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.
The premise behind constructing new cities is that you save time and resources by creating 1/8th of the city's larger structures and just duplicate it.
But as I already stated, those cities are Fresco's templates.
The actual cities will probably look different - besides, he himself stated that these city designs he made would probably feel like a 'straight jacket' to those living in a resource based economy of the future.
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.
I don't have all the answers.
I would surmise that most of the residential buildings/areas will be removed, with some other structures following suit sometime in the future.
As civilization evolves, Humanity progressively removes outdated structures (even those of 'historical' value) as time goes on.
In that regard, I don't see why new cities wouldn't feature re-built older structures from superior synthetic materials in a museum section of the city.
But at some point down the line, people will likely 'let go' and decide to remove it completely.
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.
Don't forget lining the buildings/houses with phase-changing materials that regulate internal temperatures on their own and keep it in line with what is perceived as comfortable (regardless of external weather conditions).
This would be done for existing older cities during the transition for example, and construction of newer cities would be done simultaneously (all done by machines) which would have ALL of that designed into it.
Flywheel batteries are not a bad idea, but they need to be made from superior synthetic materials such as carbon-nanotubes, synthetic diamonds and graphene that could increase their efficiency, durability, storage, and everything else by orders of magnitude (to say the least).
When you look at how old cities are structured, they are sorely lacking in terms of transportation and sustainability.
Transportation can certainly be improved in existing cities, but if you want proper/fast/efficient connection to EVERYWHERE in the city, its faster and more efficient to do it from the ground up.
Existing cities will be very limited in how much can be 'improved' due to how they were built (buildings and structures were merely popped in on a whim, nothing was planned).
They were never designed (hence the biggest issue).
By designing new cities from the ground up with efficiency, sustainability, modular designs (so the city can constantly accommodate upgrades/change), you get FAR better results.
But also, existing cities can be made that much more self-sufficient as well - in the long run however, society will likely do away with them because they won't be able to compare to new cities in terms of efficiency and quite likely life-standard which will ever change because the cities themselves will be designed to change constantly and not be 'static'.
I think a logical grid pattern is easier for humans to use, especially to subdivide land for various purposes.
Ah, but you have to keep in mind that some Humans find logical grid pattern to be familiar only because they were living in such an environment.
There ARE old cities that follow a circular pattern.
So its more down to how you DESIGN things.
As mentioned above, existing cities were never designed.
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.
Understandable. But in such a case, one would probably read the material when they DO have some free time to spare. I hadn't said you must read it all at once.
But please try to read all of it as time allows, because otherwise, you get a limited perception of what is said (and without detailed explanations, assumptions that stem from the present way of thinking could easily get in the way).
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.
Lol... one can understand how you would feel like that, but you have to take into account that Fresco made a base template to give people idea of what efficient planning of a city could be.
Other than that, for house construction, people will be able to make it to their specifications.
But you have to understand that after the global population is exposed to notions such as 'sustainability' and most importantly relevant general education, it is quite likely their perceptions of what a home looks like will also change to reflect those notions in an increasing manner (as opposed to the image they might have today) - it will still be individual choice.
So, I wouldn't worry if I were you.
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?
Nothing intricately 'wrong' with being a car enthusiast.
If people want to do that, then no one will stop them.
But... I don't think there is a point to 'owning' a car or cars, when they would be accessible for you to tinker with, drive, and do whatever you want on demand.
The notion that you like having 'your own stuff' stems from existing socio-economic system of ownership.
In a resource based economy (and the Venus Project at large) the notion of 'owning' something is outdated, because, you would have the ability to use cars however and in whatever capacity you like when you want them.
Ownership mostly comes from the system in which there is protection of personal assets involved.
There is no point to such notions in a resource based economy because everyone would have access to those things.
Humanity won't be making one for every person on the planet though - it will be done on demand.
For that matter, personal wants differ, so not everyone will want to have 1 of everything (practically no one does that NOW).
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.
And while cars in the Venus Project will be automated, control of the vehicle won't be taken away from the driver.
