5 ms·

I can't link any right now, I've reading few on paper and deducted others from news: try only looking at actual mass of studies for "sustainable city", essentia

by xte 8y ago

I can't link any right now, I've reading few on paper and deducted others from news: try only looking at actual mass of studies for "sustainable city", essentially NO ONE of them sustain that actual cities works/are sustainable, and substantially anyone try to find a "sustainable city" model with many different draconian changes to actual model. Same goes for many "green buildings" innovation that keeps popping around and generally result in failure from "communist buildings" to "integrated social buildings". Also simply look for and feel on your skin the quality of life in cities than in countyside/the riviera. And in dense countries vs far less dense one.

ginko 8y ago
>Also simply look for and feel on your skin the quality of life in cities than in countyside/the riviera. And in dense countries vs far less dense one. Well yes, living on the countryside with a big house and car and all amenities may be nicer than living in an apartment in the city. But you should keep in mind that that's a luxury. And a rather wasteful one at that. It might end up not being that much more expensive for you, but that's because people living in the cities are subsidizing your lifestyle through their taxes.
- xte 8y ago
  I pay taxes as well... And not less than people in cities, like I was until few years ago... I do not consider it a luxury but a different development model that may led to a "luxury" life without the need of other's sacrifice. Consider a thing: we do not produce foods in towns, we (normally) do not have factories in towns so towns live of the shoulder of productive people outside, they can't live without them. In the countryside you suffer without a "countrywide development" but you still survive. In towns you generally have only tertiary sector's workers, no more.
lolc 8y ago
It is simply a physical fact that surface area goes down as building size goes up. (You have to build very tortured buildings for this to be untrue.) Consequently, dense settlements will be easier to insulate and will lose less energy per tenant. There are many other effects of scale kicking in too. Arguing about the quality of life is something else with different trade offs. I'd say ban cars from city centers and then we start talking about quality of life.
- xte 8y ago
  Nope. Because the real world is complex, it doesn't only matter how much surface you occupy but also how much prime matters and energy you need to build a thing, tall buildings need far more powerful concrete foundation and steel than individual houses. Witch means more natural resource used to build them. Also steel and concrete are far less recyclable than wood. Also individual houses may occupy soil surface without destroying it too much, for instance, at least in most part of EU individual houses foundation are only underground horizontal beams with some poles that popup vertically (60-100cm high) from them leaving the rest of the soil natural ground. If tomorrow you destroy the house nature came back on the soil in an year. If you destroy a tall building nature came back (humus in soil) in more than ten year.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Your other inane comment argues single-family houses are so much more efficient because they regularly get torn down & replaced. Make up your disturbed mind!
    - xte 8y ago
      My English is poor but I think I explain my point in a clear enough manner, in synthesis: - big buildings demand more resources to being built, in terms of concrete, steel etc and require deeper foundation that destroy ground humus far more than correspondent single houses; - big buildings are in medium older than single family houses simply because demolish and rebuild them cost big money and it's practically impossible for many reasons (reach agreements between all involved landlords, not enough space around for work, new norms hard to respect in the available space/site etc) so they consume in medium more energy than single houses; - cities was a need for various reasons in the past but they are not anymore and modernize them as much as we can with improved public transportation etc cost far more than private transportation in a distributed area. For all the above I consider a bad idea living in a city, I consider in more and more unsustainable. And recently many people around the world start to know that hard on their skin... If you do not want to understand I can't help, my mind works well and I was capable and lucky enough to switch from a big city to a wonderful mountain area without loosing anything I really consider valuable.
matt4077 8y ago
Stop digging your (energy-efficient, metaphorical) grave! You lost this argument five levels up when you started making assertions explicitly in conflict with the laws of physics. I can understand if you prefer the countryside: maybe you don't enjoy how people continuously try to correct you when you're wrong. Or these bike-riding eco-hippies just smell funny. But then you should be glad that others enjoy cities (and logic): if we try to evenly disperse them among the liveable space of the earth, I guarantee you there will be some neighbours moving in far to close for your comfort.
- xte 8y ago
  Ok, so I imaging that the fact I heat my home with far less bill that my ancient and smaller apartment was a figment of my imagination... Also I imaging that the total (semi-public) skyrocketing high cost of public transportation in my old city per capita are higher than the cost of private transportation in the countryside again per capita because of someone conspiracy... What you do not understand is that we do not live since today for today, we do not build new cities and houses from ground to the ceiling today. We need to evolve and we can evolve far more in the countryside as a result while in theory tall buildings are more efficient than single houses, in practice we have more "newer" individual houses and less newer tall building so in the end the practice is the opposite. Perhaps you do not even understand why speed trains does not gain traction in the USA but works well enough in French because of the urbanization level of certain area those density are so high that the cost of "pierce" the urbanized area is so high nobody try to sustain. Essentially you study too much the details that you loss the sight of the big picture, a common mistake these days.

