StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"The outcome of the city will depend upon the race between the automobile and the elevator"
-Frank Lloyd Wright

When it comes to building cities do you feel that it's better to Build Up with high rise apartment blocks...

...or build out with endless suburbs?


Zor

Historically, of course, we did both.

Singapore at one extreme and Auckland at the other, but nearly everywhere else presenting both options.

Cities need horizontal transport for goods anyway, so commuter belt will always exist out to 1.5 hour travel from house to job. 10 miles by bike. 90 miles by car, 100+ miles by good train links. Bought by people whose hobbies or families require the space, and by those who want peace and quiet from stressful jobs.

At same time, denand for city living, low commute, high availability of services, by people with low space desires will mean demand for closest city center opportunities. Before elevators, practical limit was four-five floors (paris). Now blocks add city center living space so high that actual density is not any different to historical, even though plan density is very high. Most European city centers are far denser then favelas in plan.

There's no "one rule for every situation" here as which is better depends on the avaible resources. For example historically Japan built up because there was simply no room to build out viably (until fairly recently building into or on top of the ocean was not an option for them). Where was with a location with soft soil but plenty of room avaible it would be more viable to build out.

A hundred mile commute to work?! 170 km one-way? This is “normal”? This is sick and wrong and constitutes stealing people’s lifetime in an even more perverse way than overtime at work.

*clears throat*

Of course, capitalistic development does not allow to give people housing near their place of work, which means chaotic, unorganized traffic flows, jams, and countless hours lost in transit.

Ideal cities should have a rapid transit system that cuts down travel time between the city outskirts and the center to less than 1 hour, and balanced districts that have both workplaces and living space, and all accompanying infrastructure.

Overgrowth into a super megalopolis or ultra-dense cyberpunk cities like Tokyo or Hong Kong is nothing commendable and more of a testament to the concentration of capital than to any quality-of-life concerns.

Suburbia is likewise a capitalistic form of segregation and class division.

When I wasn't contracting I had a job that was an hour and a half by bus or 15-20 minutes by car. My current contract is 300 miles away so I stay in a hotel during the week.
A hundred mile commute every day isn't something I've put myself through, although I did work with a couple people who did 60ish every (week)day

I thinki overstated the 100mile one a lot. More like 30, maybe 50 miles if the roads are clear.

Its based on the observation that humans tend to travel a bit daily, seems to be ingrained, and that travel seems to be fixed at ~one hour(varies by individual of course).
Better transport links historically allowed people access to a greater range of jobs, especially if you and your spouse both work or you want to be near family ect.

Im not sure why a range of options from metropolis to rural farmhouse should not be present Stas, im not believing theres a neighbourhood that suits everyone.

I agree with options, but I disagree that people should be forced into commuting long hours to work. This is encroachment on their precious lifetime.

I mean, I think the best options for a working person are: short ride to work (up to 30 minutes), work where you live and finally, work remotely. It should be possible to do this and still enjoy the lifestyle one likes, ie choose between a house or an apartment, etc.

Subjecting self to very long commutes is bad, and has a very negative impact on one’s life.

Suburbs have all the drawbacks of the inner city and the countryside with none of the actual benefits. I say build up to the extent local conditions permit, incorporating the many painful lessons for how not to do this sort of thing (keep on top of maintenance, make sure there's some retail space and other amenities available, clamp down on antisocial behaviour but be fair and consistent about it), but let anyone who really wants their space and privacy move to the countryside with the minimum of unnecessary paperwork and expense if they really want to.

I don't know about that. I would say that the suburbs offer a nice blend of the city and the country. I have all the amenties I need close by (grocery stores, home improvement, etc), but I don't share walls with my neighbors. Yes, it requires owning a car, but as has been repeatedly hashed about on this board, the US is not well served by public transportation. My city (Charlotte, NC) has been building light rail to alleviate congestion along the major traffic pain points, though. I have to drive about 12 miles to get to the nearest stop, but it beats having to pay exorbitant parking fees in the city where I work. There are plans to place a new line that would end very close to my house, but by the time they get it funded, break ground, and complete it I may not even have my current job anymore so I'm not holding my breath.

houser2112 wrote: ↑2019-01-31 02:06pmI don't know about that. I would say that the suburbs offer a nice blend of the city and the country. I have all the amenties I need close by (grocery stores, home improvement, etc), but I don't share walls with my neighbors. Yes, it requires owning a car, but as has been repeatedly hashed about on this board, the US is not well served by public transportation.

Yes, and I think you're massively underestimating how big a problem that is. How much do you spend on filling up your car each week?

UP! UP! UP!

