Why Wakanda might be a model for our future cities - Premium Soy

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link: Why Wakanda might be a model for our future cities

Wakanda is a marvel. The fictional country of the Marvel Universe is the most advanced civilization in the world, years beyond the rest of the world in technological learning.

But it’s a little-noticed part of Wakanda that may predict what our real-life cities of the future should look like, according to author Vishaan Chakrabarti, who I talked to for my new podcast “Downside Up.”

“One of the things I love about Wakanda, if you notice, if you watch ‘Black Panther’ carefully, there’s the city, the city’s got all this mass transit and all this housing parks and all this stuff,” explained Chakrabarti, who wrote a book called “A Country of Cities: A Manifesto for an Urban America.” “And the moment you leave the city, you’re in farmland. And there’s this connection between rural life and urban life.”

He added: “I just think that is a really interesting paradigm to think about people, either living in super dense circumstances or really living in true rural hinterland and doing the things that we need everyone to do in farmland, which is grow our food and all of that stuff. And it would mean you would use a lot less land on this planet at the end of the day.”

That vision of our cities does not comport with what our cities currently look like. Not close. And that’s in large part due to the fact that most of our modern cities were built around cars, not people. (You’ll notice there aren’t cars in Wakanda.)

And that is a development that occurred after World War II. Our dense urban centers began to empty out as people chased the dream of a yard and a white picket fence in the newly created suburbs. People need a way to get from their city jobs to their new houses in the suburbs. And the growth of factories to meet war demand meant that cars could be mass-produced both quickly and cheaply.

Car culture was born. The idea was simple: Our cars were essential components of who we were – and are. Cars were an extension of your personality. Everyone – it seemed – had one. They became a status symbol. And our cities began to be built to accommodate them rather than to accommodate us.

We were all in such a hurry to live the suburban dream that we didn’t think what – and who – was being left behind by the rise of car culture. “Cities then are designed to serve a very small minority of people who happen to have access to resources and power,” Dr. Destiny Thomas, an urban planner, told me.

Now, though, could be a moment when the way we have thought and constructed our cities could well be changing, said Joann Muller, who covers the future of cities and transportation for Axios.

“I think we’re in this really interesting time right now, with sort of a once in a century transformation and it has to do with electric, autonomous connected vehicles,” she said. “And with that moment where all the technology is changing, that should be the time where we rethink what cities should look like as well. I don’t know that that’s happening as much as it should be, but it’s an opportunity. And you think about, there’s a lot of micro mobility devices now. And I don’t know that a scooter’s brand new or a bicycle’s certainly not brand new, but we’re thinking about them in different ways as transportation around cities. And sometimes it’s actually a lot faster to go on a bike than it is in a car.”

Chakrabarti notes that there are a number of cities in Europe that are already doing the work of putting people at the center of cities. “Copenhagen and so forth, tons of bike lanes, there’s a whole culture of biking, the Dutch countries, again, enormous infrastructure around walking, biking and mass transit,” he said.

Whether major American cities ever transform from where we are today – heavily suburbanized and car-dependent – remains to be seen. But all we have to do is look to Wakanda for an idea of how our cities of the future could work.
 
Last edited:
Fucking hell, you can get on a train in London that can reach 140 miles per hour and be in a field in Kent in about 35 minutes. Is America really so grim that the idea of fast trains and the countryside are so foreign that their only concept of them comes from capeshit?
America has HSR in the only place where it looks like Europe, the Northeast Corridor, the collection of interwoven cities and outlying metroplexes from roughly Boston through New York and Philly, on down to Wilmington and D.C.

It doesn't work any other place than that because of double, triple or quadruple the distance between cities and lower urban population overall as you move westward that makes rail travel unfeasible for short hops and more expensive than air travel for mid to long range.

It doesn't become viable economically again until you hit the West Coast and thanks to the utter dysfunction of liberal CA government, it will never be built there even though it could sustain itself quite easily in a rough triangle from LA to San Fran to Las Vegas.

"Murrica' is fuckin' huge" is a meme, for a REASON. At 2,475 miles from New York to Los Angeles, and not counting stops, it would take 17 hours to do by high speed train, that's why we don't have one, it's cheaper to do it by plane in 5 hours, no stops.
 
