In so-called hot cities [...] battles are raging over height limits and urban density, all on the basis of two premises: 1) that building all these towers will increase the supply of housing and therefore reduce its costs; 2) that increasing density is the green, sustainable thing to do and that towers are the best way to do it.
I am not sure that either is true.
— theguardian.com
4 Comments
Interesting article. I used to live in Spain, and Spanish cities definitely have a much higher density than the US, with no shortage of housing either (in Valencia I paid 170 euro a month for a room in a 4 BR apartment on the 10th story). Terrific mass-transit systems connect the density to make that possible. Buildings usually max out at 12 stories, which I think is appropriate.
The problem I see isn't that we can't build more skyscrapers. The problem is single family zones are eating too much space where there could be beautiful 9 story goldilock apartment blocks!
As for NY, I think you have to know what you are getting into if you live there. Height is king - and if you complain about more skyscrapers it seems like you are just counter-new York.
single-use, low FAR zoning is one thing - but a big piece of the puzzle is allowing narrower streets and shorter block lengths so that it's easier to walk places - something that will be hard to do in retrofitting many american cities. The key is horizontal density.
the key is not density. The key is not to treat all land as an abstract grid of potential. The key is to build within the limits of the land. To build accordingly with resource space. Resource space can be expanded via technology, but we should not exceed that limit. If we exceed that limit we will always have to supplement by outsourcing goods which will further centralize our support systems, and thus corporatize them which will consequently lead to environmental degradation, loss of cultural control, and loss of economic mobility.
I have an idea jla-x, that I've been working on a while. It might solve this whole "resource space" problem.
What if you could finance an automated farm that produced all the food you need to survive in a remote greenhouse? Instead of paying for food on a daily basis, you could pay your mortgage on your farm every month and receive the food it sent you. Of course, there might be very little variety, but you would be building equity, instead of effectively paying to "rent" the piece of farm for the amount of time it takes to produce the tomato you eat.
Remote workshops could allow entrepreneurs to make things via robotics.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.