Disneyland has a sign that says "The happiest place on Earth". If it was just because of the crowds, then we would see the same sign at most major airports.
Living closer together
21–30 of 35 posts
Re: Living closer together
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been noted that American tourists absolutely love the charm and density of European cities when they visit but somewhere over the Atlantic, they forget that they could have that at home too, if it were legal to build.
Would American high density look like charming antique cities, or would it look like China's modern made high density? Shanghai was cool to visit but I definitely wouldn't want to live there. Or would it look like something else? Changing zoning is not going to suddenly create charming 300-1000 year old walking cities highly curated and subsidized by tourist dollars to make tourist destinations but that sure gets pus…
Only a person living on a farm would have enough straw for that strawman :). Again people view this as a choice of suburbs or Manhattan, with nothing in between. Removing zoning allows for choice, freedom, and possibilities, where there is currently none. What happens after that is going vary too much to summarize in an HN comment.
Re: Living closer together
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been noted that American tourists absolutely love the charm and density of European cities when they visit but somewhere over the Atlantic, they forget that they could have that at home too, if it were legal to build.
Or perhaps they realize they only enjoy visiting such places because they couldn't have their larger houses, yards, cars, and whatever else they want. There are plenty of places that would I would be interested in visiting but have no interest in moving to.
Different people have different tastes. The high price of dense areas in the US shows a demand that is currently impossible to meet due to zoning.
Re: Living closer together
#24To all people scared of density on here: Paris is one of the highest density cities in the world [1], and we're doing just fine. We even have a lot of room for tourists. A large portion of us don't even have a car, and don't need one. We can rent one for vacation, and the public transportation complements well our walkable and bikeable city.
It doesn't have to be Karachi or Manila.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_cities_by_popu...
Re: Living closer together
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or perhaps they realize they only enjoy visiting such places because they couldn't have their larger houses, yards, cars, and whatever else they want. There are plenty of places that would I would be interested in visiting but have no interest in moving to.
Different people have different tastes. The high price of dense areas in the US shows a demand that is currently impossible to meet due to zoning.
Eh, everybody wants to blame zoning. Yet that ignores the preferences of the population - many people want single family homes with a yard. You can build a bunch of condos and apartments, but it'll will only help until you hit a certain percentage. Nobody wants to build a ton of apartments if their competitors can too, as it would drive down the cost. Even then you run into the preference problem - people want to buy eventually. So yeah, changing zoning can help, but land, especially with specific geographic areas, is still a finite resource in high demand.
Re: Living closer together
#26I have some half formed thoughts on this.
Once, I lived in a small rural college town (land grant - the U of Idaho). I could walk or bike anywhere I needed to go. Cars were required in practice if leaving the city.
I used to live in outer ring Seattle proper (Roosevelt/Ravenna n'hood junction). It was a drive to the store, but an easy walk to the bus. Buses got me where I needed to go, mostly - if I needed to go to specific zones. Most of the surrounding blocks were SFH, with a business corridor nearby.
Later on, I lived just outside of the 'urban core' of Seattle( Lower Queen Anne ). This was a full mixed use zone. I could walk to daily needs, but busing was frustratingly constrained to specific target areas (Downtown, Capitol Hill) in practice.
In both of the Seattle scenarios, I lived in an apartment building. Neighbors were deeply uninterested in talking to each other, as a rule. While I could get to know some of the baristas, in general, social behavior was limited to organized clubs, not place-based friendships (unlike the usual predictions). This is a known thing about Seattle.
Now I live in a smaller city (Spokane), in a 1900-1920 era neighborhood, and I can walk to my daily needs still. I live here in a SFH. The local culture is much more welcoming than Seattle.
One of the angles that I personally ran into and found frustrating is that apartment buildings _as they are built_ are not set up for families with children. Things from outside decking (painful to fall on) to railings (easy to fall over for climbing kids), lack of adequate play space, etc. LQA in particular was _remarkably_ unfriendly to children, and most families I encountered in the daycare seemed to be on the road to moving out - as I did as well. Part and parcel of increased density thinking - for it to be successful as a long term strategy - has to incorporate design elements that address the full human lifecycle and experience: children are a pretty fundamental part of that, that is _left out_ of much (most?) urban buildouts in the past 1-2 decades.
