4 ms·

Wasn't this already posted on hackernews? I've already read it, and I was a little curious because that's a little what I started to do last year (my apartment

by jokoon 10y ago

Wasn't this already posted on hackernews? I've already read it, and I was a little curious because that's a little what I started to do last year (my apartment and school started to feel like a prison cell). I just walk in my city to explore, preferably greener, quiet areas without car traffic, but I always plan a zone I'll go to. I use offline openstreetmap (OSMAND) on my smartphone. I try to go to different places when I can, but it's difficult as green places are too remote. Public transport can boost me, but I usually take off from home and try to make a looped route. To me it helps "loosening" my focus, so I can think a little more creatively. I just talk with myself. I don't have a time where I know I have to go home, I don't plan. Walking is a physical exercise (at least for me, I sleep better), which make the blood flow, so you're not as much anxious when you sit for too long. I don't want to sound like a crazy hobo, but cubicles, houses, apartments and dense urban areas can feel like prisons. It's not just about the physical exercise, it's about being in the large outdoors and not controlling your behavior because there are civilized people around you. If all you do is work and gym, it won't feel very good. Maybe all of this is in my head, and my unconscious just pretends it's good. But I know that I can't be creative at home. Also try to watch that speech about creativity by the monty python head guy. He gave really good insights about how to put oneself in a position where you can be creative. You need large spaces, relative silence, freedom from behaving like you want, etc.

viraptor 10y ago
Yes it was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7679506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7679506
- dang 10y ago
  HN mostly doesn't treat reposts as dupes once well over a year has passed, which is the case with this one.
vidarh 10y ago
Once of the reasons I want massively more dense residential areas in cities is because I want city living but shorter distances to large parkland. I live in a relatively green area, but still my street alone (~660 houses)"wastes" around 40,000 m^2 of space compared to new high rises on the way near our local station. I'd love to see far more of the residential areas compressed like that, if only it meant a reasonable portion of additional land was turned into parks (and here's the problem - in practice this is of course additional housing, not replacing equivalent amount of less dense units). We do have a "country park" just 20 minutes walk away, so we're not in a bad spot, but it could be so much better. If I was given Sim City like powers over London, I'd raze large parts of it outside of the centre, and replace it with super-dense hubs around the main rail hubs outside of the centre, connect them with a high speed orbital railway plus spokes out to the smaller cities further out, and free up ~half the current area of London for park lands. You could fit 30m+ people in London and still make it feel spacious and green compared to the scattered, busy suburban nightmares that covers large part of the outer reaches of London today.
- trgn 10y ago
  Many metros could benefit from your vision. You're describing the late 19th century ideal of Garden Cities. Clusters of towns, divided by green belts, and connected by railways and highways. I'll speak for the US right now, there is so much country side, but it is completely inaccessible for pretty much anybody living in a city. What country-side there is near a metro, it's curated: park here, walk there, take a panoramic picture here, ... I worked in Belgium for a while, which is incredibly densely populated, and the country-side was so much more accessible. Walk out the door of your city house, and you'd be in a rural environment in 10 minutes, and you could go long distances never leaving those small roads. The USA has so much wilderness and country side, yet, it feels so much more remote, just because the cities are a sprawling mess and roads in the country-side only accommodate cars.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  I don't understand the desire to stack people on top of each other and "compress" and optimize residential areas. Apartment living stinks. Noisy neighbors, crowded living spaces, no yard to play in or have a pet in, more risk of fire caused by neighbors and loss of life and property, noisier environment outside, the list goes on and on. I guess if you're wealthy enough to live in a nice condo with thick concrete walls and floors and ceilings, and a condo association with lots of strict rules about what you can and can't do to annoy your neighbors, maybe it would be more pleasant--unless you want to practice a musical instrument or have a workshop or a garden or... Human beings aren't made to be stacked on top of each other. You can do it, but it results in much more stressful living. People are happier and healthier when the population density is lower and they have room to breathe and have more space of their own.
  - Declanomous 10y ago
    I don't know what evidence you have about people not living above one another. We've been doing it for thousands of years at this point. I personally think the best places I've ever lived were areas where the housing stock is primarily three flats. You still have a lot of space, and you can find space to be alone when you want to be. The density enables a lot of amenities within walking distance, as well as making casually meeting neighbors easy. More densely populated neighborhoods have the lack of space you describe. I moved to an area with a similar lot size, but all the houses are single family. It's borderline unwalkable, and it's still much more densely populated than the average suburb. The suburbs I think are the worst density imaginable. You are still close enough to other people to annoy one another, but not close enough to interact in a humanizing way. Most of your interactions will be only when someone intrudes into your bubble in some way. I think there are a lot of benefits once you get up to a more rural density. You can have a shop, you have fresh air, and nature, etc. The midpoint where you aren't stacked is the worst in my mind though.

