4 ms·

Even though things are more complex in large cities it still generates so much money that it is cheaper per capita then building in low density neighbourhood.

Even though things are more complex in large cities it still generates so much money that it is cheaper per capita then building in low density neighbourhood. > Nowadays a MODERN a big apartments complex cost more than an equivalent of single families homes per unit (HVAC, seismic, fire-safety, ... costs) Isnt that because of the price of land?

bluGill 2y ago
>> Nowadays a MODERN a big apartments complex cost more than an equivalent of single families homes per unit (HVAC, seismic, fire-safety, ... costs) >Isnt that because of the price of land? Citation needed first of all. From what I can tell, a high rise apartment building - that is more than 10 floors costs substantially more to build per floor area than a single family house. This is because to go that high you need stronger building materials than a single family house and that adds cost. However a shorter building - is a similar price per floor area (at 3 floors slightly less, but more than that elevators start adding cost but still only slightly more). You can use similar building materials for the most part. However the apartment still wins because people who live in them share common areas - one shared laundry room is enough for several apartments, often there is a community room, exercise room, and pool - expensive spaces/equipment not used much by most individuals but as shared spaces the cost is shared and so cheaper per apartment.
- kkfx 2y ago
  So you design a small condo, where still you can't evolve, because it's extremely hard to reach and agreement to rebuild at a certain point in future, you put something in common, something much more costly than individuals machines, who need external services for anything, with much more stringent norms (let's just say common laundry machines requirement for high temperature wash for sanitary reasons, while individuals one do not), still being unable to implement the new deal without making new buildings for what? To spare a little bit in capex significantly enlarging the opex? No thanks. I do not have studies to cite because there are none on that subject both pro and against urban, only PRs stating that's certain something not giving any reproducible proof and it's extremely complex to measure real costs because we should build real similar communities living a significant amount of time to compare, it's not just an initial bill of materials comparison but a whole different economic model. What I can say is that in EU some countries have most people in single family homes, some others the opposite, some very dense, like the Nederland 425.4 humans/km² with 81.3% in homes, still being a significant producer of meat and cheese, Belgium 381.79 humans/km² and 77.6% in homes, France 117.52 humans/km² and 62% in homes, Ireland 71.47 humans/km² and 89.4% while on the other side Italy with 200 humans/km² and 42.9% in homes, Spain with only 34.3% in homes that's to say except few very small, very populated countries there is room for both model, it's not a matter of density nor of mean richness, nor of industrial vs something else development and so on, it's a choice. This variety is not technically a proof but it's enough to say that both models are perfectly possible and mean Gini index, mean happiness level, financial stability and so on suggest that being less dense pay back better. I'm European I do not know much about the real USA situation but I have been in the USA some times and... Did you see SF recently? All "the city" essentially in a decadent state, all "wealthy" spread around, mostly in single family homes, some in very small condos who honestly seems to have no reasons to exists seen their prices compared to those of the homes and the relative opex and resale value. NY? I've just seen a very small part of NY, but that's enough to say "I have no damn reason to be here". Of course I know USA suburbs failure but that's not due to the density or the fact they are made of single family homes, that's due to the fact they are built to IMPOSE commuting for the sake of automotive industry. They are residential ONLY. Here (France Alps behind the Riviera) anything is "a suburb" since there is no big city and actually no city at all but anything is intermixed. I'm in a residential are, but a 3km (1.9 miles) I have a supermarket, about the same distance a golf, a blacksmith and a window installer main office and few shops all being single family homes scattered around and small sheds or little buildings. This is essentially the "strong town" real world modern model, their own was the old far west model, witch was working indeed, but was a spread one of small villages dispersed in nature.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    SF is a bad example as they do not allow building or changing anything. They have high demand and limited supply and so cost are high for everything. people move all the time hen the market isn't messed up so as long as someone wants to live there you are fine. Condos change, the logisics are complex but workable if it is allowed.
    - kkfx 2y ago
      In technical terms Indonesia is trying to rebuild Jakarta deep in mountains since they can't evolve their drowning and unlivable capital, Turkmenistan have created/actually create Arkadag a novel Fordlandia equally distopic and a similar failure, the Saudis have started Neom then they reduce their goals from original 170km (105 miles) to 2.4km just trying to keep the prestige. The fact you technically can does not means it's not a nightmare, with unbearably high costs for a very poor return. The main point here is why building/living in a city. The answer in present modern time is: just to be slave, all other good reasons are not there anymore. In the past cities was needed for many reasons, the second last ones was for the economy of scale, a big number of SME and large enterprises nearby so ideas who travel, ferocious market that push innovation and keeps the cost low, workers and customer in a short range. This collapse in the '80s when logistic evolution reach a point that cost less build things around the world and move them instead of doing anything nearby. The last one was the office. Things was done on paper, and you can't have nth copy of the same archive at home nor have customers at homes of every workers, updating their addresses as they move. Yes, we have had some forms of TLC and IT, but nothing really widespread and even if since the '80s we formally have enough to be spread that's not practically doable till very recently where videoconferencing, and screen sharing from The Mother of All the Demos became something most people use here and there or even daily. Now the city have no more purposes except one: the finance capitalism. Uber can't exists in a spread population, anyone have cars or something else to move and there is no parking issue. Just Eat the same, if you live at home, working from remote or in a spread area you have no reasons to look for ready made food in most cases and when you want there are only 2/3 options nearby, no need for an app to choose. No usable distance for ready-made food delivery robots and so on. No need for cloud+mobile. The "home world" is a distributed ownership society, there is no room for giants except for some industries NOT IT, nor finance between them. Here the reason you here so much propaganda about green (dollar, not spring grass, or stereotypical toxic waste leaking from rusty stems) cities, "in 2030 you'll own nothing" and so on. Finance need the ability to control people, the economy is the lace, the zero public ownership the key to use that lace because in the 2030 WEF model the 99% are not entrepreneurs but employees and the 100% of their income will be consumed to live in services, being bound to obey since without a regular income they can't survive for more than a very little timeframe, of course no heritage, that's why inheritance taxes are so high where the WEF have more power and the narrative state that's good, because they know the "social lift" demand more generations to lift someone from poverty to richness and if you erase that the poor will remain in poverty without even knowing that because they have a handful of services like drugs to consume like junkies. For similar reasons educations reforms have built more and more specialized people, unable to see the big picture, unable to march on their own feet. I fail to see any other reason for cities. Oh, yes, a teenager need to be together many others of his/her age, but that's easy done with campus model from high school, like Sweden (try to) do, giving students a flat in dedicated areas like small cities in the end. Similarly we can't make steel at small scale, so workers of this sector, during their working life have to live nearby a large factory so in a kind of city and since they do work there for a significant period of time they will have families there, but still as a temporary settlements. In the modern world doing more than that is untenable like original Noam design, the entire India is needed to built the Modi's 100-smart cities, while living spread we can be much more, so producing and innovating much more.

bluGill 2y ago

>> Nowadays a MODERN a big apartments complex cost more than an equivalent of single families homes per unit (HVAC, seismic, fire-safety, ... costs) >Isnt that because of the price of land? Citation needed first of all. From what I can tell, a high rise apartment building - that is more than 10 floors costs substantially more to build per floor area than a single family house. This is because to go that high you need stronger building materials than a single family house and that adds cost. However a shorter building - is a similar price per floor area (at 3 floors slightly less, but more than that elevators start adding cost but still only slightly more). You can use similar building materials for the most part. However the apartment still wins because people who live in them share common areas - one shared laundry room is enough for several apartments, often there is a community room, exercise room, and pool - expensive spaces/equipment not used much by most individuals but as shared spaces the cost is shared and so cheaper per apartment.

kkfx 2y ago
So you design a small condo, where still you can't evolve, because it's extremely hard to reach and agreement to rebuild at a certain point in future, you put something in common, something much more costly than individuals machines, who need external services for anything, with much more stringent norms (let's just say common laundry machines requirement for high temperature wash for sanitary reasons, while individuals one do not), still being unable to implement the new deal without making new buildings for what? To spare a little bit in capex significantly enlarging the opex? No thanks. I do not have studies to cite because there are none on that subject both pro and against urban, only PRs stating that's certain something not giving any reproducible proof and it's extremely complex to measure real costs because we should build real similar communities living a significant amount of time to compare, it's not just an initial bill of materials comparison but a whole different economic model. What I can say is that in EU some countries have most people in single family homes, some others the opposite, some very dense, like the Nederland 425.4 humans/km² with 81.3% in homes, still being a significant producer of meat and cheese, Belgium 381.79 humans/km² and 77.6% in homes, France 117.52 humans/km² and 62% in homes, Ireland 71.47 humans/km² and 89.4% while on the other side Italy with 200 humans/km² and 42.9% in homes, Spain with only 34.3% in homes that's to say except few very small, very populated countries there is room for both model, it's not a matter of density nor of mean richness, nor of industrial vs something else development and so on, it's a choice. This variety is not technically a proof but it's enough to say that both models are perfectly possible and mean Gini index, mean happiness level, financial stability and so on suggest that being less dense pay back better. I'm European I do not know much about the real USA situation but I have been in the USA some times and... Did you see SF recently? All "the city" essentially in a decadent state, all "wealthy" spread around, mostly in single family homes, some in very small condos who honestly seems to have no reasons to exists seen their prices compared to those of the homes and the relative opex and resale value. NY? I've just seen a very small part of NY, but that's enough to say "I have no damn reason to be here". Of course I know USA suburbs failure but that's not due to the density or the fact they are made of single family homes, that's due to the fact they are built to IMPOSE commuting for the sake of automotive industry. They are residential ONLY. Here (France Alps behind the Riviera) anything is "a suburb" since there is no big city and actually no city at all but anything is intermixed. I'm in a residential are, but a 3km (1.9 miles) I have a supermarket, about the same distance a golf, a blacksmith and a window installer main office and few shops all being single family homes scattered around and small sheds or little buildings. This is essentially the "strong town" real world modern model, their own was the old far west model, witch was working indeed, but was a spread one of small villages dispersed in nature.
- bluGill 2y ago
  SF is a bad example as they do not allow building or changing anything. They have high demand and limited supply and so cost are high for everything. people move all the time hen the market isn't messed up so as long as someone wants to live there you are fine. Condos change, the logisics are complex but workable if it is allowed.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    In technical terms Indonesia is trying to rebuild Jakarta deep in mountains since they can't evolve their drowning and unlivable capital, Turkmenistan have created/actually create Arkadag a novel Fordlandia equally distopic and a similar failure, the Saudis have started Neom then they reduce their goals from original 170km (105 miles) to 2.4km just trying to keep the prestige. The fact you technically can does not means it's not a nightmare, with unbearably high costs for a very poor return. The main point here is why building/living in a city. The answer in present modern time is: just to be slave, all other good reasons are not there anymore. In the past cities was needed for many reasons, the second last ones was for the economy of scale, a big number of SME and large enterprises nearby so ideas who travel, ferocious market that push innovation and keeps the cost low, workers and customer in a short range. This collapse in the '80s when logistic evolution reach a point that cost less build things around the world and move them instead of doing anything nearby. The last one was the office. Things was done on paper, and you can't have nth copy of the same archive at home nor have customers at homes of every workers, updating their addresses as they move. Yes, we have had some forms of TLC and IT, but nothing really widespread and even if since the '80s we formally have enough to be spread that's not practically doable till very recently where videoconferencing, and screen sharing from The Mother of All the Demos became something most people use here and there or even daily. Now the city have no more purposes except one: the finance capitalism. Uber can't exists in a spread population, anyone have cars or something else to move and there is no parking issue. Just Eat the same, if you live at home, working from remote or in a spread area you have no reasons to look for ready made food in most cases and when you want there are only 2/3 options nearby, no need for an app to choose. No usable distance for ready-made food delivery robots and so on. No need for cloud+mobile. The "home world" is a distributed ownership society, there is no room for giants except for some industries NOT IT, nor finance between them. Here the reason you here so much propaganda about green (dollar, not spring grass, or stereotypical toxic waste leaking from rusty stems) cities, "in 2030 you'll own nothing" and so on. Finance need the ability to control people, the economy is the lace, the zero public ownership the key to use that lace because in the 2030 WEF model the 99% are not entrepreneurs but employees and the 100% of their income will be consumed to live in services, being bound to obey since without a regular income they can't survive for more than a very little timeframe, of course no heritage, that's why inheritance taxes are so high where the WEF have more power and the narrative state that's good, because they know the "social lift" demand more generations to lift someone from poverty to richness and if you erase that the poor will remain in poverty without even knowing that because they have a handful of services like drugs to consume like junkies. For similar reasons educations reforms have built more and more specialized people, unable to see the big picture, unable to march on their own feet. I fail to see any other reason for cities. Oh, yes, a teenager need to be together many others of his/her age, but that's easy done with campus model from high school, like Sweden (try to) do, giving students a flat in dedicated areas like small cities in the end. Similarly we can't make steel at small scale, so workers of this sector, during their working life have to live nearby a large factory so in a kind of city and since they do work there for a significant period of time they will have families there, but still as a temporary settlements. In the modern world doing more than that is untenable like original Noam design, the entire India is needed to built the Modi's 100-smart cities, while living spread we can be much more, so producing and innovating much more.