3 ms·

You're right, forcing people everyone shoulder the financial burden of maintaining a motor vehicle, forcing them to engage in one of the most dangerous activiti

by dijit 4y ago

You're right, forcing people everyone shoulder the financial burden of maintaining a motor vehicle, forcing them to engage in one of the most dangerous activities humans can engage in and forcing every possible place they might want to visit to have a spare 158sqft is much better.

ebiester 4y ago
There is a happy medium here... I'm as density-friendly as it comes, but I think that we'd be much better off at maximum 20,000/sq km or so. (That's not a magic number - that's about the density of the city of Paris, ignoring inner ring and outer ring. That's average across Paris, mind you, not some absolute maximum.) Oakland is 3,000ish per sq km, for reference. Now, I'd prefer that we don't have to live in the 400 sq ft/40 sq meters kind of options that are older Parisian apartments, and I think that proper sound insulation is ground stakes (which current 5 over 1s in America don't do a great job with) but I think we can make the argument of more density without pushing for the extreme argument here.
- maherbeg 4y ago
  It'd be amazing if we got to Paris style density in half of the top 20 cities in the US. I just haven't seen great ideas or plans to transform the heavily car dependent sun belt cities into denser places.
  - lotsoweiners 4y ago
    Maybe but you’ve gotta consider that a lot of people want to live in say Denver or Dallas because they aren’t dense. If I wanted a New York City or San Francisco type of lifestyle I’d move to one of those places. If the demand was there, less dense places will become more dense naturally without ideas or schemes to force it.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  Soundproofing hasn't historically been a part of US building codes is why it's not done here. California added an optional Soundproofing part of the code but cities must opt into it. Oakland is actually one of the few cities in California which has.

by dijit 4y ago

ebiester 4y ago

There is a happy medium here... I'm as density-friendly as it comes, but I think that we'd be much better off at maximum 20,000/sq km or so. (That's not a magic number - that's about the density of the city of Paris, ignoring inner ring and outer ring. That's average across Paris, mind you, not some absolute maximum.) Oakland is 3,000ish per sq km, for reference. Now, I'd prefer that we don't have to live in the 400 sq ft/40 sq meters kind of options that are older Parisian apartments, and I think that proper sound insulation is ground stakes (which current 5 over 1s in America don't do a great job with) but I think we can make the argument of more density without pushing for the extreme argument here.

maherbeg 4y ago
It'd be amazing if we got to Paris style density in half of the top 20 cities in the US. I just haven't seen great ideas or plans to transform the heavily car dependent sun belt cities into denser places.
- lotsoweiners 4y ago
  Maybe but you’ve gotta consider that a lot of people want to live in say Denver or Dallas because they aren’t dense. If I wanted a New York City or San Francisco type of lifestyle I’d move to one of those places. If the demand was there, less dense places will become more dense naturally without ideas or schemes to force it.
Karrot_Kream 4y ago
Soundproofing hasn't historically been a part of US building codes is why it's not done here. California added an optional Soundproofing part of the code but cities must opt into it. Oakland is actually one of the few cities in California which has.