making choices they wouldn't have otherwise" type answers.
Leverkühn
(07-14-2022, 04:43 PM)Youkai Wrote: While there are many merits to having a cities accessible by foot or non-motor vehicle transport, and that some places are going to be more car-centric than others by nature of their geography and historical city planning, what seems absent from this discussion is that what is most important thing is closeness of community and cultural identity.

Larger cities tend to have less of a sense of community than smaller towns, but at the same time, it's not impossible that it has a distinct sense of community and culture (e.g. Ancient Rome compared to modern Rome). On some level, distance does loosen inherently loosen community and regional bonds, but to exactly what extent and level of distance is a bit rough and contextual. The historical distance and ruggedness of the frontiersmen in Canada and the US are much different from most of Europe. Even vast, more car-centric Russia and its other flat and open neighbours, have a much different sense of identity and purpose behind it than the US.

I think the few notable examples of communities that still tend to exist within larger communities are usually things like Chinatowns. From what I understand it also wasn't uncommon to have (self-)segregated communities of hispanics, arabs, slavs, etc in American cities, but for the most part the only groups that still stick to this mold are non-Whites. Part of this does come down to the inability for landowners to only rent out to certain kinds of people (thank you Civil Rights Laws), but obviously a lot of this comes down to the unwillingness of Whites to choose to live around other Whites as well. I'm sure we've all seen a number of posts from libtards talking about how they love the "flavor" and "excitement" that living in diverse communities gives them. Obviously this is going to be the case since most of the people hankering to move into large cities are progressives who have little to no racial positive consciousness, if not semi-disdain for the blandness of other White people (that's why they left the suburbs in the first place!)

But more to the thrust of your post, I do agree the lack of local community and identity is an underdiscussed topic. It often seems like the vast majority of the Western world is turning into a home of rootless cosmopolitans who have no actual connection to 'blood and soil,' whether that be towards the nation itself or the state, city, town etc that they come from. Of course no individual is purely to blame for this, and one can't help but feel the government actively doesn't want strong local bonds to form, as they could be a vector point against whatever Civic Religion is trying to be pushed. Of course, it's in the benefit of a large state to create one homogenous population - it makes it much easier to govern people when you don't have to worry about resistance from small but somewhat powerful local communites and cultures. The only "unique" cultures they tolerate, as you see, are those of the brown masses who could and would never be a threat to the status quo. But back to local identity: it's hard for me to designate the cause and the effect here, but obviously there's a connection between the amelioration of local community identity and people beginning to identify with online identities, whether than be political ideologies or niche fandoms. This is sort of what I meant my rootless cosmopolitanism. Communities still exist in the 21st century world but their divorced from a connection in geography. The people you feel 'most at home with' could be hundreds or thousands of miles away, while you feel as if you share no culture or customs with those who live next door to you. Could that be solved by living in more ethnically homogenous communities? Possibly, but I'm not sure how much it would realistically change. Hard not for me to be blackpilled on this matter but I'll just leave it at that.
Youkai
(07-14-2022, 05:59 PM)Coyote Wrote: Some initial thoughts:

The very practical parameters of population and population density (and demographics for that matter) are often absent in these discussions.  There is a functional limit as to how many people you can have in any area, and how much of that area can be "city" and what it means psychologically for a person to live in such a place, especially in a "multi racial" city like is found in much of the West now. 

Yes, demographic shift is important and needs to be considered especially in relation to history involving white flight and such. Obviously shitlibs will stray away from this unless they whine about "gentrification", which as used by them, essentially means white people making a local area not be a shithole. Here, it's mostly pertinent here as to how it affects urban areas than vice versa.

Biggest concern long-term is a deluge of immigration in a "diverse" city aside from certain areas becoming concentrated towards particular ethnicities, is that infrastructure and city maintenance will also suffer. Respect for the spirit of a city erodes when you import those whose entire family has lived not too different from livestock generationally, and have neither the talent not will to upkeep a city. 

