Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

especiales.eldiario.es

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 457 posts

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#391

Post by DerekL »

fragmede wrote: post #141
bluGill wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very incorrect build of what modern American construction is like. Yes it is mostly timer-framed, but we have fire codes which means walls are not as thin as you seem to think. Sure if you look at an apartment built in 1950 your summary is valid, but that isn't done anymore. 5 over 1 refers to section 1 and section 5 of the building code and not the number of floors built for each. It is coincidence that w…

it's still cheap and shitty and doesn't isolate sound, causing all sorts of problems with the neighbors that don't need to exist. thick concrete walls might as well be hypothetical, theoretical building material given how much not expensive it is, and thus how much rarer it is.

The type of construction doesn't really matter. There are soundproofing materials that can be installed behind drywall.

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#392

Post by refurb »

ck425 wrote: post #362
balfirevic wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the area of those flats? Where I live there are plenty of 3 bedroom flats, but they are usually under 100 m^2 (often smaller) and almost always under 150 m^2. 3 bedrooms in 100 m^2 is pretty cramped.

Is 100m^2 really considered cramp for a 3 bedroom? Admittedly I'm from the uk which is famed for our small home sizes. But I've been looking at 2 or 3 beds recently and anything over 80m^2 felt huge.

In my opinion it is. Those would have to be very small bedrooms.

I lived in a 180 m^2 3 bedroom (well 2 bed and 1 office) and it seemed about the right size for a family.

I've also lived in a 60 m^2 2 bedroom and it was cramped.

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#393

Post by refurb »

jmyeet wrote: post #57

Americans have a very skweed view of what apartment living is actually like, in part because the construction of such buildings in America (outside of the ultra-luxury market) is generally terrible. Lumber is abundant in North America and cheap so everything is timber-framed, which is awful for noise. I actually do not understand how people can live in two-story houses in the US. Such people complaining about noise s…

Disagree. Sounds in a concrete building can travel a very long way. Someone drilling into a wall or dropping something on the floor can be heard from several floors away. Timber construction usually limits sounds from neighboring units. And when it's well constructed with noise insulation, you don't even hear neighbors.

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#394

Post by refurb »

fragmede wrote: post #141
bluGill wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very incorrect build of what modern American construction is like. Yes it is mostly timer-framed, but we have fire codes which means walls are not as thin as you seem to think. Sure if you look at an apartment built in 1950 your summary is valid, but that isn't done anymore. 5 over 1 refers to section 1 and section 5 of the building code and not the number of floors built for each. It is coincidence that w…

it's still cheap and shitty and doesn't isolate sound, causing all sorts of problems with the neighbors that don't need to exist. thick concrete walls might as well be hypothetical, theoretical building material given how much not expensive it is, and thus how much rarer it is.

It's not "cheap and shitty", it's sustainable (unlike concrete), flexible (I can modify walls easily) and with good sound proofing quieter than concrete.

I lived in a 100+ year old wood framed apartment building. The lifespan of concrete in most climate would mean that building would abandoned and too expensive to repair.

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#395

Post by medo-bear »

thriftwy wrote: post #273
medo-bear wrote: post #38

One of the worst things about new development in post-socialist urban areas (high density vertical) are lack of public and green spaces in neighbourhoods.

Socialist housing has schools and kindergardens on large plots of land, lots of kids playgrounds between houses, a small park here and there. "Microraion" planning deprioritizes public road so every apartment house is a part of a superblock a-la Barcelona. The downside is often that places of commerce are lacking. They have to be built separately or have first floors repurposed for commerce. I've heard that capital c…

Precisely. Yugoslavia had plenty of commercial places planned. So much so that even today many of these commercial spaces remain empty. A good example of what I mean is 'New Belgrade' in Belgrade and 'Split 3' in Split.

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#396

Post by ArtemZ »

huytersd wrote: post #379
balfirevic wrote: post #376

It's funny how everyone complains about other people being loud when living in flats. Does no one here like to bang on electric guitar or blast karaoke with friends until 3AM?

I love to wood work late into the night. Even in a suburb my neighbors would have eaten me alive. I really enjoy my 20 acres.

Urbanists hate people like you. Or basically most hobbists. Or large families.

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#397

Post by bluGill »

mikebenfield wrote: post #390
jjav wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be honest this is one of those Internet comments where I feel like the commenter is in a different reality than me. Same, but that's why I say the US is a big place. There isn't a standard US suburb. > They definitely don't walk to the grocery store, to a restaurant, to a bar, to the gym, to work, etc. That is alien to my experience. I can walk to all of those, with multiple instances of each one, from a suburba…

So there's a pretty big push for urbanism the last few years. There's lots of YouTube channels and other social media stuff dedicated to the idea that the US needs more walkable neighborhoods, more bike infrastructure, less car dependence, etc. In your view then... what in the world is this about? If suburbs are perfectly walkable, why does anyone care about urbanism? Why does this channel https://www.youtube.com/c/n…

Suburbs are not perfectly walkable. As a.crow flies there are things in range ,but often there are fences in the way so you can't get there. Even if you can, the door face the road and so you spend most of acceptable walking distance just getting around the building. And there are no or poor sidewalks on the trip so you end up mixing with cars too much.

I bike to the.grocery store, it isn't too far, but the trip is not pleasant because everything is setup or driving.

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#398

Post by bumby »

bluGill wrote: post #128
Mawr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Ebikes let you cover great distances with little effort. - You can have someone ride on the backseat or in the cargo space of a cargo bike. [1] - You'd be hard pressed to come up with a shopping load that won't fit on a cargo bike. [1] Then there's the cost vs a car [2], which will likely make up for any inconvenience. Of course, you do need at least decent bike infrastructure for this to be realistic. [1]: https:/…

My car is a lot less effort that my ebike. And the car is faster as well. I ride my ebike for the trips too long for the acoustic bike, but there are still a lot of trips not in reasonable ebike range that I make.

Hell, my motorcycle was enough of a hassle compared to my car to forgo riding it often. Wearing gear, packing my lunch and everything else for a days work into saddlebags, and dealing with the weather was a pain compared to just hopping in my car. It would be worse on a bicycle. At least in a car I can listen to a podcast without feeling like I'm making a tradeoff with safety.

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#399

Post by shiroiuma »

elric wrote: post #319
mupuff1234 wrote: post #77

I find the ideal building height to be up to 6 floors at most - anything more makes the streets start to feel a bit too claustrophobic and the area less "neighborly".

~6 floors is sometimes referred to as the goldilocks zone of building density. Treehugger has some good articles on it [1]. Horizontal navigation is much easier than vertical navigation (gravity and all that). Having a bunch of ~6 floor buildings next to each other makes for great walkability, while still allowing for ample daylight (and trees and whatnot), without attracing the windy conditions of all towers. [1] ht…

>Horizontal navigation is much easier than vertical navigation (gravity and all that).

Vertical navigation should be easier, at least for going down. All you have to do is jump... If they could just come up with a safe and reliable way of getting people from the top of a tall building to the bottom quickly, taller buildings would be easier. Perhaps a spiral slide? Faster elevators would be nice too. If they allowed up to, say, 3gs of acceleration, we could move between floors of tall buildings much more quickly. "Going up. Brace yourself!"

Re: Spain lives in flats: why we have built our cities vertically

#400

Post by shiroiuma »

anthk wrote: post #187
Maken wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of the areas in the Cantabrian Coast and the Pyrenees, Spain is basically a dessert.

Castilles are not a dessert. Even heard of Picos de Europa? Mountains from Soria? Sierra Nevada?

While those don't sound like desserts, they don't sound like entrees or appetizers either.
Post reply on HN