4 ms·

The problem is that many cities simply can't 'grow up' because they weren't designed to do so in the first place. What you're arguing simply doesn't play out in

The problem is that many cities simply can't 'grow up' because they weren't designed to do so in the first place. What you're arguing simply doesn't play out in reality, or else cities like Seattle or California wouldn't be having this problem, now would they? The reality is that it's a problem you have to tackle before it becomes a problem. You have to design your city with public transit in mind, or else you end up with issues like LA where you have endlessly expanding highways with zero ways of managing traffic.

sneak 7y ago
> The problem is that many cities simply can't 'grow up' because they weren't designed to do so in the first place. Pretty much every single city with skyscrapers stands in contradiction to this premise. No city in history, except those entirely planned ones in China recently, was originally designed to grow upwards. I think you have created a false dichotomy. Any city can build skyscrapers. The problems in Seattle and California are neighbors and government, not some ur-plan that makes skyscrapers impossible. Look at the giant ugly salesforce building, for example. Even ugly, I’d love to see a few dozen more built there. “It has always been done this way” is not the same thing as “it must be done this way”.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  You seem to think 'growing up' only means skyscrapers and not everything else around them. Why do you think American cities uniquely have problems with public transit, traffic etc compared to their contemporaries? The answer is because again, we designed our cities with urban sprawl and car ownership in mind (see: white flight). I didn't create a false dichotomy, you're attempting to over-simplify city growth into 'builds skyscrapers / doesn't build skyscrapers' when there's a lot more math that goes into the equation. Especially when you start factoring in our cultural demand for parking space and inefficient forms of transit.

sneak 7y ago

> The problem is that many cities simply can't 'grow up' because they weren't designed to do so in the first place. Pretty much every single city with skyscrapers stands in contradiction to this premise. No city in history, except those entirely planned ones in China recently, was originally designed to grow upwards. I think you have created a false dichotomy. Any city can build skyscrapers. The problems in Seattle and California are neighbors and government, not some ur-plan that makes skyscrapers impossible. Look at the giant ugly salesforce building, for example. Even ugly, I’d love to see a few dozen more built there. “It has always been done this way” is not the same thing as “it must be done this way”.

fzeroracer 7y ago
You seem to think 'growing up' only means skyscrapers and not everything else around them. Why do you think American cities uniquely have problems with public transit, traffic etc compared to their contemporaries? The answer is because again, we designed our cities with urban sprawl and car ownership in mind (see: white flight). I didn't create a false dichotomy, you're attempting to over-simplify city growth into 'builds skyscrapers / doesn't build skyscrapers' when there's a lot more math that goes into the equation. Especially when you start factoring in our cultural demand for parking space and inefficient forms of transit.