Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Achille Autran aautran@*************.fr
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 02:36:44 +0200
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 08:06:07 -0500
From: Jill <jmenning@*******.com>

> This current boom is due to technology, more
> than anything else. Tons of companies have something they want to sell, and
> it doesn't much matter where they build it as far as distribution goes - so
> they go looking for cheap land, low taxes, etc, and find it in the western
> cities, which then explode until they start running into each other.

In 2060 the technological curve will have ended. With troubles spreading
worlwide (NAN, Eurowars, China breakup, undocumented events, pirates)
trade would be impared. It is possible that a reverse move takes place:
corporations would move facilities back near consommation centers (safe
and wealthy people buy, poor people at war don't), for middle to high
end goods, of which a shipment could not be lost.
After industrial waste land, that would be technological waste land.

> So, if the town gets hit by the technology bug, it grows.

That's the case everywhere, AFAIK. Cities grow because of rural exode
and sheer population growth. But residential suburbs and industries look
the same everywhere. What interested me was city centers. In Europe,
even with an overall growth, they remain stable. I've heard that in the
US or in Japan, buildings where destroyed and something new built quite
often, even downtown. Is it true ? Do manga-style cities (with hightech
buildings and highways evreywhere), which imply tremendous
reconstruction, seem plausible ? Not in Europe, IMHO.
Message no. 2
From: Jill jmenning@*******.com
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:46:34 -0500
At 07:36 PM 4/29/00, Achille Autran wrote:

>In 2060 the technological curve will have ended. With troubles spreading
>worlwide (NAN, Eurowars, China breakup, undocumented events, pirates)
>trade would be impared. It is possible that a reverse move takes place:
>corporations would move facilities back near consommation centers (safe
>and wealthy people buy, poor people at war don't), for middle to high
>end goods, of which a shipment could not be lost.

I'd buy that. I hadn't really thought about that aspect of it. My bad.

>I've heard that in the US or in Japan, buildings where destroyed and
>something new built quite
>often, even downtown. Is it true ? Do manga-style cities (with hightech
>buildings and highways evreywhere), which imply tremendous
>reconstruction, seem plausible ? Not in Europe, IMHO.

Ah, I misunderstood the original intent then. In my opinion it is entirely
plausible that even in downtown areas they would replace old buildings with
new - the "downtown" area might shift around a bit as they do so, but I
don't see any reason why they couldn't do it. Ever see those videos where
they take a building almost straight down with explosives? If the buildings
got especially tall and close together, they might fear enough collateral
damage that it seems cheaper to just fix it up rather than replace it, but
for a general thing, if they thought it would be cheaper to just erect a
new plascrete edifice, rather than maintain those 20th Century glass
wonders, they'd probably do it without blinking. This is especially true if
what you said about businesses moving back to areas with a high population
density. Real estate prices go up, the value of a particular building for
whatever historical or emotional reason drops like a rock.

Over the course of fifty years or sixty years, could "manga-style cities"
be plausible? In the US, I would say yes - we tend to not get too attached
to high-rise office buildings... but in Europe, I'd agree that you'd find
the same old buildings, for the most part, with a few new ones stuck in
where it was just too expensive to maintain that beautiful old victorian
whatever-it-was that should have been condemned years ago. Most of the
major city centers in North America have a downtown district and an
"historic downtown" district, which has lots of tourist traps and art
galleries in those beautiful old stone buildings. You have "downtown
Denver" and then you have, a few blocks down the road "historic downtown
Denver", etc. That distinction would probably remain, barring natural
disasters, bombs, etc, destroying those areas. Would it be the same
buildings we consider historic today? I have no idea.

If I have once again totally missed the point, just smack me and tell me to
shut up.

Jill
Message no. 3
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:04:48 +0200
According to Jill, at 21:46 on 29 Apr 00, the word on the street was...

> Ah, I misunderstood the original intent then. In my opinion it is entirely
> plausible that even in downtown areas they would replace old buildings with
> new - the "downtown" area might shift around a bit as they do so, but I
> don't see any reason why they couldn't do it. Ever see those videos where
> they take a building almost straight down with explosives?

They do that here in Europe as well for large buildings, you know :) Just
not with ones that are really old (~100+ years or so).

> Over the course of fifty years or sixty years, could "manga-style cities"
> be plausible? In the US, I would say yes - we tend to not get too attached
> to high-rise office buildings... but in Europe, I'd agree that you'd find
> the same old buildings, for the most part, with a few new ones stuck in

More likely: built onto the old buildings, and be part of them. You end up
with an 18th century building that has a glass-and-steel wing attached to
it, for example. In one of the cities near where I live, a few years ago
they tore down an old building in the city center, but left the historic
front wall standing; a completely new building was then added behind this,
so that from the back it looks new while from the front it appears to be a
renovated 17th century (IIRC) building.