I've noticed in the city where I've lived in for most of my life, as population has exploded and transit has expanded, safety has diminished. The local rail system is a functionally a homeless and junkie shelter these days, and that's with its steadily increasing and overpriced cost. COVID policies seem to have exacerbated this, somewhat ironically. Not every city becomes just like this, but there is a steep price to pay if accessibility increases, while the standards that make a place liveable simultaneously deteriorate.

As a quick edit since I feel it's quite important to address as well: as @Leverkühn says, "community" seems to not have much attachment anymore outside of geographical proximity. It of course depends on where you are, but many places seem to not have the ties or efforts to strengthen bonds that they once did. The densest urban centres seem to suffer from this the most, but this extends all the way into the suburbs, where local events seem to be much less common than they once were. Everyone seems more cliqueish and less inclined to engage in community building, beyond mere formalities with their neighbours. I suspect part of this is due to a lingering dissatisfaction with what the lifestyle resembles now and what is expected.
Leverkühn
(07-14-2022, 09:34 PM)Youkai Wrote: I've noticed in the city where I've lived in for most of my life, as population has exploded and transit has expanded, safety has diminished. The local rail system is a functionally a homeless and junkie shelter these days, and that's with its steadily increasing and overpriced cost. COVID policies seem to have exacerbated this, somewhat ironically. Not every city becomes just like this, but there is a steep price to pay if accessibility increases, while the standards that make a place liveable simultaneously deteriorate.
The homeless/junkie issue that plague cities is probably the one that makes me the most angry. It's an issue you seen in every American city, and in other Western cities (but because of less nigs, I never found it to be as bad in other countries I lived in). The reason I'm so infuriated by it is because it is, in theory, so incredibly easy to fix. Libtard residents simply lose the heart to enforce law and order in their cities and elect politicians who talk about the plight of the junkie, instead of focusing on the plight of the working citizen who has to deal with junkies on every block of the city! CLEAR THEM OUT. JAIL THEM. EXECUTE THEM. I really don't care. Take them to work in some dangerous mine or round them up and force them to do basic sanitation work. People have simply lost their will to order the dregs around and make them do something useful for once in their life. 

The issue of crime is similar. Libtarded city dwellers would rather complain about the one time Officer Smith guns down Tyrone than the 50 times Tyrone broke into someone's house and got away with it after a slap on the wrist. I would love to think, then, that 'accessibility' could be increased within a city while remaining clean and safe, but in order for that to work the people have to have the will to defend what's good about their communities, what makes them function. As it stands, so many white-collar, university education libtards are brow-beaten into accepting a worsened standard of living being "it's just the RIGHT thing to do!" This brow-beating has many far-reaching implications, but when it comes to urban environments it usually means letting junkies and homeless people infest your public spaces, and letting niggers get away with petty crime.
Coyote
(07-14-2022, 09:34 PM)Youkai Wrote:
(07-14-2022, 05:59 PM)Coyote Wrote: Some initial thoughts:

The very practical parameters of population and population density (and demographics for that matter) are often absent in these discussions.  There is a functional limit as to how many people you can have in any area, and how much of that area can be "city" and what it means psychologically for a person to live in such a place, especially in a "multi racial" city like is found in much of the West now. 

Biggest concern long-term is a deluge of immigration in a "diverse" city aside from certain areas becoming concentrated towards particular ethnicities, is that infrastructure and city maintenance will also suffer. Respect for the spirit of a city erodes when you import those whose entire family has lived not too different from livestock generationally, and have neither the talent not will to upkeep a city. 

As a quick edit since I feel it's quite important to address as well: as @Leverkühn says, "community" seems to not have much attachment anymore outside of geographical proximity. It of course depends on where you are, but many places seem to not have the ties or efforts to strengthen bonds that they once did. The densest urban centres seem to suffer from this the most, but this extends all the way into the suburbs, where local events seem to be much less common than they once were. Everyone seems more cliqueish and less inclined to engage in community building, beyond mere formalities with their neighbours. I suspect part of this is due to a lingering dissatisfaction with what the lifestyle resembles now and what is expected.

