26 ms·
“Suburban sprawl is a much worse problem than skyscrapers”
- automatic6131 3y agoThis is an article about the comment section of an article. What's next, an article about this comment on an article about the comment section of that article? The only thing stupider than this article is this comment imo.
- tiahura 3y agoYou must disagree with the comment's conclusion that pod living is "truly more equitable."
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoYou can't have constant growth and suburbs. You gotta pick one. Either halt the quest for constant growth in the economy, or live in an apartment.
- adwn 3y agoI think you're mixing up economic growth and population growth. Those are not the same, although they're not completely independent of each other.
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoEconomic growth lead to the suburbs. Everyone gets their big pickup truck to enjoy on the open, expensive roads, back to their small plot of land fed by expensive infrastructure. All this uses a ton of energy and creates a lot of pollution. Pollution which has drastically increased in the last 20 years or so. Economic growth leads to per-capita carbon emission growth. The US emmits the second most carbon into the atmosphere, only beat out by the place that makes all the things purchased in the US, in a way, an extension of the consumption of the US. When economic growth makes consumption cheaper, there is a countering effect of waste, pollution, and over-extension. Dense cities use far less energy and resources than suburbs. Its a fact. The constant quest for growth, economic or otherwise, has put us in a very precarious position. Summer 2024 is going to be one hellova ride.
- marknutter 3y agoSeethe and cope
- rootusrootus 3y agoThere are many suburbs over 100 years old, I think the infrastructure concern is overblown.
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoThe modern suburb got started right after WWII. Look at how 100 year old suburbs are structured compared to newer ones. Typically a lot tighter, designed to walk to nearby destinations, mixed use so you can live near a store, not drive 10 miles to a parking lot the size of a small village. You cannot deny that older, "streetcar" suburbs are very distinct from modern suburb design. If they were basically the same, I wouldn't be complaining.
- derbOac 3y agoI chuckled when I read your comment but Dezeen sends out these newsletters summarizing reader reactions to articles over the course of the week. It's a way of drawing attention to pieces they write, but also emphasizes the article as part of an extended discussion on a topic, and not the endpoint. I actually appreciate it because it highlights the positive role that comments can play, and a contrast from some places where comment sections have been removed. It's not too different from HN I think in that sometimes the comments here are as valuable as the posted articles. Having said all that, I think it would have been more in the spirit of the Dezeen newsletters to link to the original article. In this case, though, the original article (https://www.dezeen.com/2023/07/05/carol-ross-barney-skyscraper-interview/ https://www.dezeen.com/2023/07/05/carol-ross-barney-skyscrap...) might not have the same reception here as at Dezeen; my guess is the OP was meaning to link to something to initiate discussion on the topic of whether skyscrapers are good or bad design, or are good or bad design in the current metropolitan context of many areas, and the article with the comments as a set was seen as accomplishing that.
- barrkel 3y agoReplies to replies to replies, also known as conversation or dialogue.
- drewcoo 3y ago> What's next, an article about this comment on an article about the comment section of that article? I'm writing a comment in response to a comment on an article on the comment section of an article. > The only thing stupider than this article is this comment imo. I claim the stupid prize!
- skrebbel 3y agoIf you like this then you’ll love the 2012 Ig Nobel prize winner for Literature: https://improbable.com/2014/04/10/an-interim-report-about-the-report-about-reports-about-reports/ https://improbable.com/2014/04/10/an-interim-report-about-th...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- leoedin 3y agoThe valid point is that skyscrapers are often architectural grandstanding, and make so many other compromises at the ground level, that they rarely deliver much higher density. What's strange is that most people seem to agree that the best cities are made up of mid rise 5-10 storey blocks with internal courtyards. Basically how we did the best architecture from before the 1920s. Yet when it comes to it, barely anywhere is building enough of that kind of building.
