3 ms·

Skyscrapers are actually counterproductive for things like energy efficiency. I've already said that. That's why not both in my opinion as someone actively try

Skyscrapers are actually counterproductive for things like energy efficiency. I've already said that. That's why not both in my opinion as someone actively trying to support healthy development of smaller towns that have often been left behind in the US in recent decades. There has been longstanding trend of people moving to big cities because that's where the jobs are, so we emphasize creating better infrastructure in big cities and further densifying big cities, make for a vicious cycle. If we had more mid-rise density in smaller towns, we could have more thriving small towns and we wouldn't have to choose between overpriced, overly dense big cities or safe, small cheap and boring small towns that lack jobs, lack amenities etc. We could have decent quality of life for more people generally.

zozbot234 5y ago
Densification in big cities is a significant source of value. I'm not aware of any evidence that it's occurring at the expense of formerly thriving small towns. It's mostly the "boring" suburbs and exurbs that are losing value, but those developments have always lacked jobs and amenities. It's inherent to the model, you can't fix them without substantially changing their very nature.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  I'm not aware of any evidence that it's occurring at the expense of formerly thriving small towns. Well I am. And I think such trends do a great deal of harm to the American social fabric.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    Alright, well I don't care about nebulous concepts like "social fabric" and neither do a lot of other people. Way more people would move to big cities if it was affordable, and these people's wishes should be supported. Almost by definition, this is true, as if everyone did not want to move to the city, then prices would be lower. This romanticism for making everyone live in small towns is not something that most people support, given that way more people would leave small towns if they could.
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      I don't care about nebulous concepts like "social fabric" and neither do a lot of other people. This is likely true. And yet people bitch plenty about how homeless folks are interfering with their enjoyment of the good life in the downtown areas of big cities. In practical terms you get to pick one. You can care about nebulous concepts like the social fabric and have less feces, discarded needles and the like or you can not care and see people moving out of cities like San Francisco because they are going to hell as all the poor people ruin it for the upper classes who still don't care about those people but hate stepping over the mess.
      - renewiltord 5y ago
        LA is sprawl and has loads of homeless too. So that’s not it.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > about how homeless folks are interfering with their enjoyment > In practical terms you get to pick one. You can care about nebulous concepts like the social fabric Actually there was the other solution. The other solution compared to yours of "make people live in the small towns.", is instead "Make lots of tall skyscapers, so that big cities are affordable". If we lower the costs of big cities (By making lots and lots of supply, including tall skyscapers), then prices are lower for those who need them, and more people can live here, and take advantage of the big cities, and it can also benefit the poor by actually making it possible for them to live here, instead of on the streets. We don't have to force out the poor from the big cities. Instead we can make the big cities affordable to live in, with lots and lots of tall skyscrapers. > see people moving out of cities like San Francisco Actually, you are the one who is trying to get people to move out of the big cities. I want there to be more supply for everyone, in these big cities, with more skyscapers.
        DoreenMichele 5y ago
        Skyscrapers are inherently expensive to build, so building more skyscrapers isn't likely to make urban cores affordable for the types of folks who wind up homeless. I know a lot about homelessness. I spent nearly six years homeless and before that had a college class through SFSU called Homelessness and Public Policy and I still run several blogs on the topic, though I update them less than I used to as my focus has shifted to trying to solve the housing shortage that is a root cause of homelessness in the US.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- kunai 5y ago
  Densification doesn't require skyscrapers. Istanbul and Paris are denser than any American city and they're mostly filled with midrises packed closely together with few vacant lots in between. Dubai should not be our model for a sustainable city.
  - JeanMeche 5y ago
    Manhattan is denser than Paris.
cttet 5y ago
Massive cities are a destined trend under free market and Matthew effect. Skyscrapers are one of the solutions to massive cities, the others I can think of: * Lots of cars * Reduce overall population * A powerful government that controls a lot and does city planning * A religion system to make people "do things for the greater good" you may not what any of them either. You can propose other solutions as well, feel free.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Skyscrapers are actually counterproductive for things like energy efficiency. I've already said that. Sure, but who cares? Air conditioning is counterproductive for energy efficiency too. We have it anyway because the whole point of air conditioning is to spend energy making ourselves better off. If we want to, we can also spend energy making ourselves better off via skyscrapers.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
I missed the citation for that energy-efficiency claim?

