No one is suggesting forcing anyone to do anything or taking away free will (how did you manage to arrive at such a conclusion?).
By watching the videos on the Venus Project website that you linked me.
Everything looked identical, including the residential housing.
There was no freewill in the people changing the houses that they plan on living into what they wanted.
It felt like a Sci-Fi story city instead of a real city.
A pre-determined city would be designed with highest efficiency and self-sustainability in mind so it would provide for Human needs and most wants - but it would also be designed to accommodate growth and change (as opposed to current cities that aren't exactly what I would call 'modular').
I agree, city planning should be done with true foresight for optimal traffic, resource usage, etc, not like today where it's haphazard and based on the whims of businessmen.
While the VP advocates that most existing cities are leveled and harvested for their resources, some would be preserved as museums, or most of the structures in any given city would be removed, leaving only structures that contribute to the history.
What about places like New York where many Skyscrapers have historic meaning.
A place like Las Vegas where every casino / hotel on the strip has meaning.
Who gets to determine what is of historic value, different people are bound to disagree on what should be preserved, what should be torn down.
Its extremely inefficient and more intensive on resource usage along with energy to restore existing cities.
I agree, but the reason most cities need restoration is because alot of smaller buildings are made out of wood which has lots of vulnerabilities instead of using good materials like ICF (Insulated Concrete Form).
If every house used
1) ICF as their base construction point along with proper concrete foundation.
2) Removed ANY wood in it's construction along with any weak materials
3) Added Solar or other appropriate green renewable energy sources
4) Used Flywheel Batteries to store excess power generation
5) Used grey water reclamation
6) Used LINE-X Truck bed liner to coat the house on the interior / exterior.
7) Used the best insulated windows / doors.
You'd have a C-4 resistant, chemical resistant, fire resistant home that would probably last several centuries without maintainence barring terrorist attack, impact by vehicles or other big objects, and mega natural disasters.
But anyway... with new circular cities popping up, new designs would take shape (Fresco's designs are nothing more than a base template - a possible direction if you will).
I think a logical grid pattern is easier for humans to use, especially to subdivide land for various purposes.
You could do a bit more reading of the FAQ in the Venus Project since it addresses individual house building (don't do it half-way).
The VP FAQ is 108 points long with at least a sizeable paragraph in each point.
I only have so much free time in the day.
As it was explained there, those who want to design their own house will be able to choose from a vast database of templates and mix-mash them together, or put in their own design elements into the design, and will be able to display a holographic image and walk through the areas to see how it would look like, along with making changes before they decide upon on a final design.
As long as people get to make the house / work office they want, where they want, that's what matters.
Being forced into a design they don't like is what causes issues.
The video that the VP showed for it's conceptual city looked way too homogenized.
It felt like a city of automatons instead of a real city where everybody is individualistic, unqiue, have culture, diversity.
As for automobiles...
Why would you want to 'own' them?
You need access to a car for the purpose of driving to a specific destination on-demand (80% of the time, most cars are sitting on a parking lot, taking up space, and is the primary reason as to why we over-produce them today).
I like cars, I'm sort of a car enthusiast.
There are many others who are car enthusiasts.
Sometimes I like to just go on a drive and explore.
Is it a crime to waste energy on exploring for the sake of exploring?
Not everybody is going to see cars as a "A to B" tool.
Yes I have friends who treat cars like that, I also have friends who are like me who really enjoy automobiles for uses beyond a tool.
I have friends who like to race, some like off roading.
Or will racing / off roading be unacceptable in the VP project since it is not a practical use of resources and is technically a waste of energy?
Because I like cars, I like having my own car.
I don't want to share my car with others.
I don't want people to be mucking with my seat settings, mirrors, radio, etc.
I like having my own stuff, is there something wrong with that mentality?
You think that the majority of the population exposed to relevant general education in an environment that doesn't pay attention to these things would actually 'care' about social status' or what type of car you drive?
I don't care about what car a person drives or what type they drive.
I just care that I have my own car and that my car meets the requirements I set for it.
I care that people become decent polite drivers who think about others when sharing the road.
That kind of nonsense is one of the reasons why we have problems in the first place and they only care 'now' because they are indoctrinated to think like that in the first place.
A lot of people care about how expensive a car is because it's a social status image.
I care about cars based on if I like the looks of it, does it meet my requirements, is it fun to drive, how safe it is, etc.
I can care less about how much it's worth or if it's a expensive brand like BMW / Mercedes / etc.
But either way... no one would take anything away from you or anyone else.
Good, cause I'm not inclined to share my stuff unless I want to and I can trust the person I'm lending it to.
You are forgetting that you don't need to 'own' things, but require on-demand access to them. What's the purpose of owning a car if you can have it on-demand to transport you where you need?
I don't need to 'own' something, I WANT to own stuff.
I'm not a fan of being at somebody else's whim.
I don't want to have to wait for a resource to be free so I can use it.
I want my resource now, when I want it, so I can use it whenever I want, however I want, with no interference from anybody.
I don't want anything to waste my time unless I choose to waste it.
If you want to pile stuff up in your home, that's your right - but you can only use one or two things at the same time anyway, so what's the point in cars sitting in 1 place doing nothing and taking up space?
Because it's my car, and I can do with it however I wish.
I want it to be ready to go, whenever I want, with all the exact settings I like.
I don't want to have to deal with random smuck leaving a mess or a smell in a public use vehicle.
Some random jerk didn't fill up the energy tank in a public use vehicle.
If it's my car, I take full responsibility for the maintainence, servicing, etc.
Either way, this is why a transitional period is required.
And most old cities would be phased out slowly until most of the population (or newer generation) moved out to the new cities.
And I can tell you I would personally prefer moving to a highly advanced self-sustaining city in a heart-beat (as would probably a lot of the younger people, and those who are currently homeless).
There will always be those who want to move, not everybody will want to because they have friends / family in their area and a vested interest to stay where they are.
If some people wanted to remain living in the older cities, no one would stop them.
You cannot force people out of their homes after all.
That is why a transitional period is required. So, some older cities could easily remain where they are right now, but with a lot of the population living in newer cities, it will probably be just a matter of time before others decide to move.
Give people incentives to have a better life and they will move.
Public transport would be connected to a high degree with mag-lev trains.
Cars and VTOL (vertical take-off crafts) would be used for destinations that aren't reachable by mag-levs (which would be very few areas in the first place).
Some people would like to drive / fly for the sake of it.
I know I'm one of those people who would like to fly / drive just for the sake of such things, or is it illegal in the VP world?
If people would 'have' to walk, distances for such walks in cities would be minimal -or they would be designed into the environment to prompt physical activity in children who are in schools.
That's good in concept, but unless you plan ahead of time, getting mass transit to work that way is difficult.
Can you please do a bit more reading on the subject before you jump to assumptions of 'taking away free will' and similar notions?
Try to make the subject matter shorter to read, then you'll have more people finish reading it.
Make the video feel more like a real city instead of some homogenous Sci-Fi city.