3 ms·

> It should be obvious to anyone that skyscrapers should be abolished. [...] there is plenty of space left on earth to spread out horizontally; the only reasons

by pluto9 8y ago

> It should be obvious to anyone that skyscrapers should be abolished. [...] there is plenty of space left on earth to spread out horizontally; the only reasons to spread vertically are phallic and Freudian. Because endless miles and miles of urban sprawl is so much more attractive than a skyline and a lot of surrounding countryside. I wonder how much more real estate the average metropolis would take up if downtown was flattened to a few stories?

lainga 8y ago
This isn't a fair comparison in the US, where the majority of cities' downtowns are skyscrapers standing alone in a vast sea of parking lots and freeways. Compare Dallas to something like Paris, especially on population density.
- pluto9 8y ago
  I've never been to either city, but from looking at pictures, both seem to fit your description. If anything Paris looks "flatter", but maybe that's just the composition of these photos. In any case, my point is that if we decide to always build out instead of up, whatever urban sprawl already exists in any city will only be made worse. City planners actively try to avoid sprawl for a number of reasons, including that it makes public transportation less effective, increases smog, and reduces access to green spaces.
  - lainga 8y ago
    That's the point. Skyscrapers are a rarity in Paris - now go look up the density of the city proper.
    - pluto9 8y ago
      > now go look up the density of the city proper Nah, I don't accept homework assignments from condescending people on the internet, sorry. Feel free to dig up the numbers yourself and post them here, though. While you're at it, you might be interested in looking up New York City, which is far denser than Paris. What do you think would happen if all the skyscrapers in NYC were flattened out? Where should those people go? Shall we pack them into the city's existing footprint with all the other sardines?
      - lainga 8y ago
        Didn't mean to condescend. Anyway, Paris has 21,498 people/km^2 [0], twice that of New York (10,933 people/km^2), and without an equivalent Manhattan. For the majority of large cities in the USA (14 of the top 20), the given density is under 2,000 people/km^2 [1], including Dallas (1,493 people/km^2). That's the kind of thing I was referring to. Of course, New York and San Francisco are much denser; I was not talking about them, but the average American city. I'd like to give the article the benefit of the doubt that so were they. ED: I should add that I don't consider New York an average American city because it's a success! [0] (Wikipedia, but calculated from https://www.insee.fr/fr/recherche?idprec=3293086&q=paris&debut=0 https://www.insee.fr/fr/recherche?idprec=3293086&q=paris&deb...) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
        pluto9 8y ago
        Okay, I'm looking at the numbers more closely now and I concede that Europe's most densely populated city, an extreme outlier, is more densely populated than America's extreme outlier. I also concede that it is denser than Dallas, which is one of the least dense cities in the United States. If you look at the population densities of median American and European cities, they're quite similar (~13,000/sq mi. or 5000/sq km.). Which makes me wonder why you insist on comparing two cities that are not remotely comparable. Seems like cherry picking. > ED: I should add that I don't consider New York an average American city because it's a success! I'm almost curious why you consider the "average" U.S. city "not a success", but this remark smells too much of the pompous anti-American groupthink that has become so popular on HN lately, so I know better than to expect a rational explanation. Honestly, I'm starting to find your undeservedly superior attitude and cherry-picked data tiresome, so I don't think I'll bother with this conversation anymore. Have a nice night.
d0lph 8y ago
How do you even write something like that? There are a ton of reasons to build up: * More land is expensive, you don't need to buy more to build up * It's faster to take an elevator to floor 100, than walk through 100 floors And more I'm sure, this is just off the top of my head.
ummonk 8y ago
Yup. I'd rather make skyscrapers less boxy (use the multiple overlapping symmetries the author mentions), add lots of skyways between them, and, if feasible, figure out how to add some greenery on the sides. Look at the Petronas towers for inspiration as a starting point for inspiration.

by pluto9 8y ago

lainga 8y ago

This isn't a fair comparison in the US, where the majority of cities' downtowns are skyscrapers standing alone in a vast sea of parking lots and freeways. Compare Dallas to something like Paris, especially on population density.

pluto9 8y ago
I've never been to either city, but from looking at pictures, both seem to fit your description. If anything Paris looks "flatter", but maybe that's just the composition of these photos. In any case, my point is that if we decide to always build out instead of up, whatever urban sprawl already exists in any city will only be made worse. City planners actively try to avoid sprawl for a number of reasons, including that it makes public transportation less effective, increases smog, and reduces access to green spaces.
- lainga 8y ago
  That's the point. Skyscrapers are a rarity in Paris - now go look up the density of the city proper.
  - pluto9 8y ago
    > now go look up the density of the city proper Nah, I don't accept homework assignments from condescending people on the internet, sorry. Feel free to dig up the numbers yourself and post them here, though. While you're at it, you might be interested in looking up New York City, which is far denser than Paris. What do you think would happen if all the skyscrapers in NYC were flattened out? Where should those people go? Shall we pack them into the city's existing footprint with all the other sardines?
    - lainga 8y ago
      Didn't mean to condescend. Anyway, Paris has 21,498 people/km^2 [0], twice that of New York (10,933 people/km^2), and without an equivalent Manhattan. For the majority of large cities in the USA (14 of the top 20), the given density is under 2,000 people/km^2 [1], including Dallas (1,493 people/km^2). That's the kind of thing I was referring to. Of course, New York and San Francisco are much denser; I was not talking about them, but the average American city. I'd like to give the article the benefit of the doubt that so were they. ED: I should add that I don't consider New York an average American city because it's a success! [0] (Wikipedia, but calculated from https://www.insee.fr/fr/recherche?idprec=3293086&q=paris&debut=0 https://www.insee.fr/fr/recherche?idprec=3293086&q=paris&deb...) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
      - pluto9 8y ago
        Okay, I'm looking at the numbers more closely now and I concede that Europe's most densely populated city, an extreme outlier, is more densely populated than America's extreme outlier. I also concede that it is denser than Dallas, which is one of the least dense cities in the United States. If you look at the population densities of median American and European cities, they're quite similar (~13,000/sq mi. or 5000/sq km.). Which makes me wonder why you insist on comparing two cities that are not remotely comparable. Seems like cherry picking. > ED: I should add that I don't consider New York an average American city because it's a success! I'm almost curious why you consider the "average" U.S. city "not a success", but this remark smells too much of the pompous anti-American groupthink that has become so popular on HN lately, so I know better than to expect a rational explanation. Honestly, I'm starting to find your undeservedly superior attitude and cherry-picked data tiresome, so I don't think I'll bother with this conversation anymore. Have a nice night.

d0lph 8y ago

How do you even write something like that? There are a ton of reasons to build up: * More land is expensive, you don't need to buy more to build up * It's faster to take an elevator to floor 100, than walk through 100 floors And more I'm sure, this is just off the top of my head.

ummonk 8y ago

Yup. I'd rather make skyscrapers less boxy (use the multiple overlapping symmetries the author mentions), add lots of skyways between them, and, if feasible, figure out how to add some greenery on the sides. Look at the Petronas towers for inspiration as a starting point for inspiration.