Can there be any doubt that one of the reasons why the U.S.S.R. favored high-density apartment buildings for everyone in the Ideal Communist City is that it would be easier to bomb them if ever anyone tried to revolt? And one of the reasons why the communists favored mass transit over private automobiles is that it would be more difficult for people to escape such attacks?
Soviet-style apartment in Mariupol after Russian bombardment has damaged most of them. YouTube video by SkyNews.
After 9/11, we were warned by World War II historian Stephen Ambrose:” Don’t bunch up.” Yet urban planners in the United States, supported by fellow travelers in the Cato Institute and Mercatus Center, successfully persuaded the California legislature to pass laws that will make that state’s urban areas, already the densest in the nation, even denser. The people supporting these laws either have no understanding of history or are deliberately trying to make America more vulnerable to its enemies, or at least easier to control from the top down.
Written by urban planning professors at the University of Moscow in 1965, this book details how the Soviet Union would force a large share of its populace to live in high-density, multi-story apartment buildings using the same stated rationale used by American New Urbanists.
Now we are treated to daily videos of apartment buildings in Ukraine attacked by Russian artillery, rockets, and bombs. Thousands of people, perhaps tens of thousands, are dead in Mariupol alone.
Ukraine has almost 50 percent more land than California, but only about 4 percent more people, at least before the current conflict. Its population density was about 25 percent less than California’s, meaning there was plenty of room for low-density housing.
Neither California nor Ukraine have any need for such dense cities. Imagine how much harder it would be for Russia to attack cities like Kyiv or Mariupol if, instead of everyone being packed in a few hundred apartment buildings, they were spread out in hundreds of thousands of single-family homes.
If people want to live in dense apartment buildings, they should be allowed to. But most people don’t, if for no other reason than multistory apartment buildings cost far more to build, per square foot, than single-family homes. Beyond price, most people aspire to the privacy and freedom of owning their own homes and yards. But if these reasons aren’t enough to persuade people than Americans should be allowed to live in single-family homes if they want to, then perhaps the argument that such homes are much less vulnerable to attack than dense housing will make the difference.
WWII films of long lines of refugees on foot was enough to show me that high density and carfree was a bad idea.
City planners are providing ideal targets for all sort of mayhem.
Russians have taken over many of our “environmental” organizations (http://www.debunkingclimate.com/russia-articles.html), why not city planning too, especially since they are mostly fascists (http://www.debunkingportland.com/Planners_Are_Fascists.html).
The other potential dimension of this is for the creation of company towns that can control and exploit workers. It’s also interesting to note that there were competing visions of the ideal communist society with regards to land use. Even in the USSR there were those that maintained that land use should be dispersed and somewhat random. Regardless of the ideology density does not work.
Density does not require apartments…. if you wanted to you can bomb….a suburban neighborhood just as easily.
The wild fires of Colirado where whole neighborhoods were obliterated by burning trees….now imagine an incendiary bomb.
Wild fires are easily kept away from homes by simple measures:
1. NO FLAMMABLE ROOFS (some places actually require cedar!)
2. Clear brush & trees around the house.
Done.
History of human habitation is density, modest sustainable densities work. For 10000 years we’ve had cities which reached apex because of material quality and building heights, typically 3 stories and no more.
Soviets high density housing concepts emerged out of necessity. Despite Russias massive size, much of its landscape is non developed because of geography and climate. Land is frozen, thousands of miles from civilization or rocky terrain. Given Russias history of famine, the land that is arable is set aside for agricultural use.
Another reason for high density is the same reason China engages in it. It’s a state sponsored industry. Big buildings above 3 stories wood is usually Not building material of choice. So concrete, brick, steel and the like drove industry to produce those products. Post WORLD WAR II Soviets housing stock was squalor. As an emerging economy and superpowrer they worked grandiose housing schemes for a Baby boom and growing workforce of new industries. With Europe s economy in shambles they sought to capitalize on all consumer goods…including….cars.
Much of the Chinese economy is state sponsored construction and industries…so heavy construction was a huge part of their growing workloads….
The third reason for high density civilian population….war strategy.
Urban warfare is extremely difficult even for highly trained mechanized armies. Stalingrad, even the Germans as battle hardened took a vicious beating. Russia used cities as battlegrounds because they’re formidable obstacles. Like the Agrocrag from Nickelodeon GUTS…
Sun Tzu’s Art of war advised never fight in cities under specific criteria. An enemy entrenched in a city with no hope of rescue/escape, will fight to the death, commit to suicidal tactics, or use civilians as human shields… the Sun Tzu tactic of not to totally surround cities; allowing an escape route should arranged. If this is not possible or the enemy thinks it a trap, they may agree to leave a building if allowed to take their weapons. They will be allowed a timeframe during a ceasefire to leave the area and flee into the countryside or residential neighborhood.
Once freed from certain death, many of the enemy will flee for home or can be engaged in open country. Large buildings are saved from destruction while friendly and civilian lives are spared. This strategy was used in the movie “The Last of the Mohicans.” The French trapped the British in a fort and a lengthy siege ensured. Since the British General refused to surrender, the French General offered to allow British troops to honorably march out of the fort with all weapons and promised not to attack them. The British General accepted, only to be slaughtered in open country by a major Indian attack, while the French captured the fort without firing a shot.
You may argue “WE WONT FIGHT IN CITIES” but …
– Manila
– Stalingrad
– Hue
– Fallujah
– Grozny
– Mogadishu
Soviet strategy…Humane western armies would not attack civilian population centers. Or if they tried to the urban fortress would be a nightmare to conquer.
AIM-9 Sidewinder missile: 370,000 dollars (2016 FY)
Rolls Royce Cullinan SUV: 325,000 dollars
Just remember, in this day and age, it is Now less expensive to live a life of luxury than to wage war.
1,000 residential properties and two people died in the Louisville/Superior fire, a fire that ravaged a suburban neighborhood. An incendiary bomb dropped on Downtown Denver just 20 miles away would probably result in several orders of magnitude more deaths.