2006-09-01 03:26:03 · 5 answers · asked by Light 1 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
Well I believe the economy is planned, but not by a central planning group, the way cities are. People who make decisions about what to produce, what to finance, how much, etc. They make plans that end up making the economy. It is not cohesive as much as city planning, but still it is planned some way.
Regarding city planning: I live near a city that is a 'planned community.' I wouldn't live in it because there is an additional layer of political crap along with an additional tax to pay for the pleasure of being told where and what to plant in your own backyard. The business are hidden from view of the roads, so you must know where you are going, or explore, wasting time and resources to find groceries, fuel and other services that in normal cities are readily available.
It makes for a nice view, but it makes it inconvenient. The planning they did was also to mix in several layers of varied wealth and housing levels, so decades after being built, people don't feel safe walking on all the wonderful paths built near and around their homes. The walking community concept didn't actually make it past 10 years after completion.
I am against planning to that extent, but standard pro-active infrastructure planning is a great thing!
2006-09-07 03:58:30 · answer #1 · answered by Ken C. 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The city absolutely needs to be planned, and down to the last detail. You don't think all that municipal incompetence happens by accident, do you?
2006-09-01 10:30:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both should be planned.
2006-09-06 13:55:28 · answer #3 · answered by Blah 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps you should break out that box of Lego's that you have been saving all these years.
2006-09-05 20:51:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
so the city will be ready "should" an expansion be required - duh.
2006-09-07 23:01:33 · answer #5 · answered by elymendoza1984 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