But taller buildings equals wider streets to such a degree that the density you win by building high mostly gets eaten up by the lost real estate used for wider streets.
Why do you need wider streets? Moving people is what the metro is for.
> Why do you need wider streets?
For public health reasons, enable emergency and disaster response, contain potential propagation of collapses, enable large volumes of people to evacuate in a timely manner, etc.
Europe has lived with narrow streets for some centuries and learned to avoid that mistake. It's a shame that somr people have forgot or never learned those lessons.
But taller buildings equals wider streets to such a degree that the density you win by building high mostly gets eaten up by the lost real estate used for wider streets.
Why do you need wider streets? Moving people is what the metro is for.
> Why do you need wider streets?
Moving goods.
> Moving people is what the metro is for.
People aren't the only thing that needs moved to support a city.
What's the point of building taller if you just increase the street width so total livable area per ground area is the same? That's nonsensical. Of course people will have to live with shadow. It's the only way to increase density (unless you want people to live in basements).
I don't know if you have been to Paris but the streets are VERY small, if you would build skyscraper, it would not be livable at all. Additionally, you need extra land for the foundation of the skyscraper (very very difficult to get in a crowded city like Paris. The point of the skyscraper is that it's cheaper for the company building it, it only makes sense in that aspect.
Eh, no. Skyscrapers are not cheap. The cheapest thing you can build is sprawling low-rise.
Some streets in Paris are narrow, others aren't. Streets with two-way road traffic are wide enough.
There is a lot of light in rio; I've been. They do have a city by the beach, but there is plenty of light in the city. (Shade too in a lot of areas, on one side of the street. Both light and shade are important)
> There is a lot of light in rio; Rio de Janeiro is located at latitude 22.9 South while Paris is located at 48.8 North. The solar exposure of those cities throughout the year is very different.
I'm not sure you followed. I meant the light makes it to the street. It is not bloxked by tall buildings.
The original post was about making taller buildings in paris without wider streets. That would lead to permanent canyons.
Why do you need wider streets? Moving people is what the metro is for.
> Why do you need wider streets? For public health reasons, enable emergency and disaster response, contain potential propagation of collapses, enable large volumes of people to evacuate in a timely manner, etc. Europe has lived with narrow streets for some centuries and learned to avoid that mistake. It's a shame that somr people have forgot or never learned those lessons.
The narrow streets were never the problem. Sanitation was.
Why do you need wider streets? Moving people is what the metro is for.
Sunlight. People go crazy if they live in darkness everyday. I'm pretty sure this was discovered & studied in the history of American east coast cities.
Then why not raze Paris' buildings down to one story?
(The difference in sunlight exposure for pedestrians between an 8-story building and a 16-story building is not remotely as large than between an 8- and a 2-story building)
Because sunlight non-exposure is one of the pinnacles of unfounded, futile arguments against density.
> Why do you need wider streets? For public health reasons, enable emergency and disaster response, contain potential propagation of collapses, enable large volumes of people to evacuate in a timely manner, etc. Europe has lived with narrow streets for some centuries and learned to avoid that mistake. It's a shame that somr people have forgot or never learned those lessons.
The narrow streets were never the problem. Sanitation was.
Actually at this time, when Haussmann started its transformation of Paris, people though that the circulation of air was very important for health, and that was one of the reasons of widening the streets and limiting the height of buildings, but the main reason was for allowing traffic of goods and people, and to improve security and control of the population (revolts in Paris had made 3 different political regimes collapse in less than 70 years before that).
Today people still value seeing the sky and freedom of movement. I have not been everywhere in North America but usually I saw that big buildings mean wide streets around them.
What? I've never seen this in practice. Hong Kong is incredibly dense and full of high rise buildings (Kowloon has 110,000 people/square mile) and streets aren't exactly wide. Seoul packs in 42,000 people per square mile without many significantly wide streets. Tokyo streets are often only suitable for one way traffic.
Tokyo proper (23 wards) is much less dense than Paris, not more. The densest wards are around 20k / km2, while the least dense "arrondissement" in Paris is 17k / km2, with most of them quite above 50k / km2 and more.
A big factor in that is that a huge amount of Tokyo is purely towering office space. People commute in from up to and over 100km away since their transportation fees are covered and high speed trains are a feasible way to travel.
Yeah, I can’t agree, sorry. I’m not sure if you’ve lived in Paris or not, but these “it’s a tourist city” comments almost always come from people that haven’t lived there. There are dozens of incredible neighborhoods in Paris that have little-to-no tourist presence. It’s akin to saying NYC is a tourist city because Times Square is a mess.
Unfortunately, the rules meant to preserve the Haussmanian parts beloved by tourists are applied uniformly throughout the city, even in those neighborhoods without tourists which you mention. There were deviations from the rules throughout the ages, especially on the left bank with the newer, taller towers (Place d'Italie, Montparnasse, Berges de Seine). But these deviations were always one off, pushed through by an…
I really regret Paris's urbanistic conservatism and lack of possibilities for experimentation. Some recently developed areas are promising. I really enjoy walking in the "ZAC Rive gauche", the neighborhood around the Bibliothèque de France which is still in the process of being built. Take a walk starting at the Gare d'Austerlitz and going eastward following the tracks, youl'll see an unusual face of modern Paris. Unlike e.g. Front de Seine in the 15th arrondissement, I have the feeling that this area may succeed and age well. (Incidentally, this is where that startup thingy, Station F, is located, and new streets are named after Alan Turing and Ada Lovelace!)
Unfortunately, the rules meant to preserve the Haussmanian parts beloved by tourists are applied uniformly throughout the city, even in those neighborhoods without tourists which you mention. There were deviations from the rules throughout the ages, especially on the left bank with the newer, taller towers (Place d'Italie, Montparnasse, Berges de Seine). But these deviations were always one off, pushed through by an…
I really regret Paris's urbanistic conservatism and lack of possibilities for experimentation. Some recently developed areas are promising. I really enjoy walking in the "ZAC Rive gauche", the neighborhood around the Bibliothèque de France which is still in the process of being built. Take a walk starting at the Gare d'Austerlitz and going eastward following the tracks, youl'll see an unusual face of modern Paris. Un…
ZAC rive gauche, Batignolles, Chapelle International, Bercy-Charenton, Rosa Parks... That's quite a lot of room for experimentation and new neighborhoods.