3 ms·
Seems to me you need to watch the NotJustBikes overview of the Missing Middle problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o https://www.youtube.com/watch?
by quadrangle 5y ago
Seems to me you need to watch the NotJustBikes overview of the Missing Middle problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o
Super dense cities are efficient in some ways, but they have tons of other problems and they externalize tons of costs. What we're missing in the U.S. is human-scale density, especially in the form of cohousing arrangements.
Tall high-rises are not actually efficient. You know how much energy it takes to have elevators going up and down 40 floors along with all the other stuff? Land is not the single factor to calculate when we want efficiency.
- mixmastamyk 5y agoNo, dense city is much more efficient than suburbs. A hundred floors is a tiny fraction of miles. There was a post here showing the costs. Most folks would prefer the “missing middle” if ever given a chance to experience it.
- fomine3 5y agoIt's extreme. Let's compare to 3 floor condos.
- quadrangle 5y agodense city is efficient, but density doesn't have to mean high-rises. It can be modest-rises, floors that are enough for people to still use steps to get to the top, so under 10 stories and dense, and that's probably in aggregate more efficient than high-rises. High-rises have serious problems and issues that are not just additive, and they are far harder to adapt, to change to adjust to changing contexts.
- mixmastamyk 5y agoYes, hence my mention of the missing-middle.