Moving the Capital from Kingston

[Mosiah]

Had to take up Don1's suggestion that Brasilia is a failure. Of course, opinions differ, but I believe most people would agree that the idea to move the capital from Rio to the jungle was a good one. Brasilia is now a major city in Brasil, and much more than the seat of govt. Yes, Rio is still the commercial capital, along with Sao Paolo, but Brasilia has played it's part in spreading the resources from the busy and over-populated Sao Paolo to Rio corridor.

We could do the same to give some relief to the Kingston to May Pen corridor.Forget the corridor, anything to take some of the pressure off Kingston would be a good thing.

As for the earthquake argument, the head of the earthquake unit in Jamaica says that the whole island is vulnerable, so the move would not be something predicated on that.

I think any discussion on a new capital should be based on the idea of giving Kingston much-needed relief, perhaps allowing for a breakdown of garrison communities. Our hilly interior seems out of the question for me, because of access.

(New thread started to take the pressure off the old one. )

[Jawge]

In your opinion to address the garrison issue, is to run to another town? Mo why don't you guys just say the earthquake thing is a facade, the real issue is the garrison. Running away won't solve that problem it will just move with you to the next town. I think KGN is a nice place and played its roel well in being capital of JA.

The only reason why the garrisons exists is because the people want it that way.

[Muadib]

What are the negative aspects of these 'Garrisons' ?

[Jawge]

I don't really know. You should be the one telling me that anyway.

What I know is that Gen.Colin Powell and President Jimmy Carter said that they should be dismantled.

[Muadib]

What does this 'dismantling' entail ?

[Jawge]

This is where the dictionary comes in. You should be okay from there on.

[Muadib]

Not interested in the generic term.. please give details of the 'dismantling' process..

[Willi]

Not all equally vulnarable.

Just finished the academic piece and it seems the alluvial plains are like jello and are by far MOST vulnarable. Yes anywhere on the island can feel the impact, but the damage is alleviated by the alluvial soil and that is why the KGN conurbanization has experienced the MOSt damage over the centuries.

Mandeville seems to be the best insulated major town.

Anyway, its about taking the pressure of Kgn metro that is earthquake fodder, even if we dont move the capital.

Brazilia is now a booming town of 2 million. No longer boring and not crime plagued.

St Paulo is the commercial capital and is 2 to 3 times the size of Rio.

[Willi]

Separate issue.

E-quake is what we discuss here. Tell Haiti that e-quakes are red herrings!

[Don1]

I don't really know. You should be the one telling me that anyway.

What I know is that Gen.Colin Powell and President Jimmy Carter said that they should be dismantled.

Babylon haffi tell yuh dat?

joke ting...neva si come si dem kall dat

[Don1]

Had to take up Don1's suggestion that Brasilia is a failure. Of course, opinions differ, but I believe most people would agree that the idea to move the capital from Rio to the jungle was a good one. Brasilia is now a major city in Brasil, and much more than the seat of govt. Yes, Rio is still the commercial capital, along with Sao Paolo, but Brasilia has played it's part in spreading the resources from the busy and over-populated Sao Paolo to Rio corridor.

We could do the same to give some relief to the Kingston to May Pen corridor.Forget the corridor, anything to take some of the pressure off Kingston would be a good thing.

As for the earthquake argument, the head of the earthquake unit in Jamaica says that the whole island is vulnerable, so the move would not be something predicated on that.

I think any discussion on a new capital should be based on the idea of giving Kingston much-needed relief, perhaps allowing for a breakdown of garrison communities. Our hilly interior seems out of the question for me, because of access.


(New thread started to take the pressure off the old one. )

I guess the concept of "failure" is relative & subjective and has to be considered in a cost/benefit or opportunity cost environment...opinions differ on whether the experiment was a failure or not. I know that in international affairs one almost NEVER hears Brasilia mentioned...even with the dramatic rise of Brasil recently.

Also Brasil may be an inappropriate example for Jamaica...vast country & big resources....not really our analogue.

Here's one opinion:

The Reality of Brasília

Brasília was a failure in many ways. The city did not turn out the way the planners intended and is not thought of very highly by either its own inhabitants or other Brazilians. The construction of the city produced a debt of over 2 billion dollars. Massive inflation in the 1960's, fueled by the proliferation of paper money, gave the military a good reason to take over the government and ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985.

