Future Cities
I apologise for the delay in new posting, but alas I have been busy. Recent developments in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and the Lebanon have been positively encouraging. Hopefully the Ukranian trend towards peaceful democratic reforms continues in all of these countries. If so, we'd have a lot less to worry about.
That said, there still is plenty in the future to fret about, and the design of future cities will obviously reflect these concerns. These cities will utilise emerging technologies to increase their security and also quality-of-life. Even though decentralisation will occur, cities will remain in existence. Despite their reduced indespensibility in future, they will still harbor both a sufficiently-sized population and strategic resources which merit their protection I developed a concept some time ago that might apply to future cities- a city as a "strategic zone".
The most obvious difference will be the active defensive measures. As the threat of direct attack increases, cities will likely have to emplace some sort of localised defence: national-level defence networks are inherently slow to respond to fast-changing situations. As such measures become less costly, they can be distributed about the nation by the national government on a cost-effect basis. There are several proposals to mount high-powered RADAR (no, I'm not yelling, it's an acronym) on un-manned balloons. These could be used for defence and civic (i.e. weather forecasting) purposes. Emplaced missile launchers are already a reality in Washington, and not foreign to our defence history. Most US cities were guarded at one time by Nike Missile Batteries designed to shoot down Russian bombers. Modern missiles could easily be emplaced similarly for a fraction of the cost. In addition, the Air Force could use newly-retired F-15s or F-16s for better ANG defence, localised at airports and near potential air targets.
As for ground security, advanced scanners coupled with computer systems could be used to scan for explosives and other nasty surprises. Vehicles would be identified by RFID, and they would be tracked as they traveled in the city. If there were a suspicious vehicle, a team of specially trained policemen would take it down.
As for the police, there would probably be two broad divisions. The first would be beat cops- neighbourhood regulars who know the people of their district. This form of policing has been found to be rather effective, and has been resurgent in the last few years. The second division would be the familiar "response" police, except they would probably be a mite less neighbourly- they would be equipped and trained as "tactical" officers that respond to dangerous situations. This is also the new fashion- car police are already carrying service carbines (usually some permutation of an AR-15) and wearing more military uniforms.
Of course, security won't be the only difference. Given current political trends, cities will probably end up being a sort of welfare state-within-a-state. The cities probably won't end up like the Scandanavian "Social Democracies", but a higher percentage of income will be taxed, and more services will be offered. One positive upshot of this is becoming reality in Philadelphia, where wireless internet might end up being a public utility supported by tax dollars. This seems to jibe with the political interests of city-dwellers well, and it might keep them from trying to impose their vision on the rural folk.
Regarding buildings, there seems to be no end in sight of the tyranny of unremarkable post-modernist trash. The "cutting edge" seems to get uglier with each year, though in some cities there has been a pleasing resurgence of Art Deco or at least minimalism. That said, the physical future cities will probably look much like modern ones, with lots of glass and steel.
Stay tuned for future transportation, war-fare, and politics
That said, there still is plenty in the future to fret about, and the design of future cities will obviously reflect these concerns. These cities will utilise emerging technologies to increase their security and also quality-of-life. Even though decentralisation will occur, cities will remain in existence. Despite their reduced indespensibility in future, they will still harbor both a sufficiently-sized population and strategic resources which merit their protection I developed a concept some time ago that might apply to future cities- a city as a "strategic zone".
The most obvious difference will be the active defensive measures. As the threat of direct attack increases, cities will likely have to emplace some sort of localised defence: national-level defence networks are inherently slow to respond to fast-changing situations. As such measures become less costly, they can be distributed about the nation by the national government on a cost-effect basis. There are several proposals to mount high-powered RADAR (no, I'm not yelling, it's an acronym) on un-manned balloons. These could be used for defence and civic (i.e. weather forecasting) purposes. Emplaced missile launchers are already a reality in Washington, and not foreign to our defence history. Most US cities were guarded at one time by Nike Missile Batteries designed to shoot down Russian bombers. Modern missiles could easily be emplaced similarly for a fraction of the cost. In addition, the Air Force could use newly-retired F-15s or F-16s for better ANG defence, localised at airports and near potential air targets.
As for ground security, advanced scanners coupled with computer systems could be used to scan for explosives and other nasty surprises. Vehicles would be identified by RFID, and they would be tracked as they traveled in the city. If there were a suspicious vehicle, a team of specially trained policemen would take it down.
As for the police, there would probably be two broad divisions. The first would be beat cops- neighbourhood regulars who know the people of their district. This form of policing has been found to be rather effective, and has been resurgent in the last few years. The second division would be the familiar "response" police, except they would probably be a mite less neighbourly- they would be equipped and trained as "tactical" officers that respond to dangerous situations. This is also the new fashion- car police are already carrying service carbines (usually some permutation of an AR-15) and wearing more military uniforms.
Of course, security won't be the only difference. Given current political trends, cities will probably end up being a sort of welfare state-within-a-state. The cities probably won't end up like the Scandanavian "Social Democracies", but a higher percentage of income will be taxed, and more services will be offered. One positive upshot of this is becoming reality in Philadelphia, where wireless internet might end up being a public utility supported by tax dollars. This seems to jibe with the political interests of city-dwellers well, and it might keep them from trying to impose their vision on the rural folk.
Regarding buildings, there seems to be no end in sight of the tyranny of unremarkable post-modernist trash. The "cutting edge" seems to get uglier with each year, though in some cities there has been a pleasing resurgence of Art Deco or at least minimalism. That said, the physical future cities will probably look much like modern ones, with lots of glass and steel.
Stay tuned for future transportation, war-fare, and politics
posted by The Admiral at 10:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home