This practice would probably continue into the 2050s, IMHO.

> where it was just too expensive to maintain that beautiful old victorian
> whatever-it-was that should have been condemned years ago. Most of the
> major city centers in North America have a downtown district and an
> "historic downtown" district, which has lots of tourist traps and art
> galleries in those beautiful old stone buildings.

You mean "old" as in "19th century," right? ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: Jill jmenning@*******.com
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 07:22:31 -0500
At 04:04 AM 4/30/00, Gurth wrote:
>According to Jill, at 21:46 on 29 Apr 00, the word on the street was...
>Ever see those videos where
> > they take a building almost straight down with explosives?
>
>They do that here in Europe as well for large buildings, you know :) Just
>not with ones that are really old (~100+ years or so).

I sort of figured they did.

> > Over the course of fifty years or sixty years, could "manga-style
cities"
> > be plausible? In the US, I would say yes - we tend to not get too attached
> > to high-rise office buildings... but in Europe, I'd agree that you'd find
> > the same old buildings, for the most part, with a few new ones stuck in
>
>More likely: built onto the old buildings, and be part of them. You end up
>with an 18th century building that has a glass-and-steel wing attached to
>it, for example. In one of the cities near where I live, a few years ago
>they tore down an old building in the city center, but left the historic
>front wall standing; a completely new building was then added behind this,
>so that from the back it looks new while from the front it appears to be a
>renovated 17th century (IIRC) building.
>
>This practice would probably continue into the 2050s, IMHO.

Neat idea. The Louvre meets Dallas.

> > where it was just too expensive to maintain that beautiful old victorian
> > whatever-it-was that should have been condemned years ago. Most of the
> > major city centers in North America have a downtown district and an
> > "historic downtown" district, which has lots of tourist traps and art
> > galleries in those beautiful old stone buildings.
>
>You mean "old" as in "19th century," right? ;)

Heheh :o) Yeah. That *IS* old around here :o) All relative...

Jill

"Nearly half of online users say the Internet has become something of a
necessity in their lives. However, a full 95% of that half admit that 'they
actually have no lives,' calling into question the validity of the survey. "
-Jim Rosenberg

http://www.redrival.com/jmenning
Message no. 5
From: Achille Autran aautran@*************.fr
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 02:32:19 +0200
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 07:22:31 -0500
From: Jill <jmenning@*******.com>

> At 04:04 AM 4/30/00, Gurth wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >More likely: built onto the old buildings, and be part of them. You end up
> >with an 18th century building that has a glass-and-steel wing attached to
> >it, for example. In one of the cities near where I live, a few years ago
> >they tore down an old building in the city center, but left the historic
> >front wall standing; a completely new building was then added behind this,
> >so that from the back it looks new while from the front it appears to be a
> >renovated 17th century (IIRC) building.
> >
> >This practice would probably continue into the 2050s, IMHO.
>
> Neat idea. The Louvre meets Dallas.

Arrgh ! Don't mess with the Louvre !!! *think twice*
But there's already a glass-and-steel pyramid right in its middle.
And it is beautiful. *sigh* So long with conservatism...
However, if this goes on, it ought to have its fair share of total
mess-ups. Funny descriptions ahead.

> >You mean "old" as in "19th century," right? ;)
>
> Heheh :o) Yeah. That *IS* old around here :o) All relative...

My flat is in a building from 1740. And that's not very old around
here... It's just 'characteristic housing'. :-)
Message no. 6
From: Achille Autran aautran@*************.fr
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 02:32:21 +0200
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 21:46:34 -0500
From: Jill <jmenning@*******.com>

> < un-delocalization stuff >
> I'd buy that. I hadn't really thought about that aspect of it. My bad.

Your 'bad' ? I wasn't correcting you, I just expanded the idea. If we
had already thought about everything, discussing (sharing ideas, not
hammering one's opinions) here would be pointless, except for
patronizing...

More on the subject: all the troubles causing 'relocalization' (no
better word) happened from 2005 to 2035. In 2060, delocalization may
have restarted since the 40s, not yet full-fledge but with more defended
ships (I discard air transport for large quantities). A few events (a
comet and big magic mess ?) may merrily send a few quirks in the
well-oiled international trade machinery.