Yeah, I hate urban sprawl, hate disappearing countryside, like big skyscrapers. Where it is possible to do so, build up. Until we reach the ultimate conclusion of building a God damn space elevator.

Zaune wrote: ↑2019-01-31 02:19pm

houser2112 wrote: ↑2019-01-31 02:06pmI don't know about that. I would say that the suburbs offer a nice blend of the city and the country. I have all the amenties I need close by (grocery stores, home improvement, etc), but I don't share walls with my neighbors. Yes, it requires owning a car, but as has been repeatedly hashed about on this board, the US is not well served by public transportation.

Yes, and I think you're massively underestimating how big a problem that is. How much do you spend on filling up your car each week?

Do you know how much I spend on a train ticket? And still have to get to and from a station.

Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2019-01-31 02:22pmDo you know how much I spend on a train ticket? And still have to get to and from a station.

I am very aware of how much a train ticket costs in this country. The point I'm trying to make is that commuting for more than about thirty minutes each way ceases to be economically viable below a certain income threshold, whether you drive or use public transport.

Zaune wrote: ↑2019-01-31 02:19pm

houser2112 wrote: ↑2019-01-31 02:06pmI don't know about that. I would say that the suburbs offer a nice blend of the city and the country. I have all the amenties I need close by (grocery stores, home improvement, etc), but I don't share walls with my neighbors. Yes, it requires owning a car, but as has been repeatedly hashed about on this board, the US is not well served by public transportation.

Yes, and I think you're massively underestimating how big a problem that is. How much do you spend on filling up your car each week?

I estimate about $20, but what does that have to do with anything? You said the suburbs are the worst of both worlds, and I pointed out how I disagree with that.

If you live in the city, you are very close to everything, and could get away with not owning a car for your daily activities, but what if you wanted to take a day trip somewhere that isn't served by public transit or if you want to buy something you can't carry? As I said, housing is more dense (you're going to share walls with people), and also more expensive. For the same price as my 2400 sqft 4 bed/2.5 bath house in the suburbs, I would only get a 2 or 3 bedroom 1000 sqft apartment (The apartments might actually be more expensive).

If you live in the country, you'll have your space for sure. However, as many who have lived out in the sticks tell me, you will have ironically less privacy (people tend to be nosier) and will be expected to worship (it's not "do you go to church?", it's "which church do you go to?"). You will be even more dependent on a car (at least in the suburbs I have the option of taking a bus to the train station, or the bus all the way in) because it's not profitable to run public transport out there. Your amenities will be lesser in amount and variety.

I think YOU are underestimating how big and spread out the US is.

Zaune wrote: ↑2019-01-31 02:33pm

Crazedwraith wrote: ↑2019-01-31 02:22pmDo you know how much I spend on a train ticket? And still have to get to and from a station.

I am very aware of how much a train ticket costs in this country. The point I'm trying to make is that commuting for more than about thirty minutes each way ceases to be economically viable below a certain income threshold, whether you drive or use public transport.

oops. My bad. I realised afterwards you were not talking cars vs public transport but commuting vs living close to work.

houser2112 wrote: ↑2019-01-31 02:46pmIf you live in the city, you are very close to everything, and could get away with not owning a car for your daily activities, but what if you wanted to take a day trip somewhere that isn't served by public transit or if you want to buy something you can't carry? As I said, housing is more dense (you're going to share walls with people), and also more expensive. For the same price as my 2400 sqft 4 bed/2.5 bath house in the suburbs, I would only get a 2 or 3 bedroom 1000 sqft apartment (The apartments might actually be more expensive).

If you live in the country, you'll have your space for sure. However, as many who have lived out in the sticks tell me, you will have ironically less privacy (people tend to be nosier) and will be expected to worship (it's not "do you go to church?", it's "which church do you go to?"). You will be even more dependent on a car (at least in the suburbs I have the option of taking a bus to the train station, or the bus all the way in) because it's not profitable to run public transport out there. Your amenities will be lesser in amount and variety.

I am admittedly basing my assertion off my having grown up in a fairly typical British suburb, but my experience was that they were spread out enough that almost nothing worth getting to was within reasonable walking distance (we had a convenience store and a football pitch and that was pretty much it) but not so far apart that you didn't have to listen to your neighbour's baby crying, the couple at the end of the road having a blazing row or someone mowing their lawn at seven o'clock on a Sunday morning. Neither was the house or garden all that much bigger than we could have got for the same money in the middle of town, although in fairness the town in question was one of the most awful places I've ever lived.

