NYC has a 25% antibody rate. It’s clear that density has an effect on spread. It’s common sense.

And those graphs aren’t taking into consideration commuters. People commute in and out of Manhattan every day. Most of those people probably work jobs with more risk than cushy Manhattan residents.

Poultry and Meat processing, mostly peoples of Mexican, South and Central American descent.

Another reason why big centralized agriculture is unsustainable. Putting all Your eggs in one basket....literally

well that's kind of the point. it seems to be a disease that spreads mostly among family, friends, church groups and coworkers - the people you spend time with and talk to. It's not so much the unknown neighbor down the hall or strangers on the street spreading it.

Same experience. With the exception of grocery store trips it’s pretty easy to completely avoid people and still be able to enjoy outdoors.

You may be able to consume everything within a mile, but you certainly are not producing anything. One infected Delivery driver, commuter, visitor, etc can easily disrupt the whole idea of this. More interactions and closer interactions will lead to more infections. The data is clear.

your biased interpretation of the data you've decided to be important is clear. FIFY.

Non, you don’t think density leads to more infections? Please explain your logic. Then please defend extending social distancing based on that logic because the whole concept relies on the fact that diseases spread with human interactions.

Higher density equals more cases. Common sense supported by the data we have thus far.

My subjective theory: People living in cities have smaller social circles and don’t interact with one another as much as suburbanites do, they keep much more to themselves and are more often single. Lifestyle seems to be much more important than just density.

The highest affected areas in Northern Italy are the smaller lower density areas. Biggest hit area in the Netherlands are the rural southern provinces... my 2 cents.

Jla, we're all well aware of your ingrained pov. According to you, we should all spread out indefinitely on our own little private islands. Cities are complicated and serve their purpose well plus not every city has the density of Manhattan.

people in the burbs aren't producing shit either. at least my state, and especially my city, is supplying more than its fair share of revenue to the feds to support the farmers who supply our food

Non, you dodging the question?

There is no real question in your statement. You have an issue with density and are using the current situation to reinforce that bias. Not my problem you can't see this.

edited because reply format is wonky

Square, missed point as usual. Less interactions with humans = less chance of transmission. To suggest that there are more daily human to human interactions in suburban environments vs urban environments is asinine. Please answer the question that I asked non.

Non non non, dodgy. I don’t have a problem with density. I have a problem with religious folks like you that worship density without question. Yes, you are religious....secular religion...but same thing.

Non, you don’t think density leads to more infections? Please explain your logic. Then please defend extending social distancing based on that logic because the whole concept relies on the fact that diseases spread with human interactions.”
Here is the question you didn’t answer in case you missed it.

religion? for fuck's sake you're thick. I don't worship density (or worship anything, other that Pearl Jam). You really don't understand the words you use.

Fuck it then, why not open stadiums, malls, theaters, etc. you guys twist everything to fit your progressive narratives. Then when contradictions are exposed, you get defensive, attack character and intent of the person pointing it out. Some with every subject.

incorrect. we're only pointing out the fallacies with YOUR pov. Enjoy your well crafted island of ignorance.

You default to defend density. It’s a religious like sect within the design community.

jla-x, you are paranoid. inventing fake consensus design bogeymen to argue against. and the speed at which you post suggests some sort of manic behavior. take a break; you don't need to comment on every single post you see to espouse your very particular, extreme opinions. it is you who act the most like a religious fanatic.

Also need not to over complicate things beyond the point of being useful. Social distancing is the ultimate simplification. Stay away from people. Very simple and effective. Don’t need to look into every specific type of human interaction to muddy the issue. Density = more people. Social distancing become harder. Period. Handrails that 1000 people a day touch in subways vs steering wheel of my car. Not a scientist, but Pretty obviously the handrails are worse.

No shit

nice website, thank you Tduds

there is hard data to support the argument that population density is not highly related to the spread of the virus. it's literally the opening post on this thread. it defies common sense and that's why it's interesting.

the point is that population density doesn't spread this disease; social contact does. the high rate of infection in SUBURBAN New York suggests that it's probably more connected to who you know and work with than how close your house is to other buildings.

except for the subway argument.

yeah, i don't disagree with that. just note that flights, commuter trains and ubers are also all transmission risks. in a pandemic, all of them need extraordinary screening and crowd limiting. my argument is really just trying to rebut the simplistic notion that pandemic risk demands planning for low-density development. well-managed high-density is less risky than poorly-managed low density.

tduds - i'm not convinced the pandemic calls for an end to suburban development either. the essay you linked brings up the interesting notion of local community infrastructure and neighborhoods. one of the particular features of cities like Hong Kong (and Wuhan...) is that most development is in the form of self-contained 'housing communities' which include blocks of residential towers with commercial space, kindergartens, health clinics, etc. And generally during emergencies like this they do enforce access restrictions so that only residents can enter. In theory it could make isolation of infection-clusters easier, though I haven't seen anything describing whether a limited-extent quarantine like that has been done in this pandemic. I think it was still easier (and more comforting for people) just to shut everything down.