Many of Costa's ideas for the Pilot Plan were failures from the beginning. They may have been good ideas in theory, but in reality they could never work. There has been a recent gentrification in much of the Pilot Plan, putting the housing there even further out of reach of the common worker than before. The superblocks, intended to be small communities in themselves, foster almost none of the community Costa and Niemeyer intended. The complaints against the buildings themselves is that there is no individuality to them, and that the apartments themselves are unchangeable.

There is very little casual social interaction in the Pilot Plan. There are no convenient meeting places, therefore people must arrange for meetings in their own homes, a very undesirable location for both parties involved. The Pilot Plan was built for the unrestricted movement of the automobile, therefore it is without street corners. The traditional street corner society is dead and there are no urban crowds in Brasília. New residents in the city are easily disoriented because of the lack of visual cues with which to navigate about the city with. Trying to find a particular address can be difficult because so much of the city looks the same.

Costa had intended the intersection of the two axis to have an area which would be much like the streets of Venice, with pedestrians strolling about and vendors hawking their goods. Kubitschek was in such a hurry to build Brasilia that this intimate part of the Plan was ommitted in the construction of the city, taking away any hopes of a truly pedestrian area in Brasília.

Brasília was a city built for the car, not the pedestrian. Accident rate in the Pilot Plan are five times higher than rates in North America. There are few opportunities for people to walk anywhere because the city has only superhighways. Crossing these highways is especially dangerous for the pedestrian. Although there are some underground crosswalks, they are poorly lit and a haven for muggers. It is estimated that at least one person a week is struck and killed attempting to cross a highway(Wright and Turkienicz, 1988).

A major complaint among residents of the Pilot Plan is that they have only home and work. There are no centralized meeting places for leisure time. The city is very divided into sectors, and there are almost no multi-use areas. There are sectors for everything, like embassies, police departments, fire departments, government car repair shops, private car repair shops, sports facilities, warehouses, military activities, clubs, schools and churches. Travel between these sectors can be very difficult, especially for a pedestrian. Most government buildings have their own shops and restaurants, but, because of the nature of the city, if a service is not available in the building, it could be several miles away. This strict division of the city discourages the casual errand, making the city a difficult place to live in.

There have been some attempts to make Brasília a more congenial city. Vendors often travel around with carts or bikes, selling their goods in superblocks and other areas, but this helps only a small bit in the attempt to make Brasília a nicer place to live.

Brasília is widely known as the "three day city" (Brunn and Williams, 1993), as many of its wealthier workers spend only Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday working in Brasília, and then jet to the more social cities like Rio and Sao Paulo for extended weekends. This only furthers the view of Brasília as an unpopular city. For one Brazilian's critique of Brasília, click here.

Brasília was a success on two fronts. Firstly, the construction of the city unified Brazil and provided Brazilians with a source of pride and a symbol of hope. The speed necessary to construct the city in the short amount of time allowed focused the countrys energy and showed Brazilians what they were capable of. There now seems to be a shift from Brasília being the core of the Federal District to it becoming more of the symbolic capital city it was intended to be as the satellite towns grow more and more self-sufficient of the Pilot Plan(Wright and Turkienicz, 1988). Soon, Brasília might become a suburb of the satellite towns it spawned. Secondly, Brasília's location was an even greater success. The city not only connected the rest of the country together with it's central location and superb highwy network, but it provided a growth center for Brazil to expand westward and to tap it's vast interior resources.

Overall, Brasília was a failure. Perhaps the greatest criticism of Brasília is that it is a culturally inappropriate city. Brasília is based upon European ideas, not Brazilian ones. Brasília was built for the automobile in a society where the automobile is still a status symbol. The social disparities clearly evident in Brazilian society are much to great for any idealistic city to overcome. The modernist view that an ideal city would produce an ideal society is clearly objectional, the modernist view did not take into account the human aspect a city, and therefore failed. To quote Paul Forster in "Capital of Dreams", "Perhaps if they had taken note of Frank Lloyd Wright, who wrote in 1932 that 'Architectural values are human values or they are not valuable', the city would be more suitable for pleasant living rather than efficient working."(Forster, 1986).

[Jawge]

unfortunately I don't have the communcation links to Gen.Colin Powell nor President Jimmy Carter. Can't help you there.Sorry

[Muadib]

try some independent thought.. use your ability to reason and attempt a prescription

[Jawge]

try some independent thought.. use your ability to reason and attempt a prescription

Ben, you should apply the above; then your questions on dismantle would be answered. Now give it a shot and tell me the results.

[Muadib]

I am interested in hearing your thoughts.. I know mine...