3 ms·

On the other hand, not everyone wants to live in or look at apartment buildings concrete jungle.

by zerr 9y ago

wickawic 9y ago
So now they get expensive tiny houses and bigotry!
masklinn 9y ago
There's a huge gulf between "single-occupancy houses" and "concrete jungles". Inner-city Paris is mostly apartment buildings and a far cry from a "concrete jungle" (despite being the highest-density western metropolis), Tokyo's outer special wards mix small appartment buildings and single-occupancy houses and are no "concrete jungles" either. Just because you house multiple families in the same building does not mean you head straight for highrise central or ultra high-density concrete slabs.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- 1897235234 9y ago
  >There's a huge gulf between "single-occupancy houses" and "concrete jungles". Not really. It isn't an acceptable drop in quality of life that I would ever be willing to take. >Inner-city Paris Not affordable. Most people live in high-rises in the outer areas. Also paris isn't very nice anymore anyway.
- _kyran 9y ago
  Until you hit the banlieues Paris feels extremely claustrophobic compared to say Auckland or Melbourne.
naasking 9y ago
> On the other hand, not everyone wants to live in or look at apartment buildings concrete jungle. Most people don't. Unfortunately they also want to live close to work, which is probably closer to city centres, which is where almost everyone works, which means you can't simultaneously satisfy both desiderata. The greater good here is higher density housing, not aesthetics.
- zerr 9y ago
  There should be different zones with different regulations, yes, so people have a choice. Also, we should embrace remote work.
- 1897235234 9y ago
  The greater good is less population or spreading out places of work so they aren't in the same location. It is really less population though, which is probably why New Zealand voted in someone who is reducing population growth. Also, moving from a house to an apartment sure isn't just aesthetics. It is a massive drop in quality of life.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > The greater good is less population or spreading out places of work so they aren't in the same location. Why? It's clear that efficiency drops precipitously with increased latency, which increase with distance. Locality is thus critical to efficiency, not to mention resource distribution is far more efficient in denser areas. > Also, moving from a house to an apartment sure isn't just aesthetics. It is a massive drop in quality of life. Only if your apartment complex and neighbourhood was poorly planned. Focus on that.

On the other hand, not everyone wants to live in or look at apartment buildings concrete jungle.

by zerr 9y ago

On the other hand, not everyone wants to live in or look at apartment buildings concrete jungle.

wickawic 9y ago

So now they get expensive tiny houses and bigotry!

masklinn 9y ago

There's a huge gulf between "single-occupancy houses" and "concrete jungles". Inner-city Paris is mostly apartment buildings and a far cry from a "concrete jungle" (despite being the highest-density western metropolis), Tokyo's outer special wards mix small appartment buildings and single-occupancy houses and are no "concrete jungles" either. Just because you house multiple families in the same building does not mean you head straight for highrise central or ultra high-density concrete slabs.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
1897235234 9y ago
>There's a huge gulf between "single-occupancy houses" and "concrete jungles". Not really. It isn't an acceptable drop in quality of life that I would ever be willing to take. >Inner-city Paris Not affordable. Most people live in high-rises in the outer areas. Also paris isn't very nice anymore anyway.
_kyran 9y ago
Until you hit the banlieues Paris feels extremely claustrophobic compared to say Auckland or Melbourne.

naasking 9y ago

> On the other hand, not everyone wants to live in or look at apartment buildings concrete jungle. Most people don't. Unfortunately they also want to live close to work, which is probably closer to city centres, which is where almost everyone works, which means you can't simultaneously satisfy both desiderata. The greater good here is higher density housing, not aesthetics.

zerr 9y ago
There should be different zones with different regulations, yes, so people have a choice. Also, we should embrace remote work.
1897235234 9y ago
The greater good is less population or spreading out places of work so they aren't in the same location. It is really less population though, which is probably why New Zealand voted in someone who is reducing population growth. Also, moving from a house to an apartment sure isn't just aesthetics. It is a massive drop in quality of life.
- naasking 9y ago
  > The greater good is less population or spreading out places of work so they aren't in the same location. Why? It's clear that efficiency drops precipitously with increased latency, which increase with distance. Locality is thus critical to efficiency, not to mention resource distribution is far more efficient in denser areas. > Also, moving from a house to an apartment sure isn't just aesthetics. It is a massive drop in quality of life. Only if your apartment complex and neighbourhood was poorly planned. Focus on that.