> <Snip intersting comments>
> Most of the
> major city centers in North America have a downtown district and an
> "historic downtown" district,

That's just what I ignored, thanks. However, there may be a few
distinctions: in cities with space to spread, like Los Angeles, downtown
will shift. In already over-packed areas, like Japan, or Manhatan if an
earthquake hadn't taken the job, the destruction/reconstruction or
renovation thing that Gurth mentionned later will happen.

> That distinction would probably remain, barring natural
> disasters, bombs, etc, destroying those areas. Would it be the same
> buildings we consider historic today? I have no idea.

I think so. There are laws that protect estates with cultural value. And
we can add today buildings that will be historical soon (space needle
?).

> If I have once again totally missed the point, just smack me and tell me to
> shut up.

You're right on it. Anyway, side comments are valuable: they enrich the
subject. So, please, whatever you say, don't shut up. ;)
And if you're pointing at the bluntness of my tone, well I still have to
master subtlety in english. I probably have too much faith in those
handy 'IMHO'...
Message no. 7
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 12:00:26 +0200
According to Jill, at 7:22 on 30 Apr 00, the word on the street was...

> >This practice would probably continue into the 2050s, IMHO.
>
> Neat idea. The Louvre meets Dallas.

"Dallas" isn't art, is it? So why would it be shown in the Louvre? ;)

Anyway, they have done exactly that with the Louvre already: there's this
glass pyramid outside that looks distinctly like it wasn't put up at the
same time as the rest of the building...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 8
From: Jill jmenning@*******.com
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 05:46:29 -0500
At 05:00 AM 5/1/00, Gurth wrote:

>According to Jill, at 7:22 on 30 Apr 00, the word on the street was...
>
> > >This practice would probably continue into the 2050s, IMHO.
> >
> > Neat idea. The Louvre meets Dallas.
>
>"Dallas" isn't art, is it? So why would it be shown in the Louvre? ;)

Not in my opinion, no :o) Though there is this one beautiful convention
hall that's all white wrought-iron and silver mirror glass which, in my
opinion, takes the old styles and meshes it tastefully with the new styles.
Anyway, I like that building.

>Anyway, they have done exactly that with the Louvre already: there's this
>glass pyramid outside that looks distinctly like it wasn't put up at the
>same time as the rest of the building...

Yeah :o) My mental image was of replacing the pyramid - no comments on what
I think of the pyramid - with one of these fifty-story colored-glass office
buildings. The doors that used to open into the courtyard around the
pyramid now open into the lower floor of the new addition... Either the
architect was having way too much fun, or he was totally mad :o) Just think
what he could do if he got his hands on Versailles :o)

Jill
"Nearly half of online users say the Internet has become something of a
necessity in their lives. However, a full 95% of that half admit that 'they
actually have no lives,' calling into question the validity of the survey. "
-Jim Rosenberg

http://www.redrival.com/jmenning
Message no. 9
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 20:12:40 +0200
According to Jill, at 5:46 on 1 May 00, the word on the street was...

> > > Neat idea. The Louvre meets Dallas.
> >
> >"Dallas" isn't art, is it? So why would it be shown in the Louvre? ;)
>
> Not in my opinion, no :o)

You are thinking, as I was, about the TV show, right...? :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"There are millions of people who've got nothing to say to each other,
and who do it on mobile phones" --Ian Hislop, on Have I Got News For You
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ UL P L+ E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: Jill jmenning@*******.com
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 13:17:10 -0500
At 01:12 PM 5/1/00, Gurth wrote:

>According to Jill, at 5:46 on 1 May 00, the word on the street was...
>
> > > > Neat idea. The Louvre meets Dallas.
> > >
> > >"Dallas" isn't art, is it? So why would it be shown in the Louvre?
;)
> >
> > Not in my opinion, no :o)
>
>You are thinking, as I was, about the TV show, right...? :)

No, but it still doesn't qualify as art :o)

Jill
"Nearly half of online users say the Internet has become something of a
necessity in their lives. However, a full 95% of that half admit that 'they
actually have no lives,' calling into question the validity of the survey. "
-Jim Rosenberg

http://www.redrival.com/jmenning
Message no. 11
From: Achille Autran aautran@*************.fr
Subject: Marseille and city planning
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 03:43:55 +0200
> > > > > Neat idea. The Louvre meets Dallas.
> > > >
> > > >"Dallas" isn't art, is it? So why would it be shown in the
Louvre? ;)
> > >
> > > Not in my opinion, no :o)
> >
> >You are thinking, as I was, about the TV show, right...? :)
>
> No, but it still doesn't qualify as art :o)

*Shudder* Oh no, THAT's insane ! :-)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Marseille and city planning, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!