by xte 8y ago

ginko 8y ago

>Also simply look for and feel on your skin the quality of life in cities than in countyside/the riviera. And in dense countries vs far less dense one. Well yes, living on the countryside with a big house and car and all amenities may be nicer than living in an apartment in the city. But you should keep in mind that that's a luxury. And a rather wasteful one at that. It might end up not being that much more expensive for you, but that's because people living in the cities are subsidizing your lifestyle through their taxes.

xte 8y ago
I pay taxes as well... And not less than people in cities, like I was until few years ago... I do not consider it a luxury but a different development model that may led to a "luxury" life without the need of other's sacrifice. Consider a thing: we do not produce foods in towns, we (normally) do not have factories in towns so towns live of the shoulder of productive people outside, they can't live without them. In the countryside you suffer without a "countrywide development" but you still survive. In towns you generally have only tertiary sector's workers, no more.

lolc 8y ago

It is simply a physical fact that surface area goes down as building size goes up. (You have to build very tortured buildings for this to be untrue.) Consequently, dense settlements will be easier to insulate and will lose less energy per tenant. There are many other effects of scale kicking in too. Arguing about the quality of life is something else with different trade offs. I'd say ban cars from city centers and then we start talking about quality of life.

xte 8y ago
Nope. Because the real world is complex, it doesn't only matter how much surface you occupy but also how much prime matters and energy you need to build a thing, tall buildings need far more powerful concrete foundation and steel than individual houses. Witch means more natural resource used to build them. Also steel and concrete are far less recyclable than wood. Also individual houses may occupy soil surface without destroying it too much, for instance, at least in most part of EU individual houses foundation are only underground horizontal beams with some poles that popup vertically (60-100cm high) from them leaving the rest of the soil natural ground. If tomorrow you destroy the house nature came back on the soil in an year. If you destroy a tall building nature came back (humus in soil) in more than ten year.
- matt4077 8y ago
  Your other inane comment argues single-family houses are so much more efficient because they regularly get torn down & replaced. Make up your disturbed mind!
  - xte 8y ago
    My English is poor but I think I explain my point in a clear enough manner, in synthesis: - big buildings demand more resources to being built, in terms of concrete, steel etc and require deeper foundation that destroy ground humus far more than correspondent single houses; - big buildings are in medium older than single family houses simply because demolish and rebuild them cost big money and it's practically impossible for many reasons (reach agreements between all involved landlords, not enough space around for work, new norms hard to respect in the available space/site etc) so they consume in medium more energy than single houses; - cities was a need for various reasons in the past but they are not anymore and modernize them as much as we can with improved public transportation etc cost far more than private transportation in a distributed area. For all the above I consider a bad idea living in a city, I consider in more and more unsustainable. And recently many people around the world start to know that hard on their skin... If you do not want to understand I can't help, my mind works well and I was capable and lucky enough to switch from a big city to a wonderful mountain area without loosing anything I really consider valuable.

matt4077 8y ago

Stop digging your (energy-efficient, metaphorical) grave! You lost this argument five levels up when you started making assertions explicitly in conflict with the laws of physics. I can understand if you prefer the countryside: maybe you don't enjoy how people continuously try to correct you when you're wrong. Or these bike-riding eco-hippies just smell funny. But then you should be glad that others enjoy cities (and logic): if we try to evenly disperse them among the liveable space of the earth, I guarantee you there will be some neighbours moving in far to close for your comfort.

xte 8y ago
Ok, so I imaging that the fact I heat my home with far less bill that my ancient and smaller apartment was a figment of my imagination... Also I imaging that the total (semi-public) skyrocketing high cost of public transportation in my old city per capita are higher than the cost of private transportation in the countryside again per capita because of someone conspiracy... What you do not understand is that we do not live since today for today, we do not build new cities and houses from ground to the ceiling today. We need to evolve and we can evolve far more in the countryside as a result while in theory tall buildings are more efficient than single houses, in practice we have more "newer" individual houses and less newer tall building so in the end the practice is the opposite. Perhaps you do not even understand why speed trains does not gain traction in the USA but works well enough in French because of the urbanization level of certain area those density are so high that the cost of "pierce" the urbanized area is so high nobody try to sustain. Essentially you study too much the details that you loss the sight of the big picture, a common mistake these days.