Last edited:
If they had a fix so you could manage Cajon Pass; Los Angeles to Las Vegas could be profitable, and was/has been an idea since the mid 1990's. The thing is, every weekend (and Holidays) lots of Southern California head up to Vegas for fun; Interstate-15 becomes a nightmare and shit blows. This could increase travel time, reduce car accidents, and cut down on emissions; a win-win-win, a fucking trifecta of competency... But California hates doing shit right.
I could see that working, but yeah actually getting the California side of the project finished would be a pipedream. Something about that state makes the retardation terminal. I think it's the weather, man wasn't meant to live in weather that nice all the time.
 
America uses rail for freight traffic, namely those shipping containers or agriculture so we can feed the cities along the coast.
Don't forget the pipeline-on-wheels, because dummy environmentalists seem to think that's the only way to move crude and celebrate the fact they shut down Keystone, ignorant that THIS
tanks.jpg

just took it over.


America has a robust freight rail system, it's just that they were all built back when "high speed" was 80 mph, there's no way to upgrade them without taking so many chunks of land away from the cities and towns that grew up along the tracks in the 19th Century that the cost, as you see in California, reaches the billions before you even connect two counties. Europe, after all, had the luxury of building new rail networks from the ground-up in the 50's, and it only cost the total devastation of all the cities and everything around them in WWII to free up the land needed! Easy! Why can't we just do that here, right?
 
To be fair at least this is an author providing the quotes for this rather than a "scientist" or "expert."

On the other hand huge chunks of the fictional society live in pseudo-serfdom and according to the article;
Wakanda that may predict what our real-life cities of the future should look like
Should. Not could. Should. These people literally want a return to the medieval ages. The only good thing is they think they'll be on the inside looking out and are in for a nasty shock.
 
Wakanda was:

* Made up, and written by a WHITE MAN
* The niggers had to touch some bolide like it was 2001: Space Odyssey just to "evolve."
* Notice the niggers acted "poor" while Wakanda was hidden
* From other fellow countrymen and neighboring Apefrican countries
* Thereby not helping other blacks like the sociopaths they are
* As is tradition
 
I could see that working, but yeah actually getting the California side of the project finished would be a pipedream. Something about that state makes the retardation terminal. I think it's the weather, man wasn't meant to live in weather that nice all the time.
California already tried the Los Angeles to Las Vegas train route twice and both times it failed. The project was proposed in 2010 under the name DesertXpress.

As the link will shows, the company ran into some trouble and a new company took up the project, XpressWest. Yet, the similar issues and others haunted XpressWest and they sold their company to BrightLines.

So now frens, what is the proposed route you ask? Surely, it's from LA Union Station to Las Vegas Downtown where one could board the people mover?

No.

The proposed route was from Las Vegas to Apple Valley. So where is Apple Valley? Near Downtown LA? Orange County? Ventura?

Nah...

Apple-Valley-Tourism-1-466x280.jpg
usa-apple-valley-ca.jpg

Apple Valley, my frens is in the middle of the fucking desert. It's literally outside of LA over a fucking mountain.

So you take the train back from Las Vegas to Apple Valley where your car is baking hot in the desert heat then you need to drive an hour and 45 minutes (Longer when their is traffic) to get back into LA.

Their entire project is pure insanity.

P.S. No, their is not metro line or train line serving Apple Valley so you gotta drive or take the fucking bus.
 
So how do I challenge the king to mutual combat for the throne of Soylandia or whatever it's called?

Or is he going to pull a Hasan Piker and bitch out?
 
“And the moment you leave the city, you’re in farmland. And there’s this connection between rural life and urban life.”
Yeah, exactly how it is in real life.

It's amazing how these people are so fucking retarded that they see a Sci fi movie with a CGI city designed in a way that real cities are, and they think it's some amazing, new concept.

Fucking hell, you can get on a train in London that can reach 140 miles per hour and be in a field in Kent in about 35 minutes
The UK is tiny. The entire country is roughly the size of one American state. The United States is humongous, it's more practical and efficient to link the nation with a robust Interstate system. That being said, there's plenty of rail, freight and passanger, crisscrossing the Northeast, where it's one, contigious urban landscape.

Texas also has rail connecting it's urban areas, even with the significant distances involved there. Same goes for the Midwest. Where there's lots of people, there's rail.

It wouldn't be practical to have passanger rail running through places like Montana and Idaho. Much more efficient to connect their cities with highways.

There's just too much open space and not enough people.
 