Truly seasoned urban dwellers can sense what kind of ethnic neighborhood they are in just based on the type of litter. For example, there is something about illegals and leaving baby diapers in the street that's unique to them.

As for why community is disappearing; it's because nationality is disappearing. Diversity lowers social trust even among your own in group. What does "American" even mean anymore? It's everything from the illegal 4'7" brown Squatemalan, the might-as-well-be-a-gray-alien-with-a-tan Somali who came here as a "refugee" in the 90s, and somehow the white European who can trace his ancestry back to the first wooden ships to see the shores of this continent. I mean, has anyone else here seen an illegal try and interact with a Korean? It's fucking hilarious (in addition to being dystopian). Two bloodsucker ethnicities (albeit two different kinds of such) attempting to argue but neither of them speaks any common language. That's "America" now - an illegal buying corn syrup snacks of brands no one north of the Rio Grand has ever seen before from a Korean shop owner, and getting into an argument about the wrong change and realizing that without a white man between them, they can't even communicate.
Leverkühn
(07-16-2022, 05:57 PM)Coyote Wrote: As for why community is disappearing; it's because nationality is disappearing. Diversity lowers social trust even among your own in group. What does "American" even mean anymore? It's everything from the illegal 4'7" brown Squatemalan, the might-as-well-be-a-gray-alien-with-a-tan Somali who came here as a "refugee" in the 90s, and somehow the white European who can trace his ancestry back to the first wooden ships to see the shores of this continent. I mean, has anyone else here seen an illegal try and interact with a Korean? It's fucking hilarious (in addition to being dystopian). Two bloodsucker ethnicities (albeit two different kinds of such) attempting to argue but neither of them speaks any common language. That's "America" now - an illegal buying corn syrup snacks of brands no one north of the Rio Grand has ever seen before from a Korean shop owner, and getting into an argument about the wrong change and realizing that without a white man between them, they can't even communicate.
Following this, it doesn't seem like there can be done purely with regards to design to bring "community" back. Positive identities are going to be based around blood/ethnic bonds first and foremost, and then secondly by customs. Hence, even when America became less Germanic and Anglo, the people who were coming in were willing to take up the rugged American lifestyle and shared the Christian faith. There was a growing worry among old-stock Americans about Papal influence but, looking back on those worries, they seem mild in comparison to the issues faced today. America really is becoming more of an Economic Zone w/ a Military than any kind of proper nation because as you say, there's nothing so many different people can rally behind.

One of my favorite Urban Design moments was during the 60s and 70s when you had these idealistic young architects attempting to create high-quality, cheap housing to trigger or aid urban renewal. These buildings were constructed in order to be an improvement upon the current poor government housing that existed, but nonetheless ended as disasters. A key example would be  Pruitt-Igoe which quickly fell into disrepair and became crime-ridden in only a few years.  It just goes to show that nothing is nigger-proof. Could projects like Pruitt-Igoe work? Could it be possible to have nice, affordable government housing that's also of a decent quality? Maybe, but it's not going to when the low-income people you're attempting to house are subhumans, the dregs of the Earth. It seems like all sorts of urban housing projects, or initiatives to create more public spaces, fall prey to the Nigger Problem. There are a number of design initiatives you could embark on, but they're all likely to fail because, as has been pointed out in previous posts, the homeless and junkies will take advantage of any such initiative so long as cops aren't willing and able to enforce the rule of law. For that reason, I can't help but actually get some small satisfaction out of posts complaining about HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE. Libtards will have the gall to complain about architecture being hostile to homeless people while ignoring how HOSTILE homeless people are to normie working-people. Will have to rant about this in another post tomorrow.