- ethanbond 3y agoYeah I think some NIMBY resistance to new development would be diminished if new buildings weren't so consistently and intensely offensive to human senses. There's no real reason we can't build beautiful buildings like exist all over older parts of the US and Europe (and presumably many other parts of the world). An interesting deep dive on one component of hideous new development: https://marker.medium.com/why-everywhere-looks-the-same-248940f12c4 https://marker.medium.com/why-everywhere-looks-the-same-2489... It doesn't help that architecture (and most other artistic fields) is currently dominated by the belief that beauty is almost completely subjective. Under that philosophy, why not just design the thing that's going to at least win some awards for being "innovative" or "striking?" (These are almost always euphemisms for "offensive" but for people who think offense is a purely subjective experience)
- kevinmchugh 3y agoChicago has many pleasant old courtyard buildings (mostly 3-4 stories) and our NIMBYs would protest them for not providing parking if they were being built today.
- ethanbond 3y agoI think some (potentially even most) would, yes, but they'd have a lot less tacit support from the less militant folks around them.
- germinalphrase 3y agoBased entirely conversations with a few architects and interior designers, the incentives are almost always far more aligned with “cost-effective”/“inoffensive” than “innovative”/“striking”.
- SubiculumCode 3y agoI'll keep my house, yard, and garden, thanks. Many people are miserable in apartments, hidden from the sun and living things.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago“Hell is other people” — Jean-Paul Sartre A variety of density for some (urban, suburban), rolling hills, mountains, or forests for others. Build what and where people want.
- gottorf 3y ago> Build what and where people want. The attitude of some density advocates preclude building what people want, on the basis that what people want is evil (due to carbon emissions, environmental impact, and what have you).
- eliotSplyt 3y agoI love my apartment complex. We’ve got a pool and a balcony with great sun exposure. There’s a great community of neighbors, many children for my kids to play with, quick access to parks and I can get to work in 20 minutes. To each their own.
- rootusrootus 3y agoThat sounds like me, except for the apartment bit. Big comfortable house with a nice sized yard (and a pool, even), really excellent neighborhood community, children everywhere, parks within easy walking distance, and I can get to the urban core in 20 minutes. Best part is I share no walls with anyone, and if I want to be alone I can achieve that. I love my neighbors, but everyone is happier not to be scrunched into a single building.
- Gigachad 3y agoIn modern buildings, shared walls are no issue. There may as well be the void of space on the other side of those walls, I wouldn't notice the difference.
- mberning 3y agoIf you can envision a suburb in which people are allowed to have a grocery store, hardware store, pub, etc. intermingled with the housing, then the suburb gets a lot better. You can walk or ride a bike to get 90% of the things you need for your day to day life. What makes the burbs miserable is zoning which puts all the people on one side of the town, and all the amenities on the other. Then all the infrastructure to move people from point A to point B by car. Because the way it is built is impractical and unsafe for pedestrians or cyclists.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoSuburb is a very broad term so it includes giant subdivisions of 1000s of houses that are miles away from any commercial location as well as mixed use development where you can walk 2 min to a cafe or store. So I imagine that’s why we see very different opinions from people.
- rootusrootus 3y agoExactly this. Many of us live in mixed-use suburbs and love it. Wouldn't move to the urban core for anything, totally unwilling to give up this community and lifestyle. But on HN a lot of the anti-suburb folks seem to think it's all just miles of tract housing.
- f1yght 3y agoI think when people think of the ideal urban environment, they're thinking 3-6 story mixed use buildings close to the street with tree lined streets. People have an idea of miles of single use suburbs because that's the prevailing model. I'd say almost all urbanists don't want everything to be like downtown.
