The city then the masses.
Excellent link, [sctld]. For some reason, I kept wanting to translate "car-free" to care-free, as in Carefree, Arizona. Obviously, you've borowed from Carefree's long-term masterplan.
...which leads eventually to the neccesity of replacing the old design with a new one. Large parts of Paris underwent reconstruction according to a central design by Baron von Hausmann (how on earth did someone with such a German name get such a big job in Paris, and did it have anything to do with the meaning of his name?). A big problem was that they had to just mow down the existing medieval city to put in the new one, but what they built was a big improvement in many ways. Too bad cars weren't a problem then, or Paris might now be a car-free city.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure the car-free part isn't as important as, or even more important than the pre-planned part. Venice was hardly pre-planned, and even has a relatively poor mass transport system, but there's still an atmosphere much more conducive to the enjoyment of life than in most cities. I think if more people had a chance to experience the ambiance and lifestyle in a car-free environment, there'd be more support for the costs required to implement it in at least some areas.
And it's not the pollution or cost or danger that makes the big difference (noise is part of it, though). I think the big problem with cars in a city is that they isolate their occupants from the "real life" of simply walking down the street and being aware of and open to the people and storefronts and aromas and sound as surface textures of the city.
I lived in Paris for two years without a car and never regretted it. Paris is excellent for this kind of thing as local shops and restaurants seem to abound in whatever direction you walk. Driving there is sheer chaos and as an adopted Parisian I would often be stopped by confused Americans in cars seeking directions.
The UK is getting worse, although I'm fortunate to be able to walk both to an out-of-town supermarket and the town centre. We also have enough zebra crossings (where pedestrians have right of way) and pavements to make life tolerable on foot.
There are all sorts of examples of pre-planned cities in the world... Brasilia, Washington DC... I believe Canberra? I don't know if any of them approach this idea, though.
Large-scale city planning was very much in fashion for a while, I think mostly from the late 1800s through the early 1900s. Lots of cities built or rebuilt during that period are laid out along partially-ignored grand master plans.
The second half of juxtaposin's idea, though, is less about planning the city than running it under a totalitarian government, with the entire city being essentially private property and the residents living there only at the whim of the management. To this I say: ick, although I know some people who would like living there.
"for our non-US friends, I know crime may not be that big of an issue"
This surprises me; rather a chicken-vs-egg comment, I think. It was pointed out to me recently that European democracies rely on social programmes which attempt to prevent crime and re-integrate offenders into society, rather than fund penitentiary programmes which accept that it is realistic to have three percent* of the population in jail (many long-term) at any one time. How would one find out which countries of the world have the largest prison population, long- or short-term?
* it was either three or one percent, but out of the 300m of that population, both are a huge number.
In principle, this is a very cool idea. I carefully examine the layout of the city and determine a maximum walking distance between subway stops and then always adhere to it. Further, I would make sure that it is faster to take the subway then any other mode of transportation (except flying). i.e. unlike certain places in Boston where it is faster to walk from point A to B rather than take a train to the center of town and then another train out again.
As for the loss of personal freedom, I'm all for it if it gives us a more safe city. But make the ID cards something hard to steal. Like retinal scans, or infra-red scans that check the vasculature of your face.
Also - make sure that while you heavily plan the roadways you include special designed lanes or enclosed mini-roads for bikers. This way yet another mode of transport would be encouraged because it is safe.
um... no. its just wrong. sp I fishbone this.
maybe convert a disused maximum security jail, fill it with the most lush and luxurious stuff and lock all the rich paranoid people in there! then the rest of us can get on with creating some culture.
Melbourne, Australia was planned like this. Er, up until cars were invented that is. You can still live quite happily in the inner suburbs without a car thanks to the great 19th century transport system we're still using.
A combination of the two? No thanks.
As noted, some planned cities are quite amenable to pedestrian traffic.
However, some unplanned cities are also quite fine as car-free areas.
Frankly, the planned city part is baked, overbaked, and widely known to exist.
Due to housing laws in the U.S. it is illegal to discriminate against living where one pleases. Your background check would be illegal.
As far as the second part: a properly planned city ought to be able to largely do away with police, fines, and funding problems. Yours therefore is clearly not a well-planned city.
//Baron von Hausmann //sp. "Haussmann", from Alsace (hence the germanic-sounding name), had no "von".