I leave you with the demolition of Pruitt-Igoe.
BillyONare
I think some mix of walking streets and automobile streets would be ideal, like BAP says. For example you could have 1/8th by 1/16th rectangular blocks like in Chicago, but have cars only on the exterior of 2x2 block groups, and cars banned on the interior. The walking streets would of course be large enough to accommodate cars such as ambulances and fire trucks when necessary. Parking garages built as necessary by The Free Market. Skybridges between buildings. Subway stations at 2 mile intervals. High speed rail in and out of the city. Skyscrapers as the highest virtue. Should be mostly residential with some commercial space. Corporate office spaces (HR soy nests) discouraged and unnecessary with work-from-home now. It is very sad how many skyscrapers are used for that bullshit rather than as abodes for playboys and millionaires. Everything open for 24 hours like Vegas is peak Cindypunk. These are just my initial thoughts, details and logistics need to be refined.
Svevlad
I think the commie-era Eastern European, particularly Yugoslav, urban design from a functional perspective worked best, if we disregard the crappy architecture. Something like this can be mixed with Gnon's spergism to create a "cellular city" - basically a bunch of connected small towns. In abstract, each would be a square roughly 1x1km in size, bounded by arterial roads or major infrastructure (railway etc) that also carry the bulk of the public transit. Such an unit would be called a cell, and be divided into 4 roughly 500x500m "microdistricts" by major boulevards that cross the middle, which carry the "auxiliary transport." The blocks themselves can be whatever. Houses, buildings, both, public services (albeit better to distribute those in the central bits along the roads). Both walkable and driveable.

Of course, sizes and shapes are adapted to the terrain etc etc, and you have to solve the nigger issue first
Guest
Having good grocery stores within short walking distance is probably the best thing about living in a city. Not having to plan out every meal you cook and shop weeks in advance totally changes the way you think about food and cooking. It's no surprise that so many people in rural and suburban areas eat and cook such garbage and are so fat.
Leverkühn
(07-19-2022, 02:41 PM)Guest Wrote: Having good grocery stores within short walking distance is probably the best thing about living in a city. Not having to plan out every meal you cook and shop weeks in advance totally changes the way you think about food and cooking. It's no surprise that so many people in rural and suburban areas eat and cook such garbage and are so fat.
Don't really understand this point with regards to suburbs. Why do you have to plan out things weeks in advance? I had multiple grocery stores within a 10-15 minute driving distance in the suburb I grew up in. People in suburbs have cars so walking 10 minutes vs driving 10 minutes shouldn't make a difference. It's not hard to stop by a grocery store on the way home from work. 

I also don't buy your argument about suburban areas having more fat people than urban areas, considering the latter are filled with niggers and spics who have the highest rates of obesity in America. Having moved from an affluent suburb to a city, I see way more obese people in the big shitty. There are upscale neighborhoods within the city that you see fit people in, but these are exceptions to the general trend.

Edit: Just so I'm not purely going off anecdotes here, found a study on rates of overweightness and obesity in high school kids, and another study on women living in the American South. Most studies I found sadly only looked at urban vs rural, or urban vs non-urban. Rural areas are without a doubt the worst. Suburbs end up having a lower rate of overweightness and obesity than urban areas. I imagine this is largely due to the presence of minorities within such areas.
Guest
(07-19-2022, 03:11 PM)Leverkühn Wrote: Don't really understand this point with regards to suburbs. Why do you have to plan out things weeks in advance? I had multiple grocery stores within a 10-15 minute driving distance in the suburb I grew up in. People in suburbs have cars so walking 10 minutes vs driving 10 minutes shouldn't make a difference. It's not hard to stop by a grocery store on the way home from work. 

A ten minute walk is much more enjoyable than a ten minute drive, especially if you're walking to smaller and more local grocery stores or butchers, bakers ect. My point was that it's a pleasant experience, not that it's faster or more convenient, and stopping off on your commute home from work sounds about as miserable as it gets so you're proving my point. 
When shopping for groceries doesn't suck you're much more likely to care about the food that you're cooking and eating, which is part of the reason why cities in places such as Italy and Japan have much healthier people who don't just eat goyslop. 
And obviously I'm not talking about niggers who shop and bodega and eat fried chicken.
Youkai
(07-18-2022, 12:34 PM)Svevlad Wrote: I think the commie-era Eastern European, particularly Yugoslav, urban design from a functional perspective worked best, if we disregard the crappy architecture.

