• senoro@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • ped_xing [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • zephyreks [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • zkrzsz [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.