3 ms·

There's a limit to how much you can build out a city before you've permanently disfigured it. Imagine taking your typical European mid-sized city and starting

by eecc 9y ago

There's a limit to how much you can build out a city before you've permanently disfigured it. Imagine taking your typical European mid-sized city and starting to allow multiple high rises taller that historical landmarks; or adding purely residential sprawl neighborhoods that distort residents' lifestyle due to long commutes and lack of attractor points outside of downtown. You've just made a suburban hell out of a human-tailored environment, with the added sin of having destroyed the "experience continuity" which used to be core to community identity. A loss that is permanent and impossible to revert in later generations I've lived in Rome and Amsterdam, and I know the feeling

rocqua 9y ago
Doesn't that mean that european cities simply aren't sustainable? If the city stays 'attractive' more people will want to move there, and the cost of living would rise too much. Really, the only solution seems to be to accept a balance needs to be struck.
- pamqzl 9y ago
  What's wrong with simply accepting a cap (either de facto or directly enforced) on populations of cities? Perhaps we should start thinking of living in certain popular cities as being a luxury good. Not everyone can live in Rome or Sydney or San Francisco, so let's leave it for those who either already own property there or can do what it takes to buy their way in. For everyone else there's no shortage of other places.
sbenitoj 9y ago
Even if you personally believe building large buildings permanently disfigures it, the fact that people are willing to pay for and live in such buildings shows that people still value such "permanently disfigured" cities. Why should people who own buildings/land, and purchased them under laws allowing them to do as they please with the property now be disallowed from building large buildings on their plots of land and sell/rent them to willing buyers? Why should the current renters, who don't own the property, receive superior rights to those who own the property and those who would willingly pay more than them?

by eecc 9y ago

rocqua 9y ago

Doesn't that mean that european cities simply aren't sustainable? If the city stays 'attractive' more people will want to move there, and the cost of living would rise too much. Really, the only solution seems to be to accept a balance needs to be struck.

pamqzl 9y ago
What's wrong with simply accepting a cap (either de facto or directly enforced) on populations of cities? Perhaps we should start thinking of living in certain popular cities as being a luxury good. Not everyone can live in Rome or Sydney or San Francisco, so let's leave it for those who either already own property there or can do what it takes to buy their way in. For everyone else there's no shortage of other places.

sbenitoj 9y ago

Even if you personally believe building large buildings permanently disfigures it, the fact that people are willing to pay for and live in such buildings shows that people still value such "permanently disfigured" cities. Why should people who own buildings/land, and purchased them under laws allowing them to do as they please with the property now be disallowed from building large buildings on their plots of land and sell/rent them to willing buyers? Why should the current renters, who don't own the property, receive superior rights to those who own the property and those who would willingly pay more than them?