A thing I have noticed about commie block architecture, having spend part of my early life growing up in an apartment like that, is that the gardens/plazas in front of many of them foster a sense of community where locals socialize. Obviously it's not the ideal kind of architecture as it's fairly shabby, but that aspect in particular is one of the better ones. Having people you know and have racial or ethnic commonalities look out for each other is something you'd rarely find in a diverse Nigtropolis. If someone has a history of being a rascal or troublemaker, everyone knows. Gossip gets around.
Coyote
(07-17-2022, 06:10 PM)Leverkühn Wrote:
(07-16-2022, 05:57 PM)Coyote Wrote: As for why community is disappearing; it's because nationality is disappearing. Diversity lowers social trust even among your own in group. What does "American" even mean anymore? It's everything from the illegal 4'7" brown Squatemalan, the might-as-well-be-a-gray-alien-with-a-tan Somali who came here as a "refugee" in the 90s, and somehow the white European who can trace his ancestry back to the first wooden ships to see the shores of this continent. I mean, has anyone else here seen an illegal try and interact with a Korean? It's fucking hilarious (in addition to being dystopian). Two bloodsucker ethnicities (albeit two different kinds of such) attempting to argue but neither of them speaks any common language. That's "America" now - an illegal buying corn syrup snacks of brands no one north of the Rio Grand has ever seen before from a Korean shop owner, and getting into an argument about the wrong change and realizing that without a white man between them, they can't even communicate.
One of my favorite Urban Design moments was during the 60s and 70s when you had these idealistic young architects attempting to create high-quality, cheap housing to trigger or aid urban renewal. These buildings were constructed in order to be an improvement upon the current poor government housing that existed, but nonetheless ended as disasters. A key example would be  Pruitt-Igoe which quickly fell into disrepair and became crime-ridden in only a few years.  It just goes to show that nothing is nigger-proof. Could projects like Pruitt-Igoe work? Could it be possible to have nice, affordable government housing that's also of a decent quality? Maybe, but it's not going to when the low-income people you're attempting to house are subhumans, the dregs of the Earth. It seems like all sorts of urban housing projects, or initiatives to create more public spaces, fall prey to the Nigger Problem. There are a number of design initiatives you could embark on, but they're all likely to fail because, as has been pointed out in previous posts, the homeless and junkies will take advantage of any such initiative so long as cops aren't willing and able to enforce the rule of law. For that reason, I can't help but actually get some small satisfaction out of posts complaining about HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE. Libtards will have the gall to complain about architecture being hostile to homeless people while ignoring how HOSTILE homeless people are to normie working-people. Will have to rant about this in another post tomorrow.

I leave you with the demolition of Pruitt-Igoe.

Some people, and I would include myself among them, believe that the very moment, down to the minute, that the Pruitt-Igoe projects were demolished was the official transition from modernism to post-modernism.

More importantly, there was a recent documentary about the Pruitt-Igoe projects that is truly amazing to see. It came out sort of at the tail end of the proto-woke era and the justifications in it for why it failed are just a cornucopia of Leftist cope and deliberate avoidance of the truth staring them in the face (it was niggers, it failed because of niggers).
Guest
(07-24-2022, 04:39 PM)Coyote Wrote: It came out sort of at the tail end of the proto-woke era and the justifications in it for why it failed are just a cornucopia of Leftist cope and deliberate avoidance of the truth staring them in the face (it was niggers, it failed because of niggers).

From what I've read, the quality of these buildings was horrible and so were the costs of living. The state takes your tax money, uses it to build public housing using the cheapest material available, then charges you money to live there and refuses to do any maintenance (since the upkeep costs quickly overwhelm the profits). This is how public venture works. Nigs have only accelerated the decline.

