TED Conversations

Terry Torok

Founder at Angel Producers, Founder at Live from Earth


This conversation is closed.

The City 2.0 according to YOU... 2 Things a City that YOU design, Must Have...

1. 2. The City that Becomes You... [ Brevity and Bravado Appreciated ]


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 5 2012: Hi Terry - Thanks for giving me some food - to think on this: (1)Any township or newly developed city ( with my limited knowledge) is developed on a vast piece of land. This particular planned area – (however may be large or small) do have the limitations as per the government’s orders – like length and width etc. My point is at any given time and in the future – there should be total ban on expansion of any kind – whatever. By which – the citizens of this city are and would be the forefathers in future and the culture they discovered or innovated at the beginning would be carried over for few decades / centuries in the future without any adulteration or overlapping. So, you may ask me about whether I am against any development in future? Nay! If there are any innovations or plans for development – in future – do it in a different area calling it is city -3 or city X. But keep what has been done here as it is where the residents are residents who brought the plots. ( I am not sure whether I am able to articulate my idea correctly)
    (3) I would like to have the residential houses with 2 or 3 floors – underground and maximum one floor towards sky. ( keep the terrorism and nuclear war-fare in mind). It is NOT to advertise about resident’s wealth in any way. When there is any huge pollution or chemical war fare – when there is any kind of other calamities – then the underground will be safer place. And I also suggest underground foot-paths – to move around in a one locality – Not the entire city. And at some locations – ( if any huge river or sea is near by to the location) in the city itself – divert the sea / river water through this city – in curves and rounds – limited to one area of the city – where underground is not done - and link it again to river or sea so the flow will be maintained. Use large boulders for the canal instead of concrete. So you will have underground walk-way, water way for transport and elevated transport.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Mar 6 2012: While I agree about not needing to include overt Terrorism in the plans for City 2.0, there are other reasons to build down. Leaving more room for natural growth, tall buildings reduce windflow reducing the areas we could use for wind power, but there are also reasons to build up in some areas, increasing area for solar collection, channeling wind flow, area for large public display/collaboration.

        We also need to look at the various heating and cooling situations around the world. In some areas one design style would be physically preferable than the other.

        In summary, we need to look at more factors than just the monetary expense of construction. Not saying that's what you are meaning to advocate, but its but that's what I heard in your message.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.