by jokoon 10y ago

viraptor 10y ago

Yes it was: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7679506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7679506

dang 10y ago
HN mostly doesn't treat reposts as dupes once well over a year has passed, which is the case with this one.

vidarh 10y ago

Once of the reasons I want massively more dense residential areas in cities is because I want city living but shorter distances to large parkland. I live in a relatively green area, but still my street alone (~660 houses)"wastes" around 40,000 m^2 of space compared to new high rises on the way near our local station. I'd love to see far more of the residential areas compressed like that, if only it meant a reasonable portion of additional land was turned into parks (and here's the problem - in practice this is of course additional housing, not replacing equivalent amount of less dense units). We do have a "country park" just 20 minutes walk away, so we're not in a bad spot, but it could be so much better. If I was given Sim City like powers over London, I'd raze large parts of it outside of the centre, and replace it with super-dense hubs around the main rail hubs outside of the centre, connect them with a high speed orbital railway plus spokes out to the smaller cities further out, and free up ~half the current area of London for park lands. You could fit 30m+ people in London and still make it feel spacious and green compared to the scattered, busy suburban nightmares that covers large part of the outer reaches of London today.

trgn 10y ago
Many metros could benefit from your vision. You're describing the late 19th century ideal of Garden Cities. Clusters of towns, divided by green belts, and connected by railways and highways. I'll speak for the US right now, there is so much country side, but it is completely inaccessible for pretty much anybody living in a city. What country-side there is near a metro, it's curated: park here, walk there, take a panoramic picture here, ... I worked in Belgium for a while, which is incredibly densely populated, and the country-side was so much more accessible. Walk out the door of your city house, and you'd be in a rural environment in 10 minutes, and you could go long distances never leaving those small roads. The USA has so much wilderness and country side, yet, it feels so much more remote, just because the cities are a sprawling mess and roads in the country-side only accommodate cars.
alphapapa 10y ago
I don't understand the desire to stack people on top of each other and "compress" and optimize residential areas. Apartment living stinks. Noisy neighbors, crowded living spaces, no yard to play in or have a pet in, more risk of fire caused by neighbors and loss of life and property, noisier environment outside, the list goes on and on. I guess if you're wealthy enough to live in a nice condo with thick concrete walls and floors and ceilings, and a condo association with lots of strict rules about what you can and can't do to annoy your neighbors, maybe it would be more pleasant--unless you want to practice a musical instrument or have a workshop or a garden or... Human beings aren't made to be stacked on top of each other. You can do it, but it results in much more stressful living. People are happier and healthier when the population density is lower and they have room to breathe and have more space of their own.
- Declanomous 10y ago
  I don't know what evidence you have about people not living above one another. We've been doing it for thousands of years at this point. I personally think the best places I've ever lived were areas where the housing stock is primarily three flats. You still have a lot of space, and you can find space to be alone when you want to be. The density enables a lot of amenities within walking distance, as well as making casually meeting neighbors easy. More densely populated neighborhoods have the lack of space you describe. I moved to an area with a similar lot size, but all the houses are single family. It's borderline unwalkable, and it's still much more densely populated than the average suburb. The suburbs I think are the worst density imaginable. You are still close enough to other people to annoy one another, but not close enough to interact in a humanizing way. Most of your interactions will be only when someone intrudes into your bubble in some way. I think there are a lot of benefits once you get up to a more rural density. You can have a shop, you have fresh air, and nature, etc. The midpoint where you aren't stacked is the worst in my mind though.