There are other issues in density - if you hold crime, drug abuse, and homelessness constant per capita, when you have more people per sq mile, you have more social issues per square mile, and _that_ seems to be a problem the United States hasn't solved in its cities at all.
Re: Living closer together
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would American high density look like charming antique cities, or would it look like China's modern made high density? Shanghai was cool to visit but I definitely wouldn't want to live there. Or would it look like something else? Changing zoning is not going to suddenly create charming 300-1000 year old walking cities highly curated and subsidized by tourist dollars to make tourist destinations but that sure gets pus…
Plenty of Europe is brand new and still high density and walkable. It’s not a historical accident, but an actual urban design preference. I live on the very edge of the city. The farms start right after my townhouse. The urban environment stops at my doorstep, but I am fully in the city and have a convenient electric trolley bus line, walkable shops and restaurants and a great bike infrastructure. A new neighborhood…
So much this.
I'm american and have been living in Europe for almost 15 years, and it still shocks me how unbelievably poor american cities are, almost universally. The modern trend of "re-densifying" has really only ended up building out load of expensive yuppie bullshit housing that no one will live in past the age of 35, much less raise a family in.
I think it's safe to say that city planners in the US just don't really get it.
Re: Living closer together
#28Living close together does not seem to be optimal for mental health. Quite the opposite. Physical proximity to other humans is not the same thing as community. One can be very alone and feel anxious whilst been surrounded by other humans.
Almost all mammals studied (and other vertebrates too) show stress (e.g., elevated cortisol levels, abnormally aggressive behavior) when exposed to high population density. This is true even when the population density is faked (e.g., studies placing pictures of con-specifics in the wild or playing animal sounds).
Obviously, there is also a lower bound for density, too (gotta find a mate). I think this explains why young people like cities, but once a person has a mate and progeny they move suburban or rural.
Re: Living closer together
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of Europe is brand new and still high density and walkable. It’s not a historical accident, but an actual urban design preference. I live on the very edge of the city. The farms start right after my townhouse. The urban environment stops at my doorstep, but I am fully in the city and have a convenient electric trolley bus line, walkable shops and restaurants and a great bike infrastructure. A new neighborhood…
So much this. I'm american and have been living in Europe for almost 15 years, and it still shocks me how unbelievably poor american cities are, almost universally. The modern trend of "re-densifying" has really only ended up building out load of expensive yuppie bullshit housing that no one will live in past the age of 35, much less raise a family in. I think it's safe to say that city planners in the US just don't…
No kidding. Safe walkability in the US is a premium luxury good. If you want to raise a family in a nice walkable neighborhood, basically anywhere in the country, expect to pay exorbitant housing prices. That same neighborhood in the EU would be a dime a dozen. Small Eastern European cities have better urban design than the US capital or anywhere else.
Re: Living closer together
#30To all people scared of density on here: Paris is one of the highest density cities in the world [1], and we're doing just fine. We even have a lot of room for tourists. A large portion of us don't even have a car, and don't need one. We can rent one for vacation, and the public transportation complements well our walkable and bikeable city. It doesn't have to be Karachi or Manila. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki…
The city of Paris is tiny and covers just a small portion of the total "Paris metropolitan area". The metropolitan density of Paris is lower than most US suburbs. The city of Paris would not work at all without the significant "Regional Natural Parks" right outside, but also without the significant suburbs.
The chart you cite is flat out wrong. It claims to be "metropolitan areas", but Paris' entry is only for the City of Paris. The comparable wouldn't even be New York city, which is very nearly as dense - It would be Manhattan Island.
Paris' metropolitan area density is 690/km2, which is less than the not-dense King County[1] that I live in, and comparable to the mostly-rural Snohomish just to our north.
People need room. A very dense city center is a great place to be for a few days, a few months, a few years, and it's not as if nobody ends up living their their whole life, but most people move to places with space because they want space. Paris is significantly less dense than it was 100 years ago[2]... for precisely that reason.
A strong city core with suburbs is a good way to live. We need more of them - More large cities with a 10^9 people surrounded by a suburb of 10^10, not megacities with 10^11 people cramped in endless rows of tenements.
[1] https://archive.ph/20200213233400/http://factfinder.census.g... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Demographics