If you want to drive a car, no one will stop you... but, instead of having stop signs, safe-guards will be installed into cars, such as speed will be automatically limited in a residential area by the car itself, and the car speed increase in that area will be locked until you cleared it.
You cannot rely on Humans alone to follow the road signs.
While plenty of people ARE responsible drivers, they can also be prone to emotional outbursts that can influence their driving and cause problems.
Certain speed restrictions will be built into the design to accommodate safety within the city or residential area... but nothing that would affect commuting.
In a similar sense, if a car detects a human in front of it, the car will automatically initiate breaks and stepping onto the pedal for more speed won't do anything.
I think it's a good security measure to implement in cities to avoid accidents, deaths and crashes.
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.
Social status image is exactly the thing that society will over time probably let go after being exposed to relevant general education and sustainability.
The only reason they care now is because they are indoctrinated into thinking its important and because present society makes it important.
Caring about how your car looks like, how safe its is to drive or how fun is it to drive is something 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.
And this is where the notion of 'ownership' stems from.
The fear that it will be stolen by someone.
Its a way to 'protect' what you have.
In a system where people have unrestricted ACCESS to things on-demand, or things that other people are using, there would be no incentive to steal someone else's seeing how they will be able to get and use one for themselves for however long they want (and if they want it in the first place).
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.
You nor anyone else would be subject to someone else's whim in the Venus Project.
Actually, its funny you would say that because today, practically everyone (including yourself) ARE subject to someone else's whim (perhaps your boss, or people who can tell you what to do in your profession, by the banks, the government, etc.).
On-demand access to material goods and services is exactly what the Venus Project is about.
Its not ownership, but user-ship. It is 'similar' to a library - except there would be no time limitations involved.
When you have no more use for an object, you basically return it to the automation center and someone else will be able to use it, or it will be harvested for its resources which will be used to create something else.
Right now, people have piles of stuff in their homes they cant simply get rid of because they either have nowhere to put it, or it would 'cost' them to do it.
In a resource based economy, such objects would be recycled.
If its technology, you can save your data elsewhere and simply transfer it to a new unit of your choosing.
I have a ton of CD's and DVD's at my disposal I'm not using anymore.
They have various movies and shows on them, and some games.
I have no more use for them, but I don't want to simply waste them as I find it pointless.
It would be better if I could put them up for recycling where I wouldn't have to pay anything or give them to someone who would use them.
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.
Which part of ON-DEMAND ACCESS are you unclear with?
We can make cars to be self-cleaning btw... but I would surmise that people would be encouraged to behave in a more responsible capacity because all resources would be declared common heritage of all Humans.
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.
And as I said, no one will be forced to move unless they want to.
Give people incentives to have a better life and they will move.
That will be more or less self-apparent when people see what kind of life people living in highly advanced self-sustaining cities is.
Automation, transport and overall efficiency would be FAR higher than what can be done with existing cities (which were never designed).
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?
Nothing is 'illegal' in the VP.
To make something illegal would merely prompt people to do it behind closed doors or in secrecy.
No one would be prohibited from driving somewhere, to fly or take the train.
The purpose of the project is to liberate Humanity from the artificially imposed limitations currently done by the socio-economic system, and more.
That's good in concept, but unless you plan ahead of time, getting mass transit to work that way is difficult.
Not really. By designing new cities and implementing maximum efficiency, trains (for example) won't have to actually 'stop' anywhere, they would only have to adjust their speed somewhat.
The compartments can be detached from a moving train in a safe capacity and moved vertically.
Whoever said that horizontal is the only way trains could move?
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.
Details are important - necessary even.
If you want a clear picture of what the VP is about, you NEED to be exposed to detailed information.
Otherwise, you will probably get an incomplete picture, and your brain could easily jump to conclusions by filling the gaps using what you DO know from the present system (along with the projections).
As I said earlier, one cannot find solutions to existing problems by using the same way of thinking that created the said problems.
I think Einstein was the one who said something like that.