Originally Posted by
jon c.
They built something like where I live. Or they tried. A cooperative venture with the developer building a large (and still growing) development in conjunction with the State moving many of their offices to the site, building a complex on land donated by the developer. But the single family housing is out of the price range of most state office workers and the 'village center' doesn't really have much in it. There's a major supermarket but it's on the other side of a six lane road and practically speaking isn't really walkable for most anyone. It sounded good on the drawing board, but in the end it was just another suburb.
I was in an environmental group which tried to stop one being built in a flood plain (genius!) of a large, protected river ... and the state and city were falling over themselves to give the "modern, cutting-edge concept" whatever they builders wanted.
What the residents wanted, it turned out,w ass not to walk anywhere.
Like the one you saw ... pretty good ideas, not thought all the way through, with too m,any compromises and to many miscalculations, sinking under the weight of dreams or good mixed with dreams of greed.
What I say is, no matter how good the system, if you put the same old people into it, you aren''t going to get a very different result.