(07-20-2022, 11:29 PM)Youkai Wrote: Having people you know and have racial or ethnic commonalities look out for each other is something you'd rarely find in a diverse Nigtropolis. If someone has a history of being a rascal or troublemaker, everyone knows. Gossip gets around.

Everyone knows and no one does jack, because snitches get stitches. If you really know life in eastern europe then you'd know the commieblocks in big cities are often populated by gopnik-esque people and drunk deadbeats who are only a step or two above american nigs. Don't give me shit about european ethnic kinship.
Svevlad
We privatized the commieblocks and lo and behold it's now all old people and yuppies (on the other hand we dealt with gopnik types with extreme prejudice and very jewy methods)
_GK
Homeless demography counts as well: bums in the southwest are old hippies, bronzed and mostly inoffensive dopesmokers surviving winter by fleeing to warmer climes. Sharp contrast with tidewater area- middle-aged blacks following you for blocks demanding $20 or more and insisting they know where an ATM is. The former i saw in a highly "walkable" city with broad roads and intentional tree coverage but the type of homeless it attracted was so fundamentally different that this too is just a facet of nigger exhaustion.

Incredible that over time it seems like the police strategy has just become to let it lie and assume the interference in regular persons live isn't worth their time, but those same regular people are legally powerless to evict even specific violent individuals because they wander on and off private property.
Leverkühn
In this Urban Design thread we’ve mostly been discussing what we would like to see done in order to have cleaner, safer, “”more walkable”” cities. But I think it’s also worthwhile to take a gander at the issues that have become the obsessions of progressives, and why they’re so flawed. So let’s talk about one of the biggest bugbears of the Progressive City Dweller: HOSTILE ARCHITECTURE. 

First, what is it? In a rather neutral manner manner, Wikipedia defines it as “an urban-design strategy that uses elements of the built environment to purposefully guide or restrict behavior.” Put another way, it’s the use of Civil Engineering for Social Engineering purposes. ‘Hostile architecture’ links up with the idea of “Defensible Space Theory,” espoused by Oscar Newman, wherein a Defensible Space is "a residential environment whose physical characteristics—building layout and site plan—function to allow inhabitants themselves to become key agents in ensuring their security." You design an area in such a way that those who live near or in the area feel a sense of ownership, leading them to want to take care of the area. In a sense it’s an attempt to combat the idea behind the ‘tragedy of the commons,’ that when NO ONE owns a space and it is open to everyone, no one cares to look after it, and it will quickly fall into disrepair. 

One of the earliest uses of ‘Hostile Architecture’ would be urine deflectors, which is essentially a way of designing that prevents people from pissing on buildings (if they do, it will deflect back onto them, hence the name). In recent times, the most common kinds of hostile architecture you'll see are surfaces with spiked ledges, some kind of walled-off area under stairs, or strategic debris placed around streets and freeways. As you can see, the majority of ‘hostile architecture’ that gets these progressive activists up in arms is installed in order to prevent these places being overtaken by the homeless, vagrants, and drug addicts. They want these people out of prominent public spaces. This seems logical enough to me, as not only do such people commit a high number of petty crimes, overtake such places from tax-paying citizens (whom they often harass), they are also an aesthetic eyesore.

Now how do progressive activists talk about Hostile Architecture? Here's one source
Quote:The trend is bad for civic life, says Cara Chellew, a researcher for the Global Suburbanisms Project at Toronto's York University. “The elements that make spaces hostile for targeted populations also make them hostile for the general public,” Chellew says. “Vulnerable groups of people suffer disproportionately when there is a lack of benches, public washrooms, and shelter from the elements.”
And here's another:
Quote:Hostile architecture not only punishes the homeless, but other city residents as well, creating city spaces that are uncomfortable, unwelcoming and inconvenient for everyone...Put simply, these practices have no place in modern city planning. Hostile architecture is not only irrational, but also morally repugnant and detrimental to all of society. Hostile architecture doesn’t solve homelessness — far from it. Instead of solving the socio-economic roots of the problem, it just moves homeless people out of sight.

