Posted by Jacques Pochoy on March 09, 2002 at 03:04:54:
In Reply to: Urbanism: the Density Issue posted by Paul Malo on March 08, 2002 at 16:57:49:
I really would like to see those studies!
There is really some mixing up there... The pseudo-genetically response on density has been tested already... On rats and on men (specially women). The latest being the survivors of Dachau and other camps...! It has nothing to do with urban density (unless some far-fetched relationship quite biased)!
Cities were "invented" by men as a useful tool. Tool to cope with extensive agriculture at first, but also tool of sociabilisation leading by culture to progress (versus the village, traditional prone, "we know you, you are the son of...")!
Most city schemes have the inner city with the "citizens", and those quite numerous waiting at the city gates to enter... And living in favellas (the "outcasts")...Yet their future will be in the city, after they learned it's social rules (1850 the transient cities in Paris for example).
The "stress" because of density is the fact of people who have not the same social behaviour then the "citizens" (villager that goes to the city).
The "culture" part of the article is right on it's wording, expatriates from several east asia countries dwell quite fairly in the Parisan's towers (24 stories) moving in verticality just as if it was a horizontal commuting, while some french "ex-rural" people believe they are stacked like rabbits...
Still, the article hints that Asian people have a "density" culture, and that is not true! A rural chinese will be as stressed as any hillbilly...!
It's the City that creates this sort of "Urban culture". And history shows us that it's a vector for progress. Mixity of origins, anonimity, deep desire to change one's social status... Why I thought that was the "stuff" with which America had been built with???
Free 3D Models