zozbot234 5y ago

Densification in big cities is a significant source of value. I'm not aware of any evidence that it's occurring at the expense of formerly thriving small towns. It's mostly the "boring" suburbs and exurbs that are losing value, but those developments have always lacked jobs and amenities. It's inherent to the model, you can't fix them without substantially changing their very nature.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
I'm not aware of any evidence that it's occurring at the expense of formerly thriving small towns. Well I am. And I think such trends do a great deal of harm to the American social fabric.
- stale2002 5y ago
  Alright, well I don't care about nebulous concepts like "social fabric" and neither do a lot of other people. Way more people would move to big cities if it was affordable, and these people's wishes should be supported. Almost by definition, this is true, as if everyone did not want to move to the city, then prices would be lower. This romanticism for making everyone live in small towns is not something that most people support, given that way more people would leave small towns if they could.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    I don't care about nebulous concepts like "social fabric" and neither do a lot of other people. This is likely true. And yet people bitch plenty about how homeless folks are interfering with their enjoyment of the good life in the downtown areas of big cities. In practical terms you get to pick one. You can care about nebulous concepts like the social fabric and have less feces, discarded needles and the like or you can not care and see people moving out of cities like San Francisco because they are going to hell as all the poor people ruin it for the upper classes who still don't care about those people but hate stepping over the mess.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      LA is sprawl and has loads of homeless too. So that’s not it.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > about how homeless folks are interfering with their enjoyment > In practical terms you get to pick one. You can care about nebulous concepts like the social fabric Actually there was the other solution. The other solution compared to yours of "make people live in the small towns.", is instead "Make lots of tall skyscapers, so that big cities are affordable". If we lower the costs of big cities (By making lots and lots of supply, including tall skyscapers), then prices are lower for those who need them, and more people can live here, and take advantage of the big cities, and it can also benefit the poor by actually making it possible for them to live here, instead of on the streets. We don't have to force out the poor from the big cities. Instead we can make the big cities affordable to live in, with lots and lots of tall skyscrapers. > see people moving out of cities like San Francisco Actually, you are the one who is trying to get people to move out of the big cities. I want there to be more supply for everyone, in these big cities, with more skyscapers.
      - DoreenMichele 5y ago
        Skyscrapers are inherently expensive to build, so building more skyscrapers isn't likely to make urban cores affordable for the types of folks who wind up homeless. I know a lot about homelessness. I spent nearly six years homeless and before that had a college class through SFSU called Homelessness and Public Policy and I still run several blogs on the topic, though I update them less than I used to as my focus has shifted to trying to solve the housing shortage that is a root cause of homelessness in the US.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kunai 5y ago
Densification doesn't require skyscrapers. Istanbul and Paris are denser than any American city and they're mostly filled with midrises packed closely together with few vacant lots in between. Dubai should not be our model for a sustainable city.
- JeanMeche 5y ago
  Manhattan is denser than Paris.

cttet 5y ago

Massive cities are a destined trend under free market and Matthew effect. Skyscrapers are one of the solutions to massive cities, the others I can think of: * Lots of cars * Reduce overall population * A powerful government that controls a lot and does city planning * A religion system to make people "do things for the greater good" you may not what any of them either. You can propose other solutions as well, feel free.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> Skyscrapers are actually counterproductive for things like energy efficiency. I've already said that. Sure, but who cares? Air conditioning is counterproductive for energy efficiency too. We have it anyway because the whole point of air conditioning is to spend energy making ourselves better off. If we want to, we can also spend energy making ourselves better off via skyscrapers.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

I missed the citation for that energy-efficiency claim?