3 ms·

Moderately dense development - good High rise developments enclosed in glass - bad Plants on the skyscraper terraces - sheer stupidity and bullshit, used only

by Yizahi 3y ago

Moderately dense development - good High rise developments enclosed in glass - bad Plants on the skyscraper terraces - sheer stupidity and bullshit, used only for pretty marketing 3D art If they made those high rises a 5-6 floor buildings instead, with no b/s trees on the balconies but instead planted them in the ground, that would be much more boring, cheaper and much more comfortable to live there.

dangus 3y ago
There are a lot of examples of successful, affordable, pleasant skyscraper developments across the world. The entirety of the Vancouver city core is an example itself. It seems rather prescriptive to declare tower living uncomfortable when so many people enjoy it. Just look at some rental listings in the South Loop neighborhood of Chicago. You can get a 2 bedroom apartment in a modern glass tower with amenities galore for well under $3,000 a month in the heart of America’s second largest downtown. Imagine living completely car-free in a neighborhood like that and commuting 10 minutes to get to your downtown job. (Walk, bike, and transit score >90) I personally think that’s way more comfortable (and physically safe) than a suburban lifestyle where you’re trapped in your car on a stroad or freeway for every daily need. As far as vegetated skyscrapers, there are widely acclaimed examples like the Bosco Verticale. It’s not a new concept and I’m not sure what the negative is supposed to be. Plants are bad?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  > successful, affordable, pleasant skyscraper developments that depends entirely on the cultural and social expectations of humans who are supposed to live there
mjr00 3y ago
> Moderately dense development - good > High rise developments enclosed in glass - bad Can you explain why you think this?
mthoms 3y ago
What's wrong with plants on the terraces and balconies? How would their presence make it less comfortable to live there? And high rise developments "enclosed in glass"? As the article mentions, that's sort of what Vancouver is known for. Is it the material you object to or the building height? I genuinely don't understand your comment. Particularly as a Vancouverite (who can't afford a home).
- singingboyo 3y ago
  Also, as a Vancouverite... 5-6 stories, cheaper to live there, AND more comfortable? Dunno about that. I've got doubts about cheaper, and 5-6 story buildings in Vancouver always seem less comfortable than a skyscraper (for whatever reason - maybe just that the 5-6 story buildings are mostly old?)
- Yizahi 3y ago
  Not any plants and not any balcony. I'm talking specifically about these newfangled skyscrapers playing pretend that they are vertical forests. So main differences are a) building is big and tall, b) there are dedicated "balconies" for a big plants - shrubs, small trees etc., whole nano garden in every spot, c) these spots are mandatory, not like you are putting some potted plants on your own balcony. Disclaimer - these play pretend forests are NOT bad per se (the plant part at least). They are just hilariously inefficient way to spend money and space. The issues I see with them: 1. This additional horizontal space costs money. The plants cost money. The maintenance of the whole thing costs even more money. 2. There needs to be access to them from the apartments (violating privacy), or they are only accessed from the outside, multiplying maintenance costs. 3. What if the plant dies? Who pays for replacement? 4. Unless these islands of plants are hermetically sealed from the apartments, who will pay and deal with water leaks from the plants to the inside of the building, who will deal with mold, insects and so on? 5. What if the wind blows the heavy plant or tree down on something or someone? 6. The space usage is very bad, it's like tens of trees per whole building. A small park beside the building can beat that number by 100 times. Vertical forests is a case of looks nice on the 3D render, but in practice is a waste of money plus unsafe. And skyscrapers are simply bad for individual living. Price, infrastructure, related issues. My home city has an issue with chaotic development and there are several parts of the city with 25+ floor housing. Those are cheap, but the are mercilessly mocked by the whole city and no one voluntarily wants to live there if they have a choice and money. Also those are places with the worst traffic jams and parking issues in the whole city, except for the inner center. PS: I very much like plant in my apartment, small and big. I've lived for years with half of my own room taken by a potted coffee tree growing into the ceiling, so I'm not some plant hater or something.

by Yizahi 3y ago

dangus 3y ago

There are a lot of examples of successful, affordable, pleasant skyscraper developments across the world. The entirety of the Vancouver city core is an example itself. It seems rather prescriptive to declare tower living uncomfortable when so many people enjoy it. Just look at some rental listings in the South Loop neighborhood of Chicago. You can get a 2 bedroom apartment in a modern glass tower with amenities galore for well under $3,000 a month in the heart of America’s second largest downtown. Imagine living completely car-free in a neighborhood like that and commuting 10 minutes to get to your downtown job. (Walk, bike, and transit score >90) I personally think that’s way more comfortable (and physically safe) than a suburban lifestyle where you’re trapped in your car on a stroad or freeway for every daily need. As far as vegetated skyscrapers, there are widely acclaimed examples like the Bosco Verticale. It’s not a new concept and I’m not sure what the negative is supposed to be. Plants are bad?

mistrial9 3y ago
> successful, affordable, pleasant skyscraper developments that depends entirely on the cultural and social expectations of humans who are supposed to live there

mjr00 3y ago

> Moderately dense development - good > High rise developments enclosed in glass - bad Can you explain why you think this?

mthoms 3y ago

What's wrong with plants on the terraces and balconies? How would their presence make it less comfortable to live there? And high rise developments "enclosed in glass"? As the article mentions, that's sort of what Vancouver is known for. Is it the material you object to or the building height? I genuinely don't understand your comment. Particularly as a Vancouverite (who can't afford a home).

singingboyo 3y ago
Also, as a Vancouverite... 5-6 stories, cheaper to live there, AND more comfortable? Dunno about that. I've got doubts about cheaper, and 5-6 story buildings in Vancouver always seem less comfortable than a skyscraper (for whatever reason - maybe just that the 5-6 story buildings are mostly old?)
Yizahi 3y ago
Not any plants and not any balcony. I'm talking specifically about these newfangled skyscrapers playing pretend that they are vertical forests. So main differences are a) building is big and tall, b) there are dedicated "balconies" for a big plants - shrubs, small trees etc., whole nano garden in every spot, c) these spots are mandatory, not like you are putting some potted plants on your own balcony. Disclaimer - these play pretend forests are NOT bad per se (the plant part at least). They are just hilariously inefficient way to spend money and space. The issues I see with them: 1. This additional horizontal space costs money. The plants cost money. The maintenance of the whole thing costs even more money. 2. There needs to be access to them from the apartments (violating privacy), or they are only accessed from the outside, multiplying maintenance costs. 3. What if the plant dies? Who pays for replacement? 4. Unless these islands of plants are hermetically sealed from the apartments, who will pay and deal with water leaks from the plants to the inside of the building, who will deal with mold, insects and so on? 5. What if the wind blows the heavy plant or tree down on something or someone? 6. The space usage is very bad, it's like tens of trees per whole building. A small park beside the building can beat that number by 100 times. Vertical forests is a case of looks nice on the 3D render, but in practice is a waste of money plus unsafe. And skyscrapers are simply bad for individual living. Price, infrastructure, related issues. My home city has an issue with chaotic development and there are several parts of the city with 25+ floor housing. Those are cheap, but the are mercilessly mocked by the whole city and no one voluntarily wants to live there if they have a choice and money. Also those are places with the worst traffic jams and parking issues in the whole city, except for the inner center. PS: I very much like plant in my apartment, small and big. I've lived for years with half of my own room taken by a potted coffee tree growing into the ceiling, so I'm not some plant hater or something.