11–20 of 570 posts
That's the first time I've heard that. Interesting, if true.
Houston, Texas = ~$500B/yr
Siena, Tuscany = ~$11B/yr
Now compare Manhattan.
GDP: Houston, Texas = ~$500B/yr Siena, Tuscany = ~$11B/yr
Ok? And? It’s interesting trivia but it doesn’t mean much. A well packed slum could fit 10x that amount in that land. Or you could have a vineyard or you could have a train station. It’s an arbitrary comparison. Land gets used in many different ways that make sense for the local people. Some seem “better” but that requires certain “assumptions “. Is arid desert “wasted”?
Climate change is arguably a more pressing threat to Houston than thermonuclear war, but the city doesn’t have many other options than to continue sprawling.
"Rather, Cold War–era urban design philosophy in the U.S. prioritized sprawl because older cities that had urbanized pre–World War II—New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit—were seen as being susceptible to nuclear strikes. Less-dense cities such as Los Angeles and Houston were less likely to be targeted for a nuclear attack. Sprawl was a deterrent against Soviet aggression." That's the first time I've heard th…
"Rather, Cold War–era urban design philosophy in the U.S. prioritized sprawl because older cities that had urbanized pre–World War II—New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit—were seen as being susceptible to nuclear strikes. Less-dense cities such as Los Angeles and Houston were less likely to be targeted for a nuclear attack. Sprawl was a deterrent against Soviet aggression." That's the first time I've heard th…
I'm not sure I buy it; it sounds like a 'just-so' story. Sprawl is popular because it allows for larger properties at lower prices relative to dense urban development. The vast majority of real estate developers have likely never seriously considered factors like probability of a nuclear strike as a criteria for selecting land for development.
Besides, the USSR and USA had (have) enough nukes that a spread out city is irrelevant.
The elephant in the room is the assumption that _everyone wants to be stacked on top of each other_. I do agree that designing cities around cars has ruined a lot of nice places though.
"Rather, Cold War–era urban design philosophy in the U.S. prioritized sprawl because older cities that had urbanized pre–World War II—New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit—were seen as being susceptible to nuclear strikes. Less-dense cities such as Los Angeles and Houston were less likely to be targeted for a nuclear attack. Sprawl was a deterrent against Soviet aggression." That's the first time I've heard th…
I'm not sure I buy it; it sounds like a 'just-so' story. Sprawl is popular because it allows for larger properties at lower prices relative to dense urban development. The vast majority of real estate developers have likely never seriously considered factors like probability of a nuclear strike as a criteria for selecting land for development.