- jsmith45 3y agoIt is definitely a major problem that the US has so much strictly residential zoning in most suburbs. This zoning may allow schools, and possibly churches, but often nothing else. Allowing for small amounts of light commercial (cafés, small grocery stores, etc) to be sprinkled in would actually immensely improve things. Having a store within a few suburban blocks (perhaps 5-10 minutes walk, less with a bike) would obviously be helpful. But in many suburbs that is pretty rare. You may get the occasional small cluster of commercial zoning near main access roads, but often not placed to be sensible reachable by anything but car for nearby residences. This is even technically achievable with strictly single use zoning if planned as part of a development, specifically zoning small areas for such businesses, strategically placed so as to be easily reachable from the residences without needing cars. But we often just don't do that. Even when there are rules requiring new developments to include some percentage of commercial space, developers tend to clump that near the entrance roads, potentially quite far from many residences. Admittedly it is understandable that people are wary of having commercial spaces in the middle of residential clusters, unless the roads are carefully laid out such that they won't cause significant traffic on the residential streets. This generally means they are along specialized through streets (which have limited access to the residential areas, to make routes that cut though residential streets unappealing to through traffic), but that very same limited access also means most residences cannot easily reach those areas without cars. This can be avoided with smart layout, pedestrian/bike only paths to these areas, etc., but I just don't see that nearly as often as it should happen.
- FredPret 3y agoBetween the ages of 15 and 30, I was very much on board with this. But now I’ve lived with shared walls a bit too long, and my tolerance for the antics of others is asymptotically approaching zero. Plus, it’s not like we need a one-size-fits-all solution.
- f1yght 3y agoIn the EU they have much higher construction standards including much thicker walls and floors that block sound between units better. I wish the US could duplicate that, though that would increase building costs which are already high here.
- rolisz 3y agoThe EU is composed of 27 countries, with varying construction standards. In Romania, you can hear when your neighbors flush the toilet, especially in new constructions.
- f1yght 3y agoOkay fair enough, but you understand my point. Some EU countries have higher standards that avoid the issue of hearing your neighbor. I remember watching a tour of a construction site that an american construction manager was going on and the floors were radiant heat, which meant they were 9-12 inches thick of concrete and the walls were also 9 or so inches.
- The_Colonel 3y agoI can confirm that. I live in a new apartment building (in Austria) and basically never hear neighbors even though the building is full of children. Older buildings can be significantly worse in sound isolation. But the apartment prices are very high in comparison to US, not sure how much is it because of the better construction standards. Houses are financially out of reach for many/most people.
- nemo44x 3y agoA lot of EU dwelling construction is built to be as energy efficient as possible. They use CMUs VS timber, and plaster their bricks instead of hanging drywall in large part because they can make it more energy efficient but also because Europe lacks ample timber supplies in many areas compared to North America. But energy is far more expensive in the EU than in North America so it's more important to save money there. Saving that, insulation in American homes is really good today and I believe R15 is the minimum allowed in new construction. The drawbacks are European construction tends to be very bland and basic and small compared to homes in America. They also don't have HVAC (I think they'll regret this if the planet continues to heat) or forced air and tend to use radiant heating which is great, but requires high levels of insulation to be effective. Saying that, you can have your timber framed home have thicker walls or have rockwool, etc put into the internal walls which will deaden noise like old plaster/lath walls.
- SomeRndName11 3y agoUntil cultural pressure of nonacceptance of ecologically irresponsible suburban car-dependent lifestyle begins to outweigh traps of familiar American lifestyle, the suburbs will be there.
- osigurdson 3y agoWhat if the car has no emissions?
- SomeRndName11 3y agoI wonder how? Powered by dark matter?
- lr4444lr 3y agoIs running wholly separate refrigeration, AC, ovens, and other electric power negligible? Average household size in cities tends to be smaller than the suburbs. The environmental argument always clings to cars, but emissions keep improving. Carbon footprint per person is really what we're talking about here.
- gottorf 3y ago> Carbon footprint per person is really what we're talking about here. On the other hand, increasing energy consumption per person is exactly equal to civilization and rising standards of living, so let's not be too hasty in condemning carbon footprint. Of course, ideally the energy we spend would be generated and stored via other sources; and technology will likely lead us in that direction.