What you described was the concept behind Steven Holl’s development in China. The City within a City has always been really interesting to me since I read Colin Rowe, where he wrote about the concept of the “pocket utopia”.

technically the most prolific posters on here aren't architects either...

Good points

Agreed. Good points.

I will add, the systemic argument, if you were going to make one is tied to Class in this pandemic. (Nevermind, the rich were tested first, probably warned first, etc...)

I like this. Clearly you’ve had more time than ne to write something concise.

"First came the cops and then came the zoning changes" BULLLLLLL SSSSSHIIIIIT....Go read https://www.academia.edu/13295768/Zone_and_Zone_Out

it was interesting early on how quickly the virus spread among the political class in certain countries - though once people caught on the elite were better able to isolate in comfort. remember the panic week in March was roughly the time where Rand Paul was positive and a few finance guys in NYC died. That got everyone's attention, once they realized this wasn't merely a disease of the common people. on #3 I disagree with calling it "hygiene". Rather, it's that some cultures readily express affection physically with hugs and kisses (Italy, Spain, France...) whereas others even close family tend to keep space (most of East Asia, Germany, parts of US).

i'll point out too, a large part the European outbreak seems to have originated at a ski resort in Austria. The earliest reported spread was an English businessman who caught it at a conference and spread it to family and friends while on holiday in the Alps and then the beach. The impact might be more serious on the poor, but that's only because they have no capacity to deal with life problems. The spread of the disease was not disproportionately due to their 'culture' or circumstances.

It's funny, all this talk about density, and not a peep about Mumbai?

Just like there are many many undetected cases here in US, Mumbai is probably magnitudes higher due to testing and recording.

India’s population is much younger than the States, not to mention much thinner...they’ll be fine, testing or not.

to randomised points, this virus kills the almost dead quicker - COVID-19 Leads To Steep Increase In Mortality

Agree randomized.

Hygiene has the connotation of maintaining cleanliness, which isn't really the problem. It's specific preventative behaviors such as avoiding close-to-face contact and yes wearing masks which help. Those are indeed cultural behaviors, though easily copied

What’s with the thumbs down b3ta, don’t like the facts?

It was only a study carried out by the University of Oxford and Hong Long, no boggy

Boggy=biggy :-)

Here's what I dislike, although I was trying out the thumbs down, your grossly over-simplified and thoroughly incorrect assessment. First, it's borderline fat-shaming. Everyone on the planet, with even the remotest ability to reason, would tell anyone citing BMI as a criteria for anything but over-simplification; it's shit. Most humans, even healthy, active, humans fall into a criteria - if utilizing BMI - as "overweight", but that's where it begins and ends for most people, if your BMI is 30, you're a waste. I'll have you know most people in categories above 30 are fine, healthy, and can do more than most. What all of these studies fail to reckon with is all of the co-morbidities that may exist with people that may be dying. But see, that would be too hard for these clowns, it's much easier to say they're fat. Rather than 80% of Chinese men smoke, or the high rates of smoking in Europe...That would be too offensive apparently so we stick with; fat people are dying.

my wife fat shames me all the time and so do my daughters, so I just drink more and each cheese!....we all architects here so its all just a philosophical discussion...cool thumb thingy

b3ta, It is science...relax or you might pop a vein! I can’t help it that science proves majority of westerners on ICU for COVID have a BMI that’s too damn high!’ AND that people living in the suburbs have a higher BMI than people living in the city. That’s not fat shaming, they are the facts...so stop fact-shaming me!

My BMI went down to 26.5 after I had corona actually, how’s yours? But since my girlfriend took up baking banana bread and focaccia recently it won’t stay there for long is my guess...

6’-6”

I wouldn’t use those steroid junkies as example for your skepticism of BMI, imho...

