RE: Program contents...

Hi all.
In terms of the idea of better uses of street space (and current parking 
lots), I think Richard Register has some great drawings that immediately 
illustrate the concept, with cafes, fountains, etc. in the middle of the 
street, vegetable gardens and children's playground in a former parking 
lot, etc.  Indeed, we need images to convey the concept, and to focus on 
what people will gain when we give less or no space to cars.  That is, when 
we emphasize that urban planning should focus on access by proximity, we 
need to show pictorially what that means, and how people would benefit, in 
addition to greatly shortened commutes and more independence of children, 
the elderly, etc.
I also agree that we MUST keep the carfree name.  The other groups with 
which I've interacted are afraid of talking of getting rid of cars, and 
livability city, ecocity, etc., are all being perverted by people who think 
it's enough to plant a few trees or add a bus lane.  It's absolutely vital 
that we continue to make the point that you can't have a good city if you 
continue to allow the cars.
Not to put in a strong vote, but on the side of Portland, there are 
presumably many people like me who haven't been there and would like to 
learn from it, and it would be a relief to see something positive actually 
coming from the US.
Debra

At 12:03 PM 12/19/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Brenda and everyone,
>
>Sorry to write again, but I just wanted to clarify that I supported a
>focus on transport in the Bogota conference programme. What I wrote was
>intending to focus more on what to do with the conference series in the
>future. Of course it's impossible to separate the topics of transport
>and urban design. And also most World Carfree Network member
>organisations are bicycle advocacy groups, which certainly needs to be
>recognised and also not seen as a bad thing!
>
>And while I think the word "proximity" is in common usage as much as the
>word "mobility" (in English and French at least), my point wasn't to
>focus on abstract concepts so much as practical applications. In
>Bogota, for example, they have two streets joined in a "t" shape (La
>Zona Rosa T) that are totally carfree and devoted to enjoyment of the
>place, not trying to get somewhere else as fast as possible. The value
>of that is something immediately appreciable, regardless of our
>economic and educational backgrounds (although that particular place is
>upscale). So I think part of our challenge is to highlight such examples
>and work on replicating them throughout the world in different, locally
>unique forms for the enjoyment and benefit of everyone.
>
>Also, I agree that in some parts of the world it may be valuable for
>Towards Carfree Cities to focus mainly on transport. However, in Europe
>and North America there are other, larger conferences that cover this
>theme. This would be much more of an issue in Portland than in San Luis
>Potosi, given the Pro Walk / Pro Bike conference coming to nearby
>Seattle. So we'd have to distinguish our conference from theirs, both
>in theme and methodology.
>
>Given that the conference series is called Towards Carfree Cities, I
>think a good place to start is to learn from the world's existing
>carfree cities. The ones I've visited seem to work well precisely
>because of their emphasis on proximity first and mobility second.* I
>don't want to set up the two ideas as being in opposition to each
>other, but I do think the former types of strategies should get
>increased emphasis in the future.
>
>Others? Shy list members can comment too!
>
>Randy
>
>* In the still-carfree medina of Fes, Morocco, traditionally each
>neighbourhood (microscopic by today's standards) was self-sufficient in
>terms of at least a dozen facilities: school, mosque, bread oven, mill,
>hammam, public toilets, fountain, etc. This to me is the perfect
>example of proximity - create ways in the "design" process for people
>to fulfill their wants and needs as locally as possible, avoiding the
>need for mobility. Of course people still want and need to move as
>well, so it becomes a question of to what extent we should accommodate
>movement, and at the expense of what. The two concepts must be applied
>together. It may sound theoretical, but it's something we do even when
>rearranging furniture in our bedrooms. Curiously we consistenly get the
>compromise about right with our indoor environment, but almost never in
>our outdoor environment.
>
>
>Randall Ghent
>Membership & Conference Coordinator
>WORLD CARFREE NETWORK
>Kratka 26, 100 00 Prague 10
>Czech Republic
>tel/fax: +(420) 274 810 849
>skype: wcn-icc / randallghent
>[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>[carfree_network] list guidelines and unsubscribe information are found at 
>http://www.worldcarfree.net/listservs/. Send messages for the entire list 
>to carfree_network-3hfIC0tI0F+k/GrYEfjPQuG/[email protected] Send replies to individuals off-list.

.......................................................................
WBB Trust(Work for a Better Bangladesh)
Phone- 88 02 9669781,88 02 8629273, Fax-88 02 8629271
E-mail: [email protected], Web:www.wbbtrust.org


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



[carfree_network] list guidelines and unsubscribe information are found at http://www.worldcarfree.net/listservs/. Send messages for the entire list to carfree_network-3hfIC0tI0F+k/GrYEfjPQuG/[email protected] Send replies to individuals off-list.