To be fair at least this is an author providing the quotes for this rather than a "scientist" or "expert."

On the other hand huge chunks of the fictional society live in pseudo-serfdom and according to the article;

Should. Not could. Should. These people literally want a return to the medieval ages. The only good thing is they think they'll be on the inside looking out and are in for a nasty shock.
Unfortunately, they're not, they're the exact kind of person who would've lived a cushy life as a Noble's failure of a Son who'd still be able to fail upwards to military command and never miss a meal in their lives despite being absolutely thick as a brick. Only the pampered kids of already established elites could have the time and "smarts" to sit down and navel-gaze like this and then write an article about it as proof of their own genius.

I, for one, want to know HOW that railroad stays in buisiness when it looks like it loses 50% of all revenue traffic to accidents per day.

I demand the Fat Controller appear before Parliament and explain himself.
 
Is America really so grim that the idea of fast trains and the countryside are so foreign that their only concept of them comes from capeshit?
Nogs don't leave the cities/burbs thank god. You might see them smoking out a 2000s BMW 325i in the parking lot by the trailhead but they aren't about to hike it.

As for trains they just bring you from one hell hole to another with suburban stops along the way. The only nature in these places is small parks and ponds. If you want to be alone in the woods, to let your dog off leash (illegally), etc. you have to go to the mountains. Even some of those secluded spots get mobbed on weekends when some spic writes about one on Instagram and 200 of them show up to your swimming hole the next weekend.
 
First of all, I never see women advocating for this shit. Car culture is a safety thing for women, as well as being essential for grocery shopping. It always sounds like some damn man with no kids pushing this shit for a reason.

Second of all, I don't think some of y'all understand how mountainous and unstable California is. Keeping highways open though the mountains is a full-time job.

Whee!


There are reasons that go above and beyond California's planning process that make a rail network challenging.
 
Partially yes; we dug up a lot of rail infrastructure for the steel for the war effort in WW2. Then after, they started pushing the car stuff, and so our road system expanded, while the rails may have recovered, it's not as robust as you see in other countries.

Another issue is our geography, you may not know it, but the USA has two big mountain ranges that divide the country into three distinct parts. You have the plains / flyover country in the middle; to the west are the Rockies and to the east are the Appalachian. I'm not saying it's impossible, but with bad geography comes engineering and large costs to make high-speed viable... And our politicians would rather embezzled that money than actually do good.
The one place that would actually make sense to try to build a high speed rail would be the northeast corrider - the areas connecting DC, Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston. But like you said, the people in charge would rather siphon billions out of the taxpayers over decades for some "Future High Speed Line" out in the middle of fucking nowhere in California than build something that would be practical.
We also developed a transcontinental rail network first but when rail traffic switched to freight and the car became something the middle class could have the amount of passenger rail networks diminished. As we developed these networks first, urban centers grew around them greatly limiting development of new rail lines.
Don't forget that the development of modern commercial air travel in 1950s and 60s also pretty much rendered cross-country travel by rail obsolete. Why spend five days traveling from New York to LA by train when you could fly there by plane in under five hours?
 
Last edited:
America has HSR in the only place where it looks like Europe, the Northeast Corridor, the collection of interwoven cities and outlying metroplexes from roughly Boston through New York and Philly, on down to Wilmington and D.C.

It doesn't work any other place than that because of double, triple or quadruple the distance between cities and lower urban population overall as you move westward that makes rail travel unfeasible for short hops and more expensive than air travel for mid to long range.

It doesn't become viable economically again until you hit the West Coast and thanks to the utter dysfunction of liberal CA government, it will never be built there even though it could sustain itself quite easily in a rough triangle from LA to San Fran to Las Vegas.

"Murrica' is fuckin' huge" is a meme, for a REASON. At 2,475 miles from New York to Los Angeles, and not counting stops, it would take 17 hours to do by high speed train, that's why we don't have one, it's cheaper to do it by plane in 5 hours, no stops.
TGVs have been pushed to hit 574 km/hr
though of course this being a much shorter train, and due to technical limits of most rails and the power waste at this velocity it isn't standard, but I'd like to know how you came to 17 hours, is that by an estimate of how the track would have to be laid out or existing track? Because there are about to be trains that actually commercially run at 224 m/h, making that trip 10 hours without stops, assuming the line was straight.
 
Back
Top Bottom