[lifesaviors] Re: Palaces For The People & density preferences
- From: <lionkuntz@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: novusnow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Palaces4People@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
I hold your letter up as example of the best
reply/response I have seen to date on my proposal to
improve Palaces For The People.
Soundproofing is a major concern. I am acutely
sensitive to bass notes, and the current fad of cars
to amplify bass so that it can be heard a block away
is painful pressures on my ears. It is the hardest
kind of sound to block, since the very low frequency
waves travel unimpeded very well through many building
materials. The intrusion of sound pollution is the
largest obstacle in the catagory of "Nearly Solved"
issues of Palaces.
I will take your other issues equally seriously and
report back what I favor as answers to those
questions. I am pressed for time at this instant.
... lion kuntz
--- vusa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I myself believe that for the good of our planet and
> for the
> self-reliance of all we mist not be greedy with
> space. Privacy can be
> maintained in close quarters through proper space
> management and if
> homes or apartments are abutted against one another
> simple
> sound-proofing will allow you to forget that you
> have neighbors but
> proximity will make it easier for you to meet those
> neighbors or pool
> resources.
>
> Palaces for The People is one very valid approach I
> believe we can and
> must promote vigorously. They would especially be
> useful in sensitive
> areas , such as the rain forest, which would be
> great places to live,
> are basically empty of people, and by having such
> communities there,
> communities with a small footprint, you could simply
> buy large tracts of
> land and thus protect them from developers.
>
> At any rate. I think a major emphasis should be made
> in your plan to the
> following human factors:
>
> 1. ensure privacy, especially sound-proofing
> 2. show people how living in such structures will
> make them more free,
> self-reliant, and more prosperous
> 3. work on space management showing people how with
> better managed but
> smaller spaces they can actually have a higher
> quality of life
>
> Thanks in large part to our technology we are not
> forced to choose
> between quality of life for people and for the
> planet. I would argue
> that those who want a better planet need to work on
> ways their plans
> will make life better for people and that those who
> want a better
> quality of life for people need to work on ways
> their plans will be good
> for the planet. Not only are ecology and quality of
> life not in
> contradiction to one another but ecological sanity
> is, to my mind, the
> BEST approach to human freedom, self-reliance,
> prosperity, and quality
> of life.
>
> Bill Collier
> www.concordians.org
> Come learn and grow in total empowerment!
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
