181 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 21 May \ parent \ on: The Sovereign Neighborhood DIY
I've been doing some light reading on urban planning for SN because I think the territory metaphor is apt. Most of what I've learned so far is that neighborhoods function, or don't, depending on the nature of the shared spaces. Shared spaces that are apart from where people spend all of their time tend to not function, but if you put them where people already are, they get used.
Wider sidewalks give neighbors a place to meet and hangout and socialize, and more people on sidewalks means safer streets, which means more people are on them and so on.
This kind of plan also gives the homeowners incentives to maintain the shared space and do so in a unique, non-myopic fashion vs a single park and a single garden and a single power station.
My wife is sick of me complaining about how stupid it is that our neighborhood doesn't have a playground right in the middle of it. There are lots of kids and parents, but nowhere convenient for us to congregate.
She doesn't disagree, btw, she's just heard it a hundred times.
reply
Too many urban planners are socialist central planners
reply
Thanks for your perspective. I wonder if there could be a middle ground here then? For example, instead of a single central garden and power source, there could be several smaller ones? For example: create a web of gardens connected by trails.
reply
I lived next to a community that had a garden more "inbetween" like this. It wasn't very wide but it was very long with a wide walking path along it. It was better than something entirely set apart, but it was effectively monopolized by the homes near it and unused by the other 90% of the neighborhood (except for the odd walk).
reply