I'm looking for examples of cities that have a clearly defined boundary (phyiscal or legal or combination of both) between the urbanized area and the surrounding agricultural and natural environment.
Portland, Oregon comes to mind. Anybody have other suggestions?
Manhattan is somewhat an example. Long Island used to be agricultural. Manhattan's boundaries are still what part of what makes it awesome. You could study Manhattan as bounded by the rivers.
Contemporary examples are much harder to find, obviously. But many Chinese cities have a a sharp distinction between urban and rural areas, largely through government policy. (Within the past few years, American-style sprawl has overtaken the countryside.)
Venice, Italy
is a nice example...okay it's not a metropolis, but it does have a clearly defined boundary...and its definately not a punishment to study Venice.
related subject:
we've proposed this condition for california central valley towns and cities where it would put a brake on the loss of agricultural land. it was called central valley compitition, which, was supposed to bring in some ideas for forty years from now. depletion of farm land is a huge problem in central valley and residential development is out of control.we did not win the competition. but a project with a downtown shopping district renewal with banners, won (too bad, always watch who is behind the competition).
i am interested to hear if there is somebody who could comment on the issue regarding this specific local.
farmland is the new American Frontier. you can't go west anymore for your "cabin in the woods". You must develop the farmland. Developers and consumer demand for this type of housing are in control. Architects are no longer needed to evaluate this issues and this is sad. Even city planners are not on our sides. Politicians call it growth. People (the public) don't get it that it is wrong, they are too happy. As architects, how can we practice soil conservation as our moral obligation if no one wants it? This is not only a problem in central california. My solution, don't solve it thru being architect, be on the planning & committe and represent the unpopular but correct view. Oh, wait, you can't do that either because you'd trash your name as an architect. Ok - so be a developer and at least be the one making the cash off ruining the farmland.
A good opposite example, since I am far from the SW and can't believe this - Phoenix, Las Vegas. Cities that spread infrastructure far and thin, and have no apparent limits to thier future boundaries.
Oct 18, 04 8:57 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Bounded Metropolis?
I'm looking for examples of cities that have a clearly defined boundary (phyiscal or legal or combination of both) between the urbanized area and the surrounding agricultural and natural environment.
Portland, Oregon comes to mind. Anybody have other suggestions?
yes, this comes to mind, although may not be what you expected.
Shibam, Yemen.
Manhattan is somewhat an example. Long Island used to be agricultural. Manhattan's boundaries are still what part of what makes it awesome. You could study Manhattan as bounded by the rivers.
Hong Kong
Do you want historic or contemporary examples?
Contemporary examples are much harder to find, obviously. But many Chinese cities have a a sharp distinction between urban and rural areas, largely through government policy. (Within the past few years, American-style sprawl has overtaken the countryside.)
boulder, co
san francisco, like manhattan, is bound by water. in both cases they end up being more urban (taller, denser...) because they are land-locked.
Eugene, OR as well has a legal UGB that separates the sprawl from farm land.
Venice, Italy
is a nice example...okay it's not a metropolis, but it does have a clearly defined boundary...and its definately not a punishment to study Venice.
Medellin, Juneau, Cairo, S. Lake Tahoe
related subject:
we've proposed this condition for california central valley towns and cities where it would put a brake on the loss of agricultural land. it was called central valley compitition, which, was supposed to bring in some ideas for forty years from now. depletion of farm land is a huge problem in central valley and residential development is out of control.we did not win the competition. but a project with a downtown shopping district renewal with banners, won (too bad, always watch who is behind the competition).
i am interested to hear if there is somebody who could comment on the issue regarding this specific local.
farmland is the new American Frontier. you can't go west anymore for your "cabin in the woods". You must develop the farmland. Developers and consumer demand for this type of housing are in control. Architects are no longer needed to evaluate this issues and this is sad. Even city planners are not on our sides. Politicians call it growth. People (the public) don't get it that it is wrong, they are too happy. As architects, how can we practice soil conservation as our moral obligation if no one wants it? This is not only a problem in central california. My solution, don't solve it thru being architect, be on the planning & committe and represent the unpopular but correct view. Oh, wait, you can't do that either because you'd trash your name as an architect. Ok - so be a developer and at least be the one making the cash off ruining the farmland.
A good opposite example, since I am far from the SW and can't believe this - Phoenix, Las Vegas. Cities that spread infrastructure far and thin, and have no apparent limits to thier future boundaries.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.