Should the government have a hand in Urban Planning or is it just more unnecessary bloat getting in the way of our...

Should the government have a hand in Urban Planning or is it just more unnecessary bloat getting in the way of our lives?

I wouldn't mind this, but I guess I'm progressive in that regard. I love beautiful cities, and the contemporary city that is not.

But maybe on a limited scale. Not every city should need to follow guidelines... and I'm not talking about Agenda 21 shit of course. I'm talking about beautiful tree-lined avenues and gardens and uniform aesthetic

some but it shouldn't be invasive
zoning should keep industry and residential separated by commercial properties and such
basic sim city 2000 tier shit

>getting in the way of our lives

If they aren't evil jewish demons, they would do this so that we have a better daily life, getting to look at pretty surroundings and quaint buildings. Jews hate everything beautiful, so of course they love (and built) the modern city

Zoning can be awful though - you get sterile suburbs with no bars or shops, and then a commercial district that feels dead after 5pm. As long as your business doesn't pollute the area you should be free to put it where ever, perhaps with some guidance on scale and appearance.

Enjoy the traffic problems from that type of zoning, then. There's a reason cities aren't designed that way.

yea some cities do horrible with red lines
zoning needs to blend like pastel colors

Lack of zoning leads to sprawling cities like Houston.

, or LA

The city and country should do all the city/town zoning

Yuck la.

County*

Yeah, walking to the shops a couple blocks from your home is nightmarish, unlike the perfect traffic situation where a million people try to drive to their jobs located all in the same place at the same time of day.

Sorry, I honestly thought you meant having stores next to houses just randomly on the same block. England is amazing with how the suburbs will always have a block of shops within walking distance. That just isn't the case in America outside of a few towns.

You can limit sprawl with greenbelts and refusing to upgrade highways to make it inconvenient to commute long distances. Sprawl is driven by decreasing travel times - everyone wants to live with a detached house in the country and away from the diversity, so they'll live as far as they're willing to drive.

...

I've lived in Houston and no zoning basically mean urban sprawl to the fucking end of the moon. It means you gotta drive everywhere to get somewhere and there's no public transport at all. No city centers means boring city life with nothing really fun going on.

it is overrun by mestizos and pockets of niggers now too, so it is basically degenerating into a favela.
>I wonder if the ratio of pit bulls is higher there than the average for the US. I bet it is.

The damn government needs to keep its hands in its OWN pockets and do the job it is supposed to be doing instead of listening to the shadow gov. are deep state if you prefer.

Yes, don't let the goys live away from inner city nogs. Perfect.

High density, walkable cities with mixed residential and industry are dope as hell. Lived in one like that in France on an exchange and it's awesome. People actually out on the street and you can just go walk to get anything you need basically but that doesn't work when niggers and spics pollute the common grounds with their mere presence.

So the way to fix that isn't to abandon the cities built by your forefathers and isolate yourself in little shitty suburbs which you then have to spend 2 hours a day commuting to and from. Right wing death squads are the solution. Or just not let them in in the first place.

government can barely plan a shit into a toilet properly, and they spend 10 years planning it, only for it to be thrown out and started again if an opposition team gets into power.

Just outlaw suburbs. They combine the worst parts of urban and rural areas, without the advantages of either.

Central planning could be good in the right hands (see Poundbury, Jakriborg, Seaside (Florida))

But it could also turn out that the same guy designing suburbs would design the whole damn city and it would be a fucking disaster.

Basically centrally planned citys would have to put public transport and pedestrian accessibility at the top of their list. A personal vehicle shouldn't be a necessity in a well designed city. Besides, look at these abominations:

Government planning should play a heavy role in planning for urban centers.

Our US cities are mostly trash with very few exceptions; Urban sprawl, and disgusting new-age architecture.

We need city plans which are compact and urban as well as architecturally sound.

All cities should be completely preplanned including the architecture used. The state should also own all the buildings.

This as well. Suburbs are garbage and the pique of capitalist Jewry. We need more small towns.

*peak

This is horrifying but it has a charm.

Yes of course, then that leads to gentrification. So areas open up trendy book stores, cafes, green spaces etc... then the property values go up, and original tenants are forced out. Its a never ending cycle of shit.

Cars should either be separated from the rest of the traffic, or outright banned from the city.

Sure, it would have charm... if this wasn't what 99% of the US looked like.

>Oh no! Poor niggers can't live in nice communities!! :(
And?

Just solve the housing issues through collectivisation.

European cities are thousands of years old, American cities are not. The post WWII era paved the way for the suburbann family, the idea of the work commute and urban sprawl. While in Europe, commercial and residential zones are almost on too of each other, in America they are totally seperate and miles away.

people are dumb, inexperienced people are bad long term planners, the gov should have a hand in making sure urban development plans aren't pants on head retarded but overall it should be the cities choices on how it should be structured

Living in Atlanta has made me really realize how bonkers we Amerifats are when it comes to traffic patterns and car density.
This only works if you have a good alternative set up in place. And here in the states public transit does not work. We would need something like Japan where private companies are in charge of rail for example. But you would also need to overcome the huge hurdle of changing the American culture from one of driving all the time to one of not. And that could only come by really fundamentally restructuring the American city scape.

Not the case, look at williamsburg brooklyn. The hipsters moved in and replaced the old italian history of the neighborhood because cheap rent. Now the area is much nicer and flaunts their green spaces, small theatres and cafes, now the starving artists are literally starving and cant afford their places because rent has shot throught the roof. So its literally become, rent out a 1 bedroom studio between 4 people for 2000 a month or move out. Many such cases

And?
Does that mean we should keep pushing the capitalist Jew to create new age architecture on the cheap to destroy our skylines and build 1000 identical homes besides each other with no sense of style or community?

There are plenty of European cities which were leveled during WWII, spat on by Communist architecture and city-planning, or were not fully developed, which were intentionally planned with the thought of urbanization and the reconstruction of classic architectural styles.

It's not impossible just because it's forced onto us and that's what we're used to. However, it takes government regulation, some thing Americans hate.

In many countries city planning is completely head in ass backwards. For example here certain districts are spesifically made so you can only get in with a car. Trains and metros are however the ideal, even if for now we can’t completely move to them.

This, but don't forget the alternative idea of Shared Urban Space was also a trendy idea a couple of decades ago and was heavily implemented from the top down. The problem with central planning is that the government makes as many if not more mistakes than things it does well.

I used to live in NYC, and the city in the 90s was a crime-ridden shit-hole. So what if Italians move out? The Italians were living among swaths of niggers and spics that were pushing drugs and shooting guns.
The face of New York City has always been changing, and as long as immigrants Americanize, they will lose that sense of culture. The real difference is that the migration of peoples in New York City before included mainly European immigrants moving in for some time, then moving out to heartland America. We don't get European immigrants anymore, only spics with their trash cultural and spicery.

Besides, these "poor gentrified souls :( :( :(" will just move out to different communities. Better out of our financial and cultural centers than in them.

They can move into these suburban eye-sores with rivers of identical houses if they wish.

Why not a Savannah?

The problem is the government is controlled by people that want to destroy everything we would consider beautiful.

Like I said, plenty of small pockets of the US which are still quite gorgeous. Savannah is one of them.
I just wish cities like this were expanded a bit more in that classic style which defines the particular city rather than just having the main center preserved like a museum. We need to reinvigorate the desire for beautification.

Do Europeans even see some US cities as beautiful, or do they just see the shitty Nevada box suburbs, or that congested mess in NYC?