Now some of this stuff about 'hostile architecture' being bad in general for civic life does make sense to me. It's certainly not ideal that, in order to combat homeless people taking over subway stations, some stations will remove benches. I'd be happy for there to be benches so that people don't have to stand while waiting for a bus or subway. But what solutions do progressives have to offer so that such measures won't be needed? The man who wrote the second article I linked has this to say: “Governments can and should invest in housing the homeless and providing the support they need to get on their feet.” So yes, as always, the solution is simply MO MONEY FOR DEM PROGRAMS. That’s what the progressive solution ALWAYS is. Upon reading more and more of these types talk about the ""HORRORS" of Hostile Architecture, and you'll see them use the phrase "criminalizing homelessness" as the great injustice these civil engineers are conducting. And it's not even fair to say that is what's happening. If we were ACTUALLY criminalizing homelessness, vagrancy, and being a worthless drug addict, these civic innovations wouldn't be necessary in the first place. It essentially seems to me like 'Hostile Architecture' is a half-assed solution to the homeless problem, because the cities aren't willing to put their foot down and get these people off the streets and into prisons and asylums.

Feel like adding that RIGHT AFTER typing this post up I decided to go for a walk around the park near me, where I witnessed a Nigger Junkie nodding off on a park bench. Sure wish there were some spikes on it so he couldn't do that #Synchronicity
Youkai
(07-24-2022, 05:42 PM)Guest Wrote:
(07-20-2022, 11:29 PM)Youkai Wrote: Having people you know and have racial or ethnic commonalities look out for each other is something you'd rarely find in a diverse Nigtropolis. If someone has a history of being a rascal or troublemaker, everyone knows. Gossip gets around.

Everyone knows and no one does jack, because snitches get stitches. If you really know life in eastern europe then you'd know the commieblocks in big cities are often populated by gopnik-esque people and drunk deadbeats who are only a step or two above american nigs. Don't give me shit about european ethnic kinship.

You are kvetching about something I didn't say because I made the comparison to a "diverse Nigtropolis", aren't you? My insult pertained to pattern of white flight, urban decay, and an often transient community that is has been historical in the United States and now to an increasing degree in Western Europe as well. I also named one possible situational positive from my own experience rather than lauding the concept of the commieblock as a net positive. Granted, I spent this time in a smaller regional town, not a big city as you specified. What you say is how it has been, and remains to varying degrees depending on the country, but the point I was making isn't about "ethnic kinship"; if anything I was speaking from a local to municipal level rather than from an ethnonational one. 

(07-25-2022, 07:24 PM)Leverkühn Wrote:  ‘Hostile architecture’ links up with the idea of “Defensible Space Theory,” espoused by Oscar Newman, wherein a Defensible Space is "a residential environment whose physical characteristics—building layout and site plan—function to allow inhabitants themselves to become key agents in ensuring their security." You design an area in such a way that those who live near or in the area feel a sense of ownership, leading them to want to take care of the area. In a sense it’s an attempt to combat the idea behind the ‘tragedy of the commons,’ that when NO ONE owns a space and it is open to everyone, no one cares to look after it, and it will quickly fall into disrepair. 

Without going too deep into the elements of it, "hostile architecture" is more or less reaction, in the literal sense, manifest into architectural form. Good architecture is a response to an environment and tries to have some form of harmony with it. Hostile architecture has more of a dog-eat-dog attitude in-built into it. Either someone is very important and needs their security protected closely, or trust in a society has collapsed entirely as a prerequisite for it to be adopted. That's not to say that every low-trust society will adopt this, but it has inherent sense of passive-aggressiveness that comes with implementing it, as far as I can tell. 

"Hostile architecture" has this sort of appeal to liberals for the reason that it mirrors them and their priorities to a good degree, as much as they may deny it. It's a half-assed attempt at fixing what they and their policies have often caused and allowed to grow. In segregated environments, it would be hard to imagine the need for hostile architecture if everyone knows where they can or cannot go.
Reply 



[-]
Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)