It is just a simple indicator, relax...I’m sure all the obese people out there don’t need to calculate their BMI to know they’re overweight...

BMI is a predictor for all sorts of health problems like diabetes and heart problems...which are also significant comorbidities for covid. Interestingly vitamin D deficiency is now also being linked to higher mortality rates. Could explain why rates are high among black peoples in the NE, and low in sub Saharan Africa. Places below 40 degrees lat. have had significantly lower covid deaths. And in Nordic countries vitamin D supplements are very widely used. As for density, access to sunlight in cities is harder than in suburban areas and rural areas.

Let’s not forget that most covid deaths are older people, who also tend to have higher BMI.

Also keep in mind at above 40 lat it’s almost impossible to get sufficient vitamin D from the sun, so unless you are taking a supplement, you are probably deficient.

*impossible during winter months meant to say

quick question, was Olaf ever a patient of yours?

Hey thanks for the shout out! Was thinking about it more and it could really open the profession (and the larger labor market) up if companies go to a WFH model with days at the office the exception instead of the rule. Not sure if you could ever leave the 1-2 hour commute region around your work (like for example moving across the country and working that remotely) but if you were only in the office 1 or 2 days a week... then a 2 hour commute isn't that crazy.

I've been trying to gauge the firm's reception to the idea based on how they've been talking about WFH in general. I think they see some benefits, but also drawbacks. I'm not saying they are wrong or right, but there is a strong belief(?) that we need to interact in the same physical space to make good architecture. I guess the question is, does that have to be daily, or could once a week work? 

I would probably be looking for something like once or twice a month for a couple days. If I had my way I'd move out of state, or maybe just to the other side of the state, and only come in to the office once or twice a month.

My firm has a strong belief that we need to make architecture together, so I know WFH isn't a long-term option there, at least once things are fully back to normal. Though that could be a couple years... I do think it could cause other firms that are less design-focused to re-think how and where they work, but I expect a ton of resistance to it from the top-tier firms.

i've found it helpful for some tasks but very difficult for others. in general it's more work for managers who need to plan out meeting times rather than getting a group together to huddle and discuss something right in front of them. in the long run i expect we'll adjust to make it work for most people most of the time. a few years ago the engineering firm that bought my previous firm assumed enough people were out of the office to propose hot-desking and remote work for a proportion of people. it wasn't well received. most people still wanted a place of their own in proximity to the team they most often work with.

i think the bigger opportunity is for regional and even international offices to set up outside city centers, as they don't need to depend on easy access to work withclients and consultants nearly as often.

I could also see this as a simply another way in which there can be a bigger divide between the "higher ups" and the rest of the staff. A firm very well may be willing to make it work if it means keeping an employee from leaving that is unique and valued, but probably less so for someone they view as easily replaceable or less valuable for the firm.

Interesting thought - WFH was often held out as a bonus or reward for long-tenure at places I worked pre-covid.

midlander - I don't know quite how that would work. Still seems like the office (even if it is just a glorified clubhouse or conference center) should be in a dense city well-served by transportation infrastructure to make it easy for clients to come in, but the people that aren't there on the regular could be remote?

To be fair, I've seen WFH used more regularly at the offices I've worked at as options for people who might normally exit the profession entirely due to other constraints. So options to WFH one or two days were somewhat common for people returning from maternity (and paternity) leave and might continue until kids get into more stable daycare or educational programs. Though this was the exception rather than the rule, and was definitely weighted in favor of being in the office most of the time. I also think a fair number of people didn't even bother to ask for this option for fear of being held to a different standard or seen as not a team player, etc.

this seems like the actual work place of the future, rather than forcing everyone to sit at their desks 9 hrs a day/5 days a week. i want to propose this to my office..

It's OK to fat shame, who told you otherwise?

though both are willful actions, smoking and eating are fundamentally different activities and really in totally different categories of voluntary action. you can't just will yourself to give up eating to solve the problem, and once you're already obese eating healthy is a slow sometimes hopelessly ineffective remedy that takes more of both time and money. the science on obesity shows that reduced eating is surprisingly ineffective at long-term weight reduction. by the time someone decides to lose weight it's possibly too late to fix it. so that's why it's neither nice nor useful to fat shame people.

It's called the gym and working out. Shame is a natural emotion for failure. If you had a studio project and one week before it was due decided to just go out and party instead of working in studio and your studio prof and jury rips into you and you don't feel shame, you're borderline narcissist and already an asshole? Smoking is different since technically nicotine is addictive and your body could do without it, so smoke shaming is actually less fair than fat shaming.

Being fat is unhealthy. There is nothing healthy about it. This isn’t shaming to point this fact out. If one feels shame from truth, that’s on them, not the truth teller.

Is it useful to point this fact out? To what extent do you think ignorance of the health risks contributes to people making the choice to be obese?

It’s useful to be honest. Maybe will inspire people to put down the donut and pick up an apple. Unhealthy eating is easier, and people are lazy, so being fat is very common. But an apple costs less than a donut. A hard boiled egg is cheap and healthier than a pop tart. Soda is a gross habit that’s probably the worst thing you can put in your body. If the long term morbidity doesn’t scare people, maybe the more immediate covid risks will lead them into better
habits.

There's an inertia to being fat though (double entendre noted) which is that once you decide to start eating healthy and working out, you're still fat. maybe for a very very long time. maybe forever. the science is just as clear as the anecdotal evidence on this. whereas the moment you stop smoking, you're no longer a smoker. that's a lot easier to work with. anyway, your idea of inspiring people by telling them they're too fat is intriguingly contrarian.

If inspiration doesn't work then condemnation should work. This is a very American approach midlander, everyone gets a trophy, everyone should feel special...all bull shit and I know people who went from 300 lbs to 150 and healthy and even kept beer in their diet - it took some effort and dedication. Sure there is the off chance you have a genetic defect and for this shaming wouldn't be appropriate, but the majority of Fat Americans is sheer result eating out of pleasure and being lazy - so yeah shame them. It's a lot like architecture, you have to be patient to see the results, versus giving up smoking.

I’m pretty sure if enough people rip on you for your work, you’ll work even harder to improve… that’s my favorite management style too! Works every time!

Repeated condemnation is never a motivator to improve. Just look at jla-x's posts here.

condemnation from a dumb soy boy like yourself ha ha. Your a minor annoyance...like a buzzing shit fly...

Yeah, but if you actually read through comments you will see that I never name call first. I’m responding to the fat Internet trolls.

Paging Dr. Irony, would Dr. Irony please report to triage immediately.

Another useless boring comment.

ignore button ignore button ignore button

Anyone who uses soy as an attempt at an insult is not worth acknowledging except to click that ignore button.

How about libtard?

For the record I've mostly given up reading this and other threads specifically because of jla. We occasionally get into productive dialog, but more often than not the sheer noise-to-signal ratio of these incessant bicker fests just drives me off the site. 

I know, pot, kettle, black. I respond too much sometimes. Still wanted to put it out there. As far as I know no one has left Archinect because of me.

I do find that too much soy will ruin a meal tho.

I generally dislike soy as an ingredient. I find it hilarious as an insult. It's based on bullshit. Bullshit and an irrational fear of  women and shrinking testicles

Man boobs are a result of too much burger king, unless you're - his name was Robert Paulson

His name was ROBERT PAULSON!

I find it rather juvenile that jla-x uses 'soy boy' as an insult intended to emasculate men - at least that's what I assume it's doing. It could be some odd fetish.

The irony is that with all of jla-x's posturing about it's physical fitness I could more than likely best in a trial by combat.  

guessing I should probably not google that?

For best results google it with safe search off.

I pity the fool that can't hold their soy...

/\ That definitely should NOT be googled with safe search off . . .

It’s funny how you respond to every post with name calling and insults, then when I call you a soy boy you get all butt hurt. Hypocrisy is funny. And, you deem insults that are emasculating as bad insults, and ones that paint people as red state knuckle draggers as good insults. Very funny watching you guys navigate around this leftist orthodoxy. So sure of your moral superiority. Lol

Anyway, this is boring. I’m only going to engage with people who are interesting from here on. Stay safe from the Wuhan Chinese lab virus, and go easy on the soy lattes, it makes your balls shrink.

Your attempt at insults don't bother me, they are just juvenile. You're way to sensitive to be an online troll. Harden the fuck up and try harder or go home.

Ah, so that’s why Jla has been quiet today. I just assumed he was protesting in Michigan.

Soy lattes are disgusting, oat lattes are where it’s at!

Almond milk is better

"I'm not crying, you're crying!"

Soy makes you cry.

I did not know that almonds had teats.

https://www.theonion.com/fda-defends-decision-to-reclassify-alternative-milks-as-1827722953

That wins the internet for the day.

All right that's it for me!