Sign Guestbook View Guestbook
Architects and Civil Engineers once worked together as master city builders. Beginning early in the 20th Century, Urban Planning specialists have competed with architects. However, Urban Planners are only engaging in damage control. Without the architect's knowledge of good design and the principles of building, the urban planner can only repair the damage caused by the helter-skelter haphazard growth of cities that grow continuously without good design or defined limits. Politicians holding power and control have assumed the role of the architect and take for granted that continuous growth around a central core is the best way to go. City Planners have turned a blind eye to master architect Frank Lloyd Wright's innovative machine-age linear Broadacre City concept.
While admitting their own inability, this is what Planners, with an air of superiority, said of Wright,
"Technically speaking, Broadacres cannot be taken too seriously, certainly not as a replacement for the core of big cities. Mr. Wright's vision is oriented more toward suburban life, ... But planners should not expect too much of architectural city designs. The architects who fancy themselves planners have never evinced an equal concern with all elements of the big city. ... It will take a really creative planner not an architect to someday give us a complete and dynamic design for the future city." - Book Reviews, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 25 (1958) p. 163-164.
On the contrary the modern linear streamlined Broadacre City, conceived about 1918 was and still is a genuine solution to the problems of planning for orderly development. Following parallel to the old land grant railroad corridors it eliminates dangerous and noisy railroad grade crossings. It has all the elements of urbanity to be found in the big centralized city except for the criminal element, the slums, the crowded conditions, the congested traffic, and the unreasonable noise. It expresses the highest ideals of American Democracy as defined by law (the will of the people). Only architects are educated to have the foresight needed to plan and design cities if they have not been co-opted by Urban Planners who are educated as specialist in damage control.
An effort to communicate with Urban Planners for over a year on their own turf ended abruptly as follows:
Re: Blocking sidewalk, Disorderly conduct, Police power, It can not be too often repeated - unless it is too often repeated ... too often repeated, Banned.
..."Well now, it feels sort of like the fellow they ran out of town on a rail. If it wasn't for the honor of it, I'd just as soon walk.
Cyburbia discussion moderators defend big city feudalism apparently unaware that it opposes the federalism which is the basis of our system of government in this Country. The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton after serving as delegates to the Constitutional Convention during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia; they express the Founders reasons for making our present form of Government a Federal Republic. Local politicians love the power they derive form overgrown, sprawling big cities and have not yet understood or accepted our Federal system in actual practice; they typically oppose Federalism while clinging to Feudalism - Planning professionals in the public sector can hardly oppose them and remain in their employ; in fact they feel obligated to defend them no matter what. Hopefully they will eventually give more careful attention to the KYMAK planning concept.
"It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in convulsions." - August 1776
More on Cyburbia FLW
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Whereas We, the People of the United States of America have ordained and established that one member of the House of Representatives may be appointed to represent up to 30,000 of us, and
Whereas considering the present population of these United States, 300M/30,000/435 = 22, then each of the existing 435 Congressional Districts could be subdivided into 22 or so precincts from which additional members of Congress could be duly elected who would choose from among them one who is best able to speak for them on any particular matter in Congress and to cast their vote at the seat of government; they may all share the same office facilities and staff, if not replacing the staff in some cases.
Therefore, be it resolved to issue by your authority an Executive Order directing that the aforesaid arrangement be made with all due diligence.
In the name of Our Lord, Amen.
Federalist Papers #54 ~ 58
Why not let our borders be from the Panama Canal to the Bering Strait in Alaska? Would that not solve problems of Homeland Security? Not to mention problems of illegal Mexican immigration.
Now days, Science assumes too much, Art is impoverished, Religion is smug and degenerate. These essential elements of ure are out of balance. Let us be aware of that and seek a solution. When Science produces Truth, Art produces Beauty and Religion produces Goodness. This imbalance may well be rooted in the love of Money when it produces avarice and greed.
How about a reciprocal trade or Marshall Plan type of treaty with Mexico regarding illegal immigration. For as little a one or two percent of the number of them here illegally we could send a number or troops and a number our Peace Corps or other management and skilled workers to help them get their economy up to par.
The Matt Drud ge report last evening got me to thinking in a new way about the illegal Mexican immigration problem as his guest was making the old argument about the southwestern United States once belonging to Mexico.
It occurs to me that the Mexicans do not have a lack of land where they are - the problem is about their industry or more importantly their system of government. While it is a warmer climate they do not have to work as hard to survive as in northern climes. Still, as things are there is an inequitable distribution of the means of production due no doubt to their political system; that is where in they have problems. Maybe we should move into Mexico and set up a better political system as we are doing in Iraq; after all Mexico has a lot of oil, too - if that is a good incentive.
Also, on the Ron and Shane local radio show here the guest host who had been an imbedded reporter had some interesting thoughts about the Iraq economy. He suggested we put the money we are using to buy war supplies into the Iraq economy rather into other countries where we are now buying them - something like the Marshall Plan. He made a very good argument that it would make us a lot more welcome there.
It was with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence that this Nation defeated the most powerful military force on Earth in its War for Independence in 1788 with a fighting force of barefoot freckle faced farm boys with very few weapons and very little food and clothing.
Two centuries later this Nation has the most powerful military force on Earth and we are struggling to win a war with a group similar to what we had back then who profess a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence (whom they call Allah). It is a war that seems to be violating the prime directive; unless it is our Manifest Destiny.
However, what better way is there to improve on the situation than to go by our Constitution and it's Bill of Rights; then we would by virtue of Law be compelled to rely on the protection of Divine Providence (whom the Bible calls Yahweh Elohim). Then we would have nothing to fear but fear it's self. Then we could, as we should, concentrate on building the New Jerusalem in America as our forefathers dreamed and hoped for. You hear the President and others say he feels his duty is to protect the people from these terr orist - that is not true according to our Constitution; the President's sworn (or affirmed) duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. So, if the President is using political verbiage to justify his action, he is making his motives suspect. I do not oppose the War on te rror or war on any kind of evil - till kingdom come. That is the President's job, if Congress will allow him or her. I just believe that with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we do not have to suspend the Constitution to do it.