Comments by "" (@timogul) on "City Beautiful"
channel.
-
59
-
58
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
@Coffeepanda294 Well, you argued that they couldn't. If say a group of thieves wanted to sneak around, they could park in one part of a neighborhood, use footpaths to travel around it, and then hit homes that are less traceable to their vehicles. Without footpaths, they would also be able to move through back yards, but would be much more conspicuous while doing so.
In any case, if home owners do not want strangers walking beside their homes, then that is their business, not yours. If they choose to buy homes in neighborhoods that prevent such things, then that is their choice to make.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@StephenRichmond89 Yeah, some things can be tricky. The Disney Contemporary has a monorail running through it, but it's harder than it might seem, and even then it's only like 50ft off the ground. I think it's a better idea to build relatively small archology towers, equivalent to a small town, but then you could have multiples of them within blocks of each other if you wanted. On the other hand, if you had a single massive city, then you could also invest in massive "industrial supports," like having entire 50-story towers within it that are just massive freight elevators, capable of lifting entire houses up to a higher level if you wanted, and then broad boulevards along the way that link areas of the building.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@NJ-wb1cz In a democratic society, the government Is the people. The people passing regulations are doing so because they were elected by the people of that area to make policies that they would prefer. If the people in a given area do not like their regulators, they can vote them out.
Also, socialism does not mean that you don't own anything. I have no idea where you got that from.
As for noise and traffic, while it is possible to regulate that directly to some degree, preventing, say, loud music or something, any reasonably successful business will have a minimum amount of noise and disruption from customers coming and going, you cannot "regulate that out" without making the business impossible to run. Not to mention that it could attract rowdier customers that would care less about following "regulations" of their behavior. You propose solutions that might work in some ideal scenario, but not in the real world.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@TheSuperappelflap We don't need to reach zero emissions. The Earth does sequester carbon at certain rates, so while we need to have a net negative carbon footprint at a global level, that would still allow a fairly significant amount of carbon output, it would just be offset by carbon sinks elsewhere in the system. But again, a lot of the carbon produced in manufacturing and transporting cars and batteries can be reduced over time. For example, green cargo ships would greatly reduce the carbon costs of transportation.
Public transport is good for areas where that can be done effectively and efficiently, but that is not true in many areas. There are tens of millions of Americans who cannot reasonably be serviced by public transport, because they are too spread out and it is not worth building public transit in their areas.
It's worth noting that while you claim "batteries are bad," most green energy relies on batteries too. Even if you have a 100% electrified public transit network, that would almost certainly require massive batteries to maintain the power to it, as most of the green forms of energy are transient. So, you're completely wrong on all counts. please educate yourself before commenting again.
2
-
You point out how each house in a suburb is "bland" because they are very similar, but isn't the same true of apartments? If you have a large apartment building, holding dozens of families, isn't each of their homes no different than the one next door? What difference does it make, other than each suburban home coming with a yard and a lot more space to live in? And sure, you can build fancy craft-built homes instead of prefab ones, but those will cost more, and not everyone can afford that. The whole point here was to provide a house that more families could afford.
As for "corner stores," putting a "corner store" in an average suburb would be a bad idea, because they could not get enough foot traffic to sustain their business. Not enough people would live nearby to it at once. That is why car-centric shopping makes more sense in suburbs, although many modern communities are built with a large "commercial hub" within a reasonable walking/biking distance of the homes, for people who choose to visit them that way. A development that started around 2000 or so in our area has a grocery store and dozens of other businesses in a roughly central location to many of the new homes, but you can't build out too many different stores spread too thinly, or none could get enough business to be sustainable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@StephenRichmond89 Generally, yeah, but "cost effective" is relative. So long as you have plenty of room to spread out as much as you like, it is not cost effective to build to this level of density. On the other hand, if you had a country with very little footprint to work with, and you need to get more and more out of every square foot, then building up is the only way to do that (aside from building down, which has its own issues).
And you can't just build super tall, thin towers, because you run into issues where the elevators become super inefficient to use, and people end up "trapped" on the upper floors because it takes an hour to reach the ground, so if you're going to build tall, you also have to build wide in some way, and spread out goods and services so that people don't need to travel all the way to the ground most of the time,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I like the idea of arcologies, but they need to be carefully designed. "The Line" sounds dumb. There is an arcology I want to see made though, based around the concept of four tall towers about on the scale of the original Twin Towers, all linked at every 50 floors or so by open or semi-open promenade rings, allowing you to easily cross from building to building without having to travel more than 50 floors. You would have food and commercial spaces on the 1-2 floors around these promenades, making them similar to a mall, and commercial/light industrial spaces would be in the middle-most floors between these bridges (ie floors 25-ish, 75-ish, 125-ish, etc.), so furthest from the bridges. I assume that the housing nearest the promenade levels would be in most high demand, because they would be most convenient and get the best light, while those directly under the promenades would be the lowest value, but the goal would be so that nothing you would need in an average day would be out of reach within +- 50 floors of your apartment, and no service you would need on an annual basis would require you to leave the building, so plenty of people would stay in the building just a much as a New Yorker might stay inside the city.
1
-
1
-
1