3 ms·

The words "per capita" or "per apartment" are not in the article. I completely buy that skyscraper have higher fixed costs then lower buildings. It can be true

The words "per capita" or "per apartment" are not in the article. I completely buy that skyscraper have higher fixed costs then lower buildings. It can be true that the optimal height from energy expenditure per capita would be 5, 8 or 12 stories. Or it can be false and sckyscrapers are the best energy investment per square feet of living space created. Your links don't provide any evidence either way.

beckman466 6y ago
True. Yet the original comment wrote: > If you can undercut existing cities by a factor of 3 or more i am sure new people will come. > Some incentive to avoid typical real estate inflation where investors jump in first needs to be put in for a successful experiment with goals that are beyond monetary concerns. and then you wrote: > Your links don't provide any evidence either way. Your comment and the original post do not provide evidence to prove any of your points either (either way). I am saying: why hasn't a strategy like this been tried before if it seems so obvious to you both? I see it as a sign that an expert in one domain believes they can solve a complex issue in another domain without much effort. In other words, as mentioned above, I see them/you as having fallen victim to the fallacy of transferable expertise: believing they/you can solve domain specific problems in a domain in which they/you are not an in expert in - as made obvious by the fact that this proposal is stated without any links to current research/plans (which undoubtedly do exist). I think the above is important to point out, mostly as someone who fell victim to both, and who wants to warn others who might still be unconscious perpetuators of the Californian Ideology. It's dangerous. This excerpt does a good job at explaining it (although for a proper tl;dr version/critique, the best part is probably the 'As the Dam Bursts...' intro): "Across the world, the Californian Ideology has been embraced as an optimistic and emancipatory form of technological determinism. Yet, this utopian fantasy of the West Coast depends upon its blindness towards - and dependence on - the social and racial polarisation of the society from which it was born. Despite its radical rhetoric, the Californian Ideology is ultimately pessimistic about fundamental social change. Unlike the hippies, its advocates are not struggling to build 'ecotopia' or even to help revive the New Deal. [...] Interpreted generously, this retro-futurism could be a vision of a cybernetic frontier where digital artisans discover their individual self-fulfillment in either the electronic agora or the electronic marketplace. However, as the zeitgeist of the 'virtual class', the Californian Ideology is at the same time an exclusive faith. If only some people have access to the new information technologies, 'Jeffersonian democracy' can become a hi-tech version of the plantation economy of the Old South. Reflecting its deep ambiguity, the Californian Ideology's technological determinism is not simply optimistic and emancipatory. It is simultaneously a deeply pessimistic and repressive vision of the future." [1] [1] http://www.comune.torino.it/gioart/big/bigguest/riflessioni/californian_engl.pdf http://www.comune.torino.it/gioart/big/bigguest/riflessioni/... edit: I also enjoyed this https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/californian-ideology https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/californian-ideo...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

beckman466 6y ago

True. Yet the original comment wrote: > If you can undercut existing cities by a factor of 3 or more i am sure new people will come. > Some incentive to avoid typical real estate inflation where investors jump in first needs to be put in for a successful experiment with goals that are beyond monetary concerns. and then you wrote: > Your links don't provide any evidence either way. Your comment and the original post do not provide evidence to prove any of your points either (either way). I am saying: why hasn't a strategy like this been tried before if it seems so obvious to you both? I see it as a sign that an expert in one domain believes they can solve a complex issue in another domain without much effort. In other words, as mentioned above, I see them/you as having fallen victim to the fallacy of transferable expertise: believing they/you can solve domain specific problems in a domain in which they/you are not an in expert in - as made obvious by the fact that this proposal is stated without any links to current research/plans (which undoubtedly do exist). I think the above is important to point out, mostly as someone who fell victim to both, and who wants to warn others who might still be unconscious perpetuators of the Californian Ideology. It's dangerous. This excerpt does a good job at explaining it (although for a proper tl;dr version/critique, the best part is probably the 'As the Dam Bursts...' intro): "Across the world, the Californian Ideology has been embraced as an optimistic and emancipatory form of technological determinism. Yet, this utopian fantasy of the West Coast depends upon its blindness towards - and dependence on - the social and racial polarisation of the society from which it was born. Despite its radical rhetoric, the Californian Ideology is ultimately pessimistic about fundamental social change. Unlike the hippies, its advocates are not struggling to build 'ecotopia' or even to help revive the New Deal. [...] Interpreted generously, this retro-futurism could be a vision of a cybernetic frontier where digital artisans discover their individual self-fulfillment in either the electronic agora or the electronic marketplace. However, as the zeitgeist of the 'virtual class', the Californian Ideology is at the same time an exclusive faith. If only some people have access to the new information technologies, 'Jeffersonian democracy' can become a hi-tech version of the plantation economy of the Old South. Reflecting its deep ambiguity, the Californian Ideology's technological determinism is not simply optimistic and emancipatory. It is simultaneously a deeply pessimistic and repressive vision of the future." [1] [1] http://www.comune.torino.it/gioart/big/bigguest/riflessioni/californian_engl.pdf http://www.comune.torino.it/gioart/big/bigguest/riflessioni/... edit: I also enjoyed this https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/californian-ideology https://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/californian-ideo...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]