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

More green spaces linked to slower biological aging

news.northwestern.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: More green spaces linked to slower biological aging

#51

Post by jnurmine »

If I could design zoning things and building regulations and generally Simcity/Cities micromanage in real life, I would set a demand of reserving let's say 500 m2 of green space for every occupant in a multistorey building. This aggregated space would have to be right next to or around the building.

As a concrete example: to build a building for 100 people, one must have 100*500 = 5 hectares of space around the building, reserved for a green space only, not parking lots or such.

Buildings would be more spaced apart and would not trap heat so much like traditional dense designs, so urban centers would be cooler. I dare to claim that people would be less crazy and generally happier and healthier when living like this. Over time, building less densely would see all kinds of positive effects compounding.

The green space could be used for many good things, e.g. growing hyperlocal food like vegetables, potatoes or whatever grows well in the climate, for having tree-shaded places during warm days, for just having a piece of nature to go to quickly and easily. Smaller batches of forest shading a path could connect multiple buildings built with the same ideas, and so on. It would be possible to use bicycles or walk along these paths.

In a nutshell, if one has to build high, then make all multi-storey buildings like a stacked nano-village surrounded by a larger green area/forest. Based on my subjective understanding very few people actually like the ground floor so that's a good place to put local small businesses like barber, shop, bakery, café, and so on.

Re: More green spaces linked to slower biological aging

#53

Post by aaaronic »

jnurmine wrote: post #51

If I could design zoning things and building regulations and generally Simcity/Cities micromanage in real life, I would set a demand of reserving let's say 500 m2 of green space for every occupant in a multistorey building. This aggregated space would have to be right next to or around the building. As a concrete example: to build a building for 100 people, one must have 100*500 = 5 hectares of space around the build…

"As a concrete example:..." I ended up completely misreading that line at first because my brain was desperately looking for a pun.

Re: More green spaces linked to slower biological aging

#55

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

cempaka wrote: post #49
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could. There's plenty of beachfront places in other countries American families could easily afford and retire and yet chose to work to live in dumpy apartments in Manhattan instead. It only works if it's within your financial means. We can't all assume everyone doesn't want a $200M house in the hills with a megayacht and a full staff because they don't have it. They don't have the means. But if you have the mean…

Yeah just retire somewhere where you don't speak the language, have minimal-to-zero connection to local culture, and will be thousands of miles from children, family, and friends. Simple!

So obviously they care about those things more than nature, just like they care about driving their car all over the city more than spending money on greenspace.

Everyone has choices. The society we've made is the sum of our choices. You don't freely chose to do things you don't want to (given your available options).

Re: More green spaces linked to slower biological aging

#56

Post by LeafItAlone »

ido wrote: post #48
LeafItAlone wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Farmers look famously young for their age I come from a family of farmers. I would not agree with this statement.

I assumed they were being sarcastic, especially as the farmer in the example is 10 years younger.

That line is what made me think they weren’t being sarcastic. I thought they were saying the 10 year age difference would be exaggerated.

Re: More green spaces linked to slower biological aging

#57

Post by Swenrekcah »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #55
cempaka wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah just retire somewhere where you don't speak the language, have minimal-to-zero connection to local culture, and will be thousands of miles from children, family, and friends. Simple!

So obviously they care about those things more than nature, just like they care about driving their car all over the city more than spending money on greenspace. Everyone has choices. The society we've made is the sum of our choices. You don't freely chose to do things you don't want to (given your available options).

Yes! You’ve got to the point here. People want natural parks and durable clothing, but given the set of constraints society has put on them they “choose” the more affordable and less desirable options because they’ve also got kids to feed (and/or other stuff).

Re: More green spaces linked to slower biological aging

#58

Post by ethanbond »

LatteLazy wrote: post #42
ethanbond wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does in fact increase our evidence that they’re actually good for people beyond being mere perks that some people enjoy.

No, It doesn't. Because it does not show causation. We either prove causation or it's worthless.

That’s how science works bud. Correlation is really all we ever have for anything and you don’t leap from “no data” to “confident in causation” without miles and miles of “just correlative evidence of varying quality.”

And of course even once you get to high enough conviction to call it causation, it’s still liable to be overturned and to reveal itself as a mere correlation nonetheless!

Humans have never once “proved causation” of even a single phenomenon ever.

Re: More green spaces linked to slower biological aging

#59

Post by PartyOperator »

jnurmine wrote: post #51

If I could design zoning things and building regulations and generally Simcity/Cities micromanage in real life, I would set a demand of reserving let's say 500 m2 of green space for every occupant in a multistorey building. This aggregated space would have to be right next to or around the building. As a concrete example: to build a building for 100 people, one must have 100*500 = 5 hectares of space around the build…

Towers in the park is not a new idea. Le Corbusier was a big fan. In practice it tends not to work well. Additionally mandating a very low population density almost guarantees failure.

Staying below 2000 people per square km will make it difficult to provide good public transport or other amenities, including shops. Anyone able to afford a car will want at least one per household, further reducing the population density and making it harder to get around on foot/bike/bus. Ultimately the only people who would choose this form of low-density living over conventional suburban homes would be those unable to afford their own house. Pleasant landscaping is expensive to maintain and almost guaranteed not to happen for a handful of poor people so you'd either end up with impenetrable forest or bare grass and concrete between buildings.

There are a few cases where something like this works quite well, but generally only the highest density versions when located in or near a large, prosperous city that already has excellent amenities. Otherwise it tends to be a disaster.

Optimizing for one thing alone rarely works in urban planing, even if the idea of ample green space for everyone seems uncontroversial.

Re: More green spaces linked to slower biological aging

#60

Post by ianburrell »

jnurmine wrote: post #51

If I could design zoning things and building regulations and generally Simcity/Cities micromanage in real life, I would set a demand of reserving let's say 500 m2 of green space for every occupant in a multistorey building. This aggregated space would have to be right next to or around the building. As a concrete example: to build a building for 100 people, one must have 100*500 = 5 hectares of space around the build…

That is more green space than in most suburbs. No one would ever build apartments with those restrictions, they would build single family homes. No one would walk through the parks because it would take too long to get anywhere and would drive instead.

One tenth of that might be workable. One hundreth is probably fine. Gives the apartment building a house-sized lot for garden. And gives neighborhood a block sized park. And gives the city a large, nature park.

Post reply on HN