from the finding-the-Goldilocks-levels-of-population-density-and-connectivity dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Greater Tokyo took a major hit earlier this month from Typhoon Faxai, which stopped regional transport and knocked out power in the eastern prefecture of Chiba.
Ever since the hit, some media coverage has highlighted the difficulties Japan has in coping with the disaster. There were delays in restoring lifeline services (electricity and water) and this week attention shifted to the plight of local authorities trying to deal with the debris.
[...] At first glance, Typhoon Faxai's devastation might seem to confirm the argument for regional decentralization versus urban density.
But this disaster is drawing attention to the middle ground between these polarized scenarios. For example, an article in Japan's financial daily news Nikkei argued that a combination of disasters, population decline and aging infrastructure may require a strategic retreat into compact and networked cities.
A similar argument was outlined in much greater detail in a report three years earlier from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Endorsing Japan's 2015 National Spatial Strategy, the OECD highlighted the goal of promoting a compact and networked settlement pattern. The OECD pointed out that striking a balance between centralization and decentralization would help bolster cities without writing off the regions.
Under this strategy, three city-regions (Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya) are seen as vital to national prosperity. Communities outside these metropolitan areas are encouraged to network with them to share health, waterworks, power and other essential services.
There are already indications Typhoon Faxai is accelerating the policies to realize compact and networked cities.
But more action is needed to alleviate the dangerous over-concentration of functions, such as government and business, in the Tokyo area. Typhoons are hardly the only hazard.
For example, forecasts indicate Tokyo is likely to be hit by a major earthquake within the next 30 years. The current effort to move functions out of Tokyo should be expanded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @03:39AM (7 children)
Make buildings that are resistant to sustained winds, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, etc.
It will cost trillions to bring every building up to code, but that's money for someone.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:08AM (4 children)
The true answer to many urban problems is to build underground: it shields buildings from the weather, it saves on heating and cooling, it frees up space above ground, it's more efficient in terms of use of materials.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @07:22AM
And the energy for digging comes for free, with no environ impact, amirite?
Also, maintenance cost are negligible, no air refreshing needed, safe from floods or underground water.
Sure is. Just divide the space in long racks and shelves, no need for the same amount of dividing walls. We already have the thick wall preventing the collapse of the soil and the roof girders, what else would one want?
(Score: 1) by Mojibake Tengu on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:30PM
Underground structures are hardly safe from earthquakes. Ask some miners about that.
Rust programming language offends both my Intelligence and my Spirit.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:59PM (1 child)
And the underground may fill with water during a flood, especially if electricity to the pumps is cut off.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Osamabobama on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:50PM
That's why you store the electricity underground, next to the pumps. You've got to get rid of the old paradigm entirely.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:12AM
You might as well spend those trillions to build dispersed on higher ground. That can give you the new smaller networked regional communities.
And make sure the networks, whether water, power, rail, or comm have multiple routes to every destinations.
(Score: 0) by Coligny on Thursday October 03 2019, @05:36AM
Ehm... that’s what japanese building are...
Concentration of population is the opposite of what you want in case of disasters.
300 people in a skyscraper... cut water and power... no elevator no aircon, no sanitation...
300 in rural area... get water from the river, poop into a cathole, wood stove for heat and cooking, trees for shadows without aircon, no electricity no tv... YAY.... we are talking aboot japanese tv here... 2 channel straight out of North Korea. And countless other making daytime TV looking like MIT online course... or run a generator in the back shed...
No mater the disaster (typhoon, nukular, pandemics, PLA -people liberashiun army-) big city are where you should not be...
Meanwhile... being paranoid... governement sure prefer easily controllable urban centers...
If I wanted to be moderated by mor0nic groupthinking retards I would still be on Digg and Reddshit.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Bot on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:18AM (2 children)
100000 inhabitants is a good compromise between the advantages of a city and its problems. I would definitely not like staying in a >300000 place while I have happily lived in a God forsaken mountain place where the sun didn't shine for 8 months a year and the social life was so thrilling that in the evening the soldiers in the army barracks didn't go out, it was the civilians who came in to watch movies in the cinema hall (appreciate the advantage of small monocultural communities wrt perceived and actual safety...)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:47AM (1 child)
I see you've also been to New Jersey.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday October 03 2019, @09:35PM
>NJ
not so God forsaken, thankfully.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:05PM
well, as long as "city planning" isnt just about "land value" we should be okay.
ofc, if the cousine or uncle or whatever extended family of the property development godfather is in the city zoning department ... kiss your liveable city good-bye.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:07PM
I know we are talking about different acts of nature with effects on different parts of the infrastructure, but shouldn't this sort of planning have been ongoing in the 8+ years since the Fukushima disaster, if not longer?