Re the US specifically: there is a ridiculous amount of variety. You will have rural communities where the houses are literally miles apart, you will have rural communities where you have a small town and then a lot of houses all scattered around the town, and so on and so forth all the way on up to urban situations where apartment blocks are ass-to-ass tight and twenty stories up. And honestly? While some people would prefer closer access to stuff, a lot of people live with long drives because they -want- to have that. Oh they might grumble about how much they have to carry out of the car every two weeks when they do their grocery run and how boring the 2-hour commute is, but they live in the country because of that whole ethos about how country people are better or whatever tripe.

Anyway. Me? I have to have elbow room. I can understand the convenience of being close to everything, but when I'm at home, I don't want to have to worry about how close other people are. I want a backyard that I can put up a pool in, maybe have chickens or goats if I really want to. I'm not comfortable living in a situation where there's a hundred people on either side of me within the square half-mile or whatever. So it's suburbia for me, even with all its drawbacks.

In Australia, suburbia has led to (among other things) a massive housing affordability crisis, with an all new landed gentry class. Parents bought up when it was cheaper, and pass the land on to their offspring to rent. That housing is used to purchase more. Meanwhile the rest of us rent for higher and higher amounts.

Fuck suburbia.

There is a other option in remote working.

Not necessarily the work from home option. Did that for a while, nearly went mad.
This is small towns circling a city with coworking spaces - so ten people from ten companies all share an office space rather then ten commutes to the city. Keeps the small town center alive, reduces commutes.

Gandalf wrote: ↑2019-01-31 08:24pm In Australia, suburbia has led to (among other things) a massive housing affordability crisis, with an all new landed gentry class. Parents bought up when it was cheaper, and pass the land on to their offspring to rent. That housing is used to purchase more. Meanwhile the rest of us rent for higher and higher amounts.

Fuck suburbia.

I don't know how the situation is in the States. I'm aware that there are a lot of issues with suburbia as it stands currently. Nonetheless, the poll is about picking one, and suburbia or country living would be my preference, all the issues notwithstanding.

Elheru Aran wrote: ↑2019-02-01 01:49pm

Gandalf wrote: ↑2019-01-31 08:24pm In Australia, suburbia has led to (among other things) a massive housing affordability crisis, with an all new landed gentry class. Parents bought up when it was cheaper, and pass the land on to their offspring to rent. That housing is used to purchase more. Meanwhile the rest of us rent for higher and higher amounts.

Fuck suburbia.

I don't know how the situation is in the States. I'm aware that there are a lot of issues with suburbia as it stands currently.

There are issues with American suburbia currently, and at the most basic design level. US suburbs were built on the post WW2 economic boom, with seemingly little attention paid to their long term viability.

Nonetheless, the poll is about picking one, and suburbia or country living would be my preference, all the issues notwithstanding.

I thought the poll was about what was "better" for cities?

Gandalf wrote: ↑2019-01-31 08:24pmIn Australia, suburbia has led to (among other things) a massive housing affordability crisis, with an all new landed gentry class. Parents bought up when it was cheaper, and pass the land on to their offspring to rent. That housing is used to purchase more. Meanwhile the rest of us rent for higher and higher amounts.

Why is this issue related to housing density. The UK has plenty of this but more concentrated in cities at the high end (luxury apartments) and (ex-)social housing estates at the low end (terraced houses and cheap apartment blocks).

Starglider wrote: ↑2019-02-01 07:50pmWhy is this issue related to housing density. The UK has plenty of this but more concentrated in cities at the high end (luxury apartments) and (ex-)social housing estates at the low end (terraced houses and cheap apartment blocks).

Probably a combination of the age-old notion that the larger your estate the greater your wealth and status, particularly land you aren't doing anything practical with, and the fact that countries like Australia and parts of the United States have land values low enough that the lower-middle classes can afford the kind of acreage that very few Europeans could afford to own as a mere private garden.

Probably a combination of the age-old notion that the larger your estate the greater your wealth and status, particularly land you aren't doing anything practical with, and the fact that countries like Australia and parts of the United States have land values low enough that the lower-middle classes can afford the kind of acreage that very few Europeans could afford to own as a mere private garden.

Nah. It's not a suburb problem. It's an issue with successive governments adopting/continuing policies which guarantee massive returns/0 losses on investment properties as opposed to other investment options. (Negative gearing, capital gains tax cuts)

It happens with appartments here as well, the effect is not as profound with appartments though because you can't offload an appartment to a developer for an absurd price because they want the land to build 300 additional appartments on.

There are new problems with new suburbs here though. A lot of cities work in Austrailia only because they are really more amalgamations of towns with a city cetre light accesssble wherever you live. Newly developed suburbs don't have these and the suburb as a whole is less liveable as a result.

I couldn't live in a building complex like in the OP. There are too many ways things can go wrong. Fires, earthquakes, shoddy construction, etc... any of those can lead to massive death count compared to being spread out. I'll take my chances with suburbia.