- osigurdson 3y agoPowered by solar or nuclear.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3y ago
- rs999gti 3y agoIt's weird that urbanization is back in vogue. During the pandemic, the closeness and compactness of urban living was a super spreader event. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3295 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3295
- giraffe_lady 3y agoThat paper doesn't actually make that claim? In fact it references another showing there was no link between density and covid spread after accounting for poverty. It's a simple survey of other literature essentially just noting that cities are predicted to change in some ways, but not making very many firm claims beyond that.
- i_am_jl 3y agoI don't think it should come as a surprise that an architecture and design magazine's readership prefers skyscrapers to suburban sprawl.
- lr4444lr 3y agoSuburban residents and their leaders generally have no problem with city denizens doing what they want: no one is imposing _less_ density on cities. They could care less if you want to pack people into 100 story microapartments with buses and trains running at all hours of the day. It's the city folk, often overlapping with the seats of county and state governments, that won't leave the suburbs alone, and are constantly trying to force zoning changes on them, bus their kids far away by merging or redrawing school districts, run public transit into their small downtowns, etc.
- UncleMeat 3y agoI live in a university town. We absolutely have people regularly fighting in city council meetings to deny building permits for 3-4 story apartment complexes.
- beaviskhan 3y agoIn my small town, we approve apartment complexes without doing anything to accommodate the additional traffic they inevitably generate (in a small town that already has significant traffic problems and very little public transportation). The fight to deny these permits is warranted, in my opinion, until they're handled more appropriately. Unfortunately it's an exceedingly complicated problem since a number of the main roads through town are actually US/state highways and as such, modifications require coordination between local, county, and state agencies, and often involve almost unbelievable lead times.
- Arainach 3y agoTraffic is subject to induced demand. Roads fill until traffic is high enough to convince people not to drive (either taking fewer trips or going via not car). If you build more roads, more people will drive until traffic is bad enough to get them not to, etc. etc. We have nearly a century of data on this. It was observed when Robert Moses tried to build more parkways in New York, it was true in Texas and LA, it was true everywhere. "Traffic is already bad" is a common NIMBY line in my area, but traffic will always be bad with sufficient population. Building more roads will not change that.
- favflam 3y agoI agree. But we should be seeing a spectrum of density with the urban core having some skyscrapers and as you go out from the core, density drops exponentially like a bell curve. Vancover is a bit nuts b/c they have single family homes next to sky scrapers (nimby driven, no?). Janky density distributions are a sign of bad urban planning, endemic to North America. Side note (slightly rambling): Florida is hitting a wall. Traffic flowed smoothly for a while until the last 10 years in places like South and Central Florida. Miami is full (inefficient urban planning meaning it is prematurely full). Orlando is next to fill up. Suburbs have a fixed capacity to handle people. Jobs cluster geographically (see Hotelling law[1]), so getting people in low density suburbs to work becomes logistically challenging when the population hits a certain number (~2M?). Like an N to M network problem that expands in complexity exponentially O(n^2). The graph with x-axis in population and y-axis in traffic jams is flat till that limit is reached, then the chart spikes up like a wall. [1] https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2018/09/17/why-do-competitors-open-their-stores-next-to-one-another/ https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2018/09/17/why-do-competi... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_law
- glimshe 3y agoI love sprawl. It allows me to have my own little piece of Earth instead of being packed in an ant colony. Skycrapers are cool to see and all, but the suburban lifestyle allows me to live among trees, lakes and birds.
- theshrike79 3y agoMy dream for old age is to live in a building where I can access all the services I need without needing to check the weather outside. Basically a low-tech Cyberpunk Arcology. I'd live somewhere in the building and it'd have a small hospital, pharmacy, grocery store(s), cafes etc. either in the lower floors or accessible through tunnels in adjacent buildings.
- snapplebobapple 3y agoShould really just be